I’m used to you having your finger on the pulse, and at being at least attitudinally rational. You seem to impute that the censorship system is rational. I believe that structure is 180° out of phase with reality. You could say we could agree to disagree, but my feeling is more of outright rejection with what you’ve written in this blog. Even subtle agreement with that system is completely wrong handed, in my opinion.
I'm not stating that the censorship system is rational; I'm stating that it is impossible to have a completely unmoderated social media system. As a bare minimum, you will need to address child porn, threats of death and violence, and spam floods.
The important question is where "moderation" shades over into "censorship." And where that line lies is a matter of ongoing, and often heated, debate.
The "Napalm Girl" photo is historically valuable and is an icon of the Vietnam war and its horrors. It also features a child who tore off her clothes because they had been splashed with napalm. Honestly, it's the only exception I can think of offhand to the hard and fast "Do not put pictures of naked children on the Internet" rule.
The basic structural problem is that you need at least some moderation, if only to keep out illegal material and botfloods. But as soon as you introduce a bare minimum of moderation, you have people screaming "You also need to get rid of X."
We saw this on Substack, which has one of the most lenient ToS documents on the Internet--mostly, "Don't post death threats or credible threats of violence and don't post illegal material." That quickly escalated to "But what about the NAZIS!?!?!" And, from there, "What about the COVID DENIERS!" and "What about the TROLLS who say MEAN THINGS about me!!!"
I understand the subtlety of what you’re trying to say, especially about ‘Napalm Girl’. Some very good points there.
I’m used to you having your finger on the pulse, and at being at least attitudinally rational. You seem to impute that the censorship system is rational. I believe that structure is 180° out of phase with reality. You could say we could agree to disagree, but my feeling is more of outright rejection with what you’ve written in this blog. Even subtle agreement with that system is completely wrong handed, in my opinion.
I'm not stating that the censorship system is rational; I'm stating that it is impossible to have a completely unmoderated social media system. As a bare minimum, you will need to address child porn, threats of death and violence, and spam floods.
The important question is where "moderation" shades over into "censorship." And where that line lies is a matter of ongoing, and often heated, debate.
Perfect rejoinder. I suppose that could be considered correct. I had not thought of that aspect.
I thought it was understood that child porn is a no go… In today’s world I guess maybe not. Of course that speaks of ‘our’ total cultural breakdown.
The "Napalm Girl" photo is historically valuable and is an icon of the Vietnam war and its horrors. It also features a child who tore off her clothes because they had been splashed with napalm. Honestly, it's the only exception I can think of offhand to the hard and fast "Do not put pictures of naked children on the Internet" rule.
The basic structural problem is that you need at least some moderation, if only to keep out illegal material and botfloods. But as soon as you introduce a bare minimum of moderation, you have people screaming "You also need to get rid of X."
We saw this on Substack, which has one of the most lenient ToS documents on the Internet--mostly, "Don't post death threats or credible threats of violence and don't post illegal material." That quickly escalated to "But what about the NAZIS!?!?!" And, from there, "What about the COVID DENIERS!" and "What about the TROLLS who say MEAN THINGS about me!!!"