|
|
Post by fish on Sept 11, 2024 15:27:43 GMT 12
I was completely bemused by an epic rant by a moderator in a facebook group the other day.
Firstly I didn't get the context, but there were four photos of people with purple hair and someone had made some sort of comment or statement that involved referring them to as 'things'. This was what the moderator was ranting about.
Apparently calling them 'things' was un-humaning them. They were all trans gender, and this amounted to hate speech. What I couldn't understand was the FB group was the Dull Men's Club, which is entirely non-political, non-controversial and strives to be as completely and utterly dull as possible. Hence why the context was completely lost on me.
Now, I didn't think referring to people as things was particularly nice, but the reaction seemed extremely unreasonable and over the top. Firstly, there was no way for me to tell that these people were transgender simply by looking at the photos. It just appeared that they all had purple hair.
The moderator stated they were going to go on a banning rampage, including anyone who liked the original post. For some reason there was widespread support for this. Either that or any normal person was too scared to make any comment for fear of it being taken out of context and blown out of all proportion.
I think it made far more sense when someone posted a pic of Dr Seuzz's Thing 1 and Thing 2, both humanoid creatures with purple hair, anyway...
Anyway, the short story is that I've always thought hate speech needs to be explicit. Referring to people with purple hair I didn't think was hate speech. Saying "all transgender people should be killed" would clearly be hate speech.
There is a similar palava going on about Palestine and the Jewish genocide, where people get really hot and bothered by others saying "From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free" This has had all sorts of additional meanings added to it. All of those meanings have been attached to the phrase by people taking offense to it. Sure, if people were walking around saying that all Israelis should be killed, their homes destroyed and their streets ripped up with bulldozers, then that would be fairly comfortably hate speech.
I guess I just get bemused when people attach meanings to something, or think a statement says something other than it's explicit dictionary meaning. The hate speech meaning is always inferred by the person taking offense, and very rarely the person saying it, so everything just becomes a sort of linguistic nonsense. As in, you took a meaning I didn't say from something I said.
Call a spade a spade for fucks sake. If someone calls you a hoe, perhaps they were referring to a gardening implement.
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Sept 11, 2024 19:20:15 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Sept 12, 2024 9:26:24 GMT 12
This is a good article about what is going on with Brazil banning X. The short story is that the previous President claimed the election was rigged (when he lost to Lula) and after a while his supporters stormed their parliament building. Bolsonaro and his supporters made those claims on various social media platforms, including X. Hence X getting banned. It would appear to me that the fundamental problem is Brazil's previous president, or concerns around election rigging. X doesn't have any involvement in Brazilian politics, and is merely a conduit for posts from anyone and everyone. In this context, it is hard to see how this isn't just out and out thought control, driven by the current hard leftist political rival of Bolsonaro, Lula. X just looks like it is the meat in the sandwich, with Elon unwilling to carry out state censorship on behalf of the govt of the day, unlike the spineless FB / Meta. The comments to this article are also a balanced and respectful discussion around free speech and the role of the state. www.interest.co.nz/technology/129673/elon-musk%E2%80%99s-feud-brazilian-judge-much-more-personal-spat-%E2%88%92-it%E2%80%99s-about-national |
|
|
|
Post by em on Sept 12, 2024 14:38:38 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Sept 12, 2024 16:54:53 GMT 12
This is a good article about what is going on with Brazil banning X. The short story is that the previous President claimed the election was rigged (when he lost to Lula) and after a while his supporters stormed their parliament building. Bolsonaro and his supporters made those claims on various social media platforms, including X. Hence X getting banned. It would appear to me that the fundamental problem is Brazil's previous president, or concerns around election rigging. X doesn't have any involvement in Brazilian politics, and is merely a conduit for posts from anyone and everyone. In this context, it is hard to see how this isn't just out and out thought control, driven by the current hard leftist political rival of Bolsonaro, Lula. X just looks like it is the meat in the sandwich, with Elon unwilling to carry out state censorship on behalf of the govt of the day, unlike the spineless FB / Meta. The comments to this article are also a balanced and respectful discussion around free speech and the role of the state. www.interest.co.nz/technology/129673/elon-musk%E2%80%99s-feud-brazilian-judge-much-more-personal-spat-%E2%88%92-it%E2%80%99s-about-nationalThis is nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with Musk getting his own way. People reading misinformation are not qualified to decide what's right or wrong and this is a real conundrum for free speech when it is amplified by social media platforms. You only need to look at the recent riots in the UK to see the absolute damage that misinformation masqurading as free speech can do once it gets amplified. |
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Sept 12, 2024 17:40:59 GMT 12
This is a good article about what is going on with Brazil banning X. The short story is that the previous President claimed the election was rigged (when he lost to Lula) and after a while his supporters stormed their parliament building. Bolsonaro and his supporters made those claims on various social media platforms, including X. Hence X getting banned. It would appear to me that the fundamental problem is Brazil's previous president, or concerns around election rigging. X doesn't have any involvement in Brazilian politics, and is merely a conduit for posts from anyone and everyone. In this context, it is hard to see how this isn't just out and out thought control, driven by the current hard leftist political rival of Bolsonaro, Lula. X just looks like it is the meat in the sandwich, with Elon unwilling to carry out state censorship on behalf of the govt of the day, unlike the spineless FB / Meta. The comments to this article are also a balanced and respectful discussion around free speech and the role of the state. www.interest.co.nz/technology/129673/elon-musk%E2%80%99s-feud-brazilian-judge-much-more-personal-spat-%E2%88%92-it%E2%80%99s-about-nationalThis is nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with Musk getting his own way. People reading misinformation are not qualified to decide what's right or wrong and this is a real conundrum for free speech when it is amplified by social media platforms. You only need to look at the recent riots in the UK to see the absolute damage that misinformation masqurading as free speech can do once it gets amplified. What would be your solution DM? |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Sept 12, 2024 18:26:46 GMT 12
