Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

Fedizen ,

Let them fight. I want a discovery on this

jeffw OP ,

I’m betting this gets dismissed before discovery

Sorgan71 ,

bro he looks like the heavens gate guy

Jiggle_Physics ,

he really does, doesn't he

voluble ,

For real!

Crikeste ,

He could have been a great dude but he just HAD to go down the antivax rabbit hole. Fuckin’ shame.

jeffw OP ,

Sadly, that’s not the only conspiracy he’s into

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/10/10/rfk-jr-launches-independent-2024-run-here-are-all-the-conspiracies-he-promotes-from-vaccines-to-mass-shootings/?sh=53fa64e3cef7

Melvin_Ferd , (edited )

Yea, which is crazy. I don't agree with him but I like him. Something about him is engaging him. I'd love to see him chat with Steve Novella or someone like that.

HawlSera ,

The corpos are way too ban happy

Furbag ,

Meta is a private company and can do whatever the fuck they like.

This guy shouldn't be let anywhere near a position of decision making, let alone the highest office in the nation.

Muffi ,

Private companies should not be able to do whatever the fuck they like. They have a very important responsibility, and they will not consider ethics over profit, unless we as a society force them to.

Furbag ,

Okay sure, but there's nothing on the books that says that meta has to allow people to use their platform. You are not entitled to unlimited access to a private service.

Ever single person from RFK and Donald Trump to you and me all sign the exact same fucking EULA and TOS when you register for an account. Stop holding these people above the law by pretending that the rules shouldn't apply to them.

MentalGymnastics , (edited )

The fact meta has received 2 billion dollars in taxpayer gov't money should entitle every single taxpayer to their 1st amendment.

Furbag ,

Meta is not the government. Something being government funded does not make it an apparatus of the government. There has been no curtailing of 1st amendment rights here.

MentalGymnastics ,

There has indeed been curtailing of 1st amendment rights. We all remember the twitter files I'm sure. You can bet anything that same crap happens on meta platforms. Surely there is an argument to be made on the curtailing of 1st amendment rights and whether these social media companies are an apparatus of the gov.

But yea according to all these expert lawyers in the comments nothing to see here.

ASeriesOfPoorChoices ,

nothing of what you wrote has anything to do with the first amendment.

KeenFlame ,

No, they have to follow laws.

Furbag ,

Which law are you referencing?

You agree to their EULA and TOS when you make your account. In that, there exists a clause that states that you can be banned for any reason or no reason at all at the site administrators discretion.

So explain to me again how meta is in the wrong here?

KeenFlame ,

All companies have to follow laws. It's not rocket science.

Furbag ,

Again, what laws are you referring to? I want to hear you explain it.

KeenFlame ,

Laws, the ones that countries and sometimes bigger entities enact as rules

Furbag ,

Okay, so you have no clue what you're talking about. Got it 👌

KeenFlame ,

Corporations have to follow laws. It's pretty simple? I am refuting your statement that they don't have to follow laws. It's up to you (once you grasp the concept) to continue the debate here

Furbag ,

I am refuting your statement that they don’t have to follow laws.

What kind of nonsense strawman is this? Quote me on where I said that, because I didn't anywhere in any of my posts.

KeenFlame ,

I am falling asleep debating you honestly

This is what you wrote if you wonder

Meta is a private company and can do whatever the fuck they like.

This guy shouldn't be let anywhere near a position of decision making, let alone the highest office in the nation.

Furbag ,

It's a big stretch to call this a debate.

I feel like the context of that statement is self-evident, considering it's a top level comment, but since you seem to be stubbornly obstinate about it, I'll break it down for you.

Meta is a private company and can do whatever the fuck they like.

This is in direct response to RFK complaining that his first amendment rights were being infringed by Meta. The thing that presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr. apparently doesn't understand about the constitution is that 1st amendment rights shall not be infringed by the U.S. government. No law or statute can be passed that would limit or remove one's freedom of expression. However, as I mentioned in another post in this same comment chain, Meta is not a government entity. By using their platform, you agree to their rules. They get to set the rules as whatever they want and you agree to abide by them so long as you are an account holder. If they decided that they don't want anyone to say the word "Facebook" anymore and started banning people for saying it, that would be fully within their rights as a private entity, albeit unfair. This is no different than a platform like Lemmy banning you for posting Nazi shit or CSAM. You do not have unlimited free speech in private forums, and that's a fact.

So when I said "Meta can do whatever the fuck they want", I'm not sure how you possibly came to the conclusion that what I meant was "Meta doesn't have to follow laws". Of course they have to follow laws, everybody does. But if they aren't breaking any laws, they can do as they please with their platform. When I asked you what the law in question was that was being broken, you responded with nothing but deflection, because you're a clueless simpleton and you have no idea what you're talking about.

This guy shouldn’t be let anywhere near a position of decision making, let alone the highest office in the nation.

Given that I previously highlighted how out-of-touch RFK is with the substance of the constitution, this should come as no surprise. Anybody stupid enough to use a response from a AI chatbot as "proof" of anything is technologically illiterate and deserves to be ridiculed.

"Debate" over. You are blocked.

KeenFlame ,

Haha you suck at this

BigTrout75 ,

Really don't need to hear anything coming from this guy. It's always batshit crazy and it's a waste of time.

jeffw OP ,

It’s always hilarious to read and worth a laugh imo

Stalinwolf ,
@Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca avatar

I remember seeing be was a guest on Rogan and thinking, "Oh, wow. I guess I'll listen to Rogan again this one time to hear a Kennedy talking."

