Solid analysis of the problem area. Kleppmann correctly emphasises the a lack of democracy is the main problem. Merely not adopting a sneering antagonism towards the humanities makes him possibly...
Solid analysis of the problem area. Kleppmann correctly emphasises the a lack of democracy is the main problem.
I realise that my proposals are probably naive and smack of “computer scientist finally discovers why the humanities are important”
Merely not adopting a sneering antagonism towards the humanities makes him possibly above average compared with the denizens of Hackernews.com.
I think this gets fuzzy depending on delegation and implicit consent. Suppose you join a Mastodon instance that has a good block list. You might even join them specifically because you like their...
I think this gets fuzzy depending on delegation and implicit consent. Suppose you join a Mastodon instance that has a good block list. You might even join them specifically because you like their filtering. That seems like consent.
But, you're not paying attention to the details. Later they might block stuff where, if you knew about it, you'd want it let through.
This happens all the time for delegation to humans. The person who controls what meetings get on the calendar of an executive has lots of power. Delegation is risky, depends on trust, and can result in betrayal. But, people do it, because they don't want to do things themselves, and sometimes because they can't do things themselves. (Increasingly so, as they get older.)
Joining Tildes is sort of consenting to how Tildes does moderation, and sort of not, because you're not making the decisions. The same argument might be made for Twitter.
Similarly, running code that you didn't write yourself is sort of consenting to whatever decisions it makes, but maybe it uses a block list and you didn't decide what's on it. Also, malware exists.
I'm not sure I follow. Limiting or removing information or expression because it's deemed undesirable is what censorship is. Platforms are effectively rejecting all messages from Donald Trump, et...
I'm not sure I follow. Limiting or removing information or expression because it's deemed undesirable is what censorship is.
Platforms are effectively rejecting all messages from Donald Trump, et al. People who disagree are calling it censorship, and they aren't misusing the word.
So yes you'd be censoring nazisrock.fyi. Especially if you were to ask nazisrock.fyi.
Maybe it's a connotation thing? Censorship isn't inherently a bad word. In my experience it's required in order to offset the tendency towards angst and rage that comes with online discussion.
I see what you mean. The scale definitely changes the social implications. Side note, I'm really hoping we don't end up with legislation that applies censorship laws to non government entities....
I see what you mean. The scale definitely changes the social implications.
Side note, I'm really hoping we don't end up with legislation that applies censorship laws to non government entities. Censorship isn't our problem, size and power is, hopefully that's what we try to fix.
Solid analysis of the problem area. Kleppmann correctly emphasises the a lack of democracy is the main problem.
Merely not adopting a sneering antagonism towards the humanities makes him possibly above average compared with the denizens of Hackernews.com.
I think this gets fuzzy depending on delegation and implicit consent. Suppose you join a Mastodon instance that has a good block list. You might even join them specifically because you like their filtering. That seems like consent.
But, you're not paying attention to the details. Later they might block stuff where, if you knew about it, you'd want it let through.
This happens all the time for delegation to humans. The person who controls what meetings get on the calendar of an executive has lots of power. Delegation is risky, depends on trust, and can result in betrayal. But, people do it, because they don't want to do things themselves, and sometimes because they can't do things themselves. (Increasingly so, as they get older.)
Joining Tildes is sort of consenting to how Tildes does moderation, and sort of not, because you're not making the decisions. The same argument might be made for Twitter.
Similarly, running code that you didn't write yourself is sort of consenting to whatever decisions it makes, but maybe it uses a block list and you didn't decide what's on it. Also, malware exists.
I'm not sure I follow. Limiting or removing information or expression because it's deemed undesirable is what censorship is.
Platforms are effectively rejecting all messages from Donald Trump, et al. People who disagree are calling it censorship, and they aren't misusing the word.
So yes you'd be censoring nazisrock.fyi. Especially if you were to ask nazisrock.fyi.
Maybe it's a connotation thing? Censorship isn't inherently a bad word. In my experience it's required in order to offset the tendency towards angst and rage that comes with online discussion.
Doesn't the word censorship maintain the same meaning in either context?
I see what you mean. The scale definitely changes the social implications.
Side note, I'm really hoping we don't end up with legislation that applies censorship laws to non government entities. Censorship isn't our problem, size and power is, hopefully that's what we try to fix.