![]() ![]() That it’s a social good to avert the spread of false ideas (and maybe even some true ideas that people can’t handle). There are some genuine arguments for true censorship: that is, for blocking speech that both sides want to hear. And it would make the avoid-harassment side happier, since they could set their filters to stronger than the default setting, and see even less harassment than they do now. Allowing more personalized settings would make the free speech side happier (since they could speak freely to one another and anyone else interested in hearing what they had to say). The current level of moderation is a compromise. Or you could let users choose which fact-checking organization they trusted to flag content as “disinformation”. Set your anti-Semitism filter to the weakest setting and it will only block literal Nazis with swastikas in their profile pic set it to Ludicrous, and it will block anyone who isn’t an ordained Orthodox rabbi. You could let people set them to different levels. If you wanted to get fancy, you could have a bunch of filters - harassing content, sexually explicit content, conspiracy theories - and let people toggle which ones they wanted to see vs. This switch might seem trivial in a well-functioning information ecology, but it prevents the worst abuses, and places a floor on how bad things can get.Īnd this is just the minimum viable product, the case I’m focusing on to forestall objections of “this would be too hard to implement” or “this would be too complicated for ordinary people to understand”. Given how much trouble ordinary Chinese people go through to get around censors, probably many of them would click the button, and then they’d have a free information environment. ![]() Any Chinese person could get accurate information on Xinjiang, Tiananmen Square, the Shanghai lockdowns, or the top fifty criticisms of Xi Jinping - just by clicking a button on their Weibo profile. If the Chinese government couldn’t censor - only moderate - the world would look completely different. Two “banned” accounts could still talk to each other, retweet each other, etc - as could accounts that hadn’t been banned, but had opted into the “see banned posts” setting.ĭoes this difference seem kind of pointless and trivial? Then imagine applying it to China. ![]() The people who elected to see banned posts could see them the same as always. To “ban” an account would mean to prevent the half (or 75%, or 99%) of people who haven’t toggled that setting from seeing it. If you personally choose to see harassing and offensive content, you can toggle that setting, and everything bad will reappear. A minimum viable product for moderation without censorship is for a platform to do exactly the same thing they’re doing now - remove all the same posts, ban all the same accounts - but have an opt-in setting, “see banned posts”. “Well, lots of people will be unhappy if they see offensive content, so in order to keep the platform safe for those people, we’ve got to remove it for everybody.” The racket works by pretending these are the same imperative. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |