[NCAC] PRIVATE CENSORSHIP – FIGHTING SUPPRESSION OF SPEECH BY NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS

So the libertarian solution is to have the gov't tell Youtube how to enforce its TOS?

 

It’s not a libertarian solution, but Os is just some old man in NY not a living embodiment of an ideology.

I think it makes sense to enforce freedom of speech across giant social platforms, but that absolutely disrespects the concept of private property and business… but fck em IMO, people first.

 

I'm a young 64, kid

 

No, you would still be a very old man who's being compared to also very old men.

 

No. I answered your question.

It was with intention that I did not say, "your solution" but rather, the libertarian solution". Perhaps you can enlighten me on what the libertarian position would be on this issue, because that is what I am trying to understand given the points you are raising in posting that article.

I don't know if this is his ideology or rather that he is playing devil's advocate (or as others might say - trolling). But it really doesn't matter. Are we debating the ideology or lifestyles of individual posters or is it the ideas they are actually sharing here in this forum. So long as he is willing to engage in honest debate, why should it matter?

But you're right, he probably is old.

 

I actually have respect for their "shitty" algorithms because they're servicing hundreds of billions of views every day to week.

It's an unfathomable scale the exceeds speech ideals and principles past tens of millions. You only need a minute minority to test its limits, then disseminate findings to a more eager and larger cohort. A town square of 500 can call in the sheriff to mediate. swat teams for 5K, or national guard for 25k. Threat levels might be different online, but the ideas are more pervasive despite several rounds of debunking, resolving, or reconciling. It can be a zombie thread that keeps on giving despite the forum and quorum has long ended.

While Nick can goto other platforms, power scaling suggests he'll receive, at most, 20% of his previous traffic (I'm really thinking its 5%), and those platforms will also have their own rules that will inevitably be automated as its base grows (given that they're better run). Platforms that doesn't enforce rules or standards usually get frozen out of ad revenue.

I'm not sure where the line is. Each nation has its own culture norms and sensibilities. You can't spread or post research of Nazi propaganda in Germany, but nudity isn't grounds for a banning. What we say here sounds a lot more indecent or inhumane elsewhere.

I agree the government's current approach is hamfisted, but our culture trusts corporations to be more far seeing than the government, so we hand enforcement mostly to them and only tap on their shoulders when things go too far (FFC comes to mind here).

 

Too many people are interested in their moderation policies to game. They also keep their search algos close to their vest for the same reason.

I don't think it's a great excuse as gaming the system is a war of time and attrition.

I don't know what the harm is in investing more resources to meet the concerns of 100k+ subscriber channels. There are likely more than a few Draymonds in there, but that group can legitimately claim a lot of serious income is on the line with a slow resolution.

As for the last point, I think they didn't tighten up policies until the 2016 election scandal that brought Zuck to Congress so he can testify in front of them over wut happend. Big tech is still very sensitive to the threat of losing their enforcement powers to an agency like the FCC.

 

https://radiolab.org/episodes/facebooks-supreme-court

https://www.radiolab.org/episodes/trust-engineers

https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/facebook-statistics/





I don't think it's humanly possible for 58,604 employees to be able to go through 350 million images a day to weed out the child p*rnography or physical violence that is likely a percentage of those images, much less 100 million hours of video footage that are uploaded daily on the site, not including all the regular posts that could be hateful content too. Instead, I think they have to, out of necessity, rely on algorithms, that probably pull up images, videos and posts of concern through some machine learning algorithm that then goes to roughly 15,000 high turn over content moderators that got to sift through the worst depravity uploaded on the website. Not everyone flagged should be, as no algorithm or person is perfect in their judgment every waking moment of everyday, including posters on this very BBS. Nevertheless, this is probably the best that can be mustered given the sheer volume of content to filter through.

I would assume advertisers would no longer fund social media companies that allow for the open circulation of hateful content, which would be an economic negative for social media companies as a whole. Since businesses tend to exist when they turn a profit and cease to exist when don't and blow all their money I imagine the legal and accounting staff crunched some numbers and helped draw up a TOS that would insulate them from being held responsible as much as legally possible for hateful content others post on their website, while meeting at the very least the legal minimum possible standards expected of them to moderate hateful content on their site without being legally held liable.

 

No it doesn't. This is why news by tweet is damaging society.

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/paypal-misinformation-fines-error


There you go. And no I doubt this was Paypal "testing reactions". The reaction would have been obvious to any individual. This was probably some edgelord employee who wanted to create some controversy and a lack of editing oversight.

 

Which you do.