This is nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with Musk getting his own way. People reading misinformation are not qualified to decide what's right or wrong and this is a real conundrum for free speech when it is amplified by social media platforms. You only need to look at the recent riots in the UK to see the absolute damage that misinformation masqurading as free speech can do once it gets amplified. What would be your solution DM? We already have the solution. 1 social media companies take responsibility for the content their users post and they prevent anplification 2 if social media companies cannot do it then the government intervenes by creating legislation like that which exists in the EU 3 if social media companies refuse to follow a countries rule of law then that social media company is fined/punished and so are all the contacts and associates of the company... As far as actually blocking the service |
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Sept 12, 2024 20:01:24 GMT 12
So when countries break their own laws in order to censor dissenting views should the media companies
1. do what they are told even if its illegal and keep quiet about the legislated human rights abuse
2. stand up for the law and citizens and call out the corruption
3. something else?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Sept 12, 2024 20:11:26 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Sept 12, 2024 20:48:54 GMT 12
So when countries break their own laws in order to censor dissenting views should the media companies 1. do what they are told even if its illegal and keep quiet about the legislated human rights abuse 2. stand up for the law and citizens and call out the corruption 3. something else? I would hope the answer is obvious. I am not clear on the relevance to the theme of stopping the amplification of misinformation? |
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Sept 12, 2024 21:58:59 GMT 12
Who gets to decide what's misinformation?
I suspect we are both highly educated experienced people we probably make decisions that affect people and business all the time, and are probably quite good at it.
I bet we have very different opinions on what is true or "right" on a lot of issues.
That tells me that neither of us should be censoring information, and that no one else should be either.
You will struggle to convince me it is OK to censor any information, wether I agree with it's content or not.
More information is the answer, not less, when "facts" are disputed.
Like how science is supposed to work, continually questioning in order to uncover truths. Science quite regularly flips it's "truths".
"trust me, I'm an expert" really doesn't cut it these days, there are "experts" that will support any side of an argument. More information, not less, is what reveals truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Sept 12, 2024 22:08:14 GMT 12
Who gets to decide what's misinformation? I suspect we are both highly educated experienced people we probably make decisions that affect people and business all the time, and are probably quite good at it. I bet we have very different opinions on what is true or "right" on a lot of issues. That tells me that neither of us should be censoring information, and that no one else should be either. You will struggle to convince me it is OK to censor any information, wether I agree with it's content or not. More information is the answer, not less, when "facts" are disputed. Like how science is supposed to work, continually questioning in order to uncover truths. Science quite regularly flips it's "truths". "trust me, I'm an expert" really doesn't cut it these days, there are "experts" that will support any side of an argument. More information, not less, is what reveals truth. And there in lies the problem. Maybe if your son, was labelled as a rapist by someone spreading misinformation, and then all of a sudden 10 people were spreading the same, thinking it was true, and then 100, and then 1000 and then 100000, and finally the authorities come out and say - wait wait - that's the wrong guy - by then it's too late - no one cares anymore - it can't be undone - the damage is done - and so he commits suicide as a result - maybe then you'd get it... That is a very real recent example of how the amplification of misinformation can lead to an innocent parties life being destroyed. Another very recent example is the UKs worst riots in years that were incited by misinformation about asylym seekers. The amplification of that misinformation was the direct cause of people having had there lives, businesses, property and homes destroyed. The thing that people were rioting against never happened, it was fake news on social media! |
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Sept 12, 2024 22:24:37 GMT 12
But that's not what the power to censor ends up being used for.
There in lies the problem.
Who gets to be the censor?
Every potential moderator is biased by their own personal experience and ideology.
Go ask around the courts about different judges, they all have a reputation good and bad. If they can't be truly impartial who can?
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Sept 13, 2024 7:54:25 GMT 12
Managers made to do cultural re-education programme because they used the highly racist term "you people", But at the same time the manager was physically shoved by an employee. Union bought the racism claim: It denied the claims of discrimination on the basis that the phrase “you people” was not racist, and that this claim was created by the employees union as a distraction from what occurred. www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350412280/managers-hospital-cleaning-company-racist-samoan-employees |
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Sept 13, 2024 8:04:59 GMT 12
The "leaders of the free world" wouldn't engage in mis-information would she?
When you have the moderator and fact checker on a MSM debate platform lying and supporting misinformation who you going to turn to?
Cindy was all about promoting the "truth", that didn't go well did it. She coached Kamala too, "reimagining democracy" etc.
|
|
