zlacker

Yea it’s odd how so many people have become pro-censorship.

>>xyzzy4+(OP)
I don't think it's that strange. Most people are happy to have their views supported even if it's by means that they would call terrible if used against them.

>>xyzzy4+(OP)
There's "censorship" and (1) you can only read so much so you have to be selective and (2) there is a lot written by people who have an NMA (negative mental attitude) and it's a burden I can only take on for people I really care out.

If somebody is writing every day about how some class of people is responsible for their problems I just can't take it, and if I can't effectively block this crap with the tools they give me (20 or so rules on Mastodon, as opposed to Bluesky making me a decent feed out of the box, better with a little "less like this") I will move on.

>>xyzzy4+(OP)
I talked about how social media terms and service have become a middle man between social etiquette and laws in shaping social behaviour off and online on agora. Using social media feels closer to thinking than speaking sometimes, and anything that infringes on thought is dangerous.

>>xyzzy4+(OP)
It's odd that you think social media would be viable without it. There's a reason there are teams of Kenyan moderators getting PTSD from the sheer deluge of unimaginable horror which is regularly posted and filtered out.

>>xyzzy4+(OP)
It’s odd how so many people have developed the attitude of “censorship bad” without thinking about the consequences of removing it or whether “censorship” on private, profit-driven, opaque-algorithm-powered social media should even be considered bad.

>>xyzzy4+(OP)
Change of geopolitics, tovarishch. Turns out being radically anti-censorship just allows the criminals to flourish.

>>angora+A3
I don't understand this. You think that social media is so bad that you want to give it as much power to censor speech as possible?

>>pessim+L7
I do think social media is bad. And ideally, no, to the extent that any social media sites have feeds more complicated than a chronological feed of people I follow, I want the algorithms powering those feeds to be open for inspection by anyone (by law), and for regulations to be put in place so that dangerous content is never promoted on the platform just because it attracts eyeballs (and thus advertising dollars). Opaque social media algorithms are bad for society, the same way that fentanyl is bad for society, or violent crime is bad for society.

There is no precedent in human history that you can compare social-media black-box algorithms to. It's not the same as a "public square," or a newspaper, or books, or talking to friends in person. It's a new paradigm.

I would drastically prefer regulations to letting the companies police themselves, but, well, waves hands at the current environment, and what Meta did removing their content reviewers is a step in the wrong direction. The platform will get worse as a result.

In other words, the problem is free reach, not free speech. You might have heard of it -- it has recently been popularized, co-opted, and slightly twisted by Twitter to mean what is more akin to "shadowbanning" problematic accounts, but I'm saying that no one deserves free reach by default on social media.

>>angora+A3
Because censorship isn't about censoring false information, its about silencing voices you disagree with. It's exactly why Trump got into power, because people feel like they are not being heard and the left is trampling all over them, despite the fact the left is the one spreading misinformation far more than the right.

>>incomi+Od
[citation needed real bad]