Turns out it was right on fucking brand for Rogan.

BigTrout75 ,

Ha ha ha

drmoose ,

Shadow banning is definitely too much imo. It's simply unethical no matter how you look at it.

First, it doesn't do anything to prevent bots. It takes less than a second for a bot to check whether they are shadow banned. It's simply a tool to bully and gaslight people - just block them. Why these abusive games?

sugar_in_your_tea ,

IDK, I think it can be an effective tool against trolls because it wastes the time they'd otherwise spend harassing people.

But that's not what RFK is, he's a legitimate candidate for president and should be given the same consideration other candidates are, not shadowbanned because someone doesn't like his message.

drmoose ,

Effectiveness is irrelevant here. Breaking troll's kneecaps would be very effective too.

This mental manipulation and gaslighting has no place in our society. We're literally suffering the consequences of this right now.

sugar_in_your_tea ,

Like any tool, it's bad when used improperly. Shadowbanning should be used to waste trolls' time; it's especially effective for cheaters in MMOs (lump the cheaters together so they don't bother anyone). Shadowbanning shouldn't be used to control the discussion, like silencing an unpopular or undesirable (to the platform) individual.

I think we're doing too much of the latter, but that doesn't mean shadowbanning as a tool is morally bankrupt.

drmoose ,

It's definitely morally bankrupt imo and we can agree to disagree here as I don't think this topic can be expanded further.

kn98 ,
@kn98@feddit.nl avatar

Could you name an example of those consequences?

drmoose ,

The rise of alt-right and conspiracies would be a one obvious one.

kn98 ,
@kn98@feddit.nl avatar

But how is that a consequence of shadowbanning?

drmoose ,

You don't see how opaque manipulation fuels conspiracies and paranoia? Come on dude.

kn98 ,
@kn98@feddit.nl avatar

It seems to me that’s it’s often the conspiracy-theorists that get shadowbanned.

drmoose ,

You have real stats to back that claim? Because leaving this up to benevolent dictators is kinda silly.

kn98 ,
@kn98@feddit.nl avatar

No stats at all, I just got that impression. It’s silly, but it’s often argued that social media are private platforms, that can decide themselves what content they allow. Do you suggest laws against shadowbanning should be a thing? I’m not sure that’s a good idea.

drmoose ,

It's unrelated to the current topic but yes. Terms of service should be both ways. We already do that for user data through GDPR and similar laws and inevitably all users will have more rights including right to transparency.

I find it kinda funny that you argue against this on a platform that was founded because reddit was extremely opaque. We even have a transparent mod log here. So you really need more examples that transparency is good?

VirtualOdour ,

Nestle is a private company and buying up everyone's water to sell back to them is their choice

Private companies shouldn't get to do whatever they like.

I agree shadow banning should be illegal, along with various other policies which can cause psychological and material damage.

Jestzer ,

So, you’re suggesting that shadow banning has caused the rise of the alt-right and their conspiracy theories, which implies that they wouldn’t exist without shadow bans.

Or they already exist and are in such a fragile state that even an explicit ban makes them upset (which it does.)

drmoose ,

I never said it was a singular cause just a contributor

Jestzer ,

Again, if you’re already that far down the rabbit hole, anything that tells you, “No, you’re wrong” is going to upset you. That includes a shadow ban, explicit ban, or somebody just telling you that you’re wrong.

If you think I’m wrong and you think shadow bans especially push people towards being alt-right and believing conspiracy theories, then I’d love to see a study that says so because that’s what would likely convince me.

drmoose ,

Nah man it's completely different when society regulates itself through transparent rules vs opaque ones. It's more organized and self balancing.

VirtualOdour ,

It will but a shadow ban plays perfectly into their conspiratorial victim complex

JustZ ,

Nothing legit about him. He has no chance.

dhork ,

He's legit in that his campaign went through the process to get on the ballot in certain states. That has nothing to do with his chances.

JustZ ,

I suppose in a strict legal sense, fuck him though.

sugar_in_your_tea ,

That's fine. But he shouldn't be silenced. If he gets some traction, debate him to show voters what's wrong with his ideas, that really shouldn't be hard.

baggachipz ,

Ah yes because debating Trump exposes him to people so well

sugar_in_your_tea ,

I'd love to see Trump and RFK Jr. debate. Two old nutjobs duking it out, with Biden just sitting back eating popcorn.

JustZ ,

Takes time and money to explain the truth. Lying is free.

ShepherdPie ,

Would you really argue that he's been silenced as we sit here discussing him in the comments for an article written about him?

sugar_in_your_tea ,

I don't know, I guess we'll need to see how the lawsuit turns out. I'm sure RFK Jr. will bring some evidence that'll help us understand what Meta may or may not have done.

RememberTheApollo_ ,

There is no freedom of speech guarantee in private or public enterprise. Only government.

Yet another tool that uses “freedom of speech” incorrectly to basically mean “I want to force people to listen to my bullshit.” How these people running for office don’t get the first amendment is amazing.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

There is no freedom of speech guarantee in private or public enterprise.

And the consequence of this policy is a back-door path to censorship. A combination of surveillance, selective-admittance, and media saturation allow certain ideological beliefs to suffice the "marketplace of ideas" while others are silenced.

“I want to force people to listen to my bullshit.”

Its more that privatized media infrastructure allows for a monopolization of speech.

Big media companies still force people to listen to bullshit, by way of advertising and algorithmic promotion. Go on YouTube, click through their "recommended" list a few times, and you'll quickly find yourself watching some Mr. Beast episode or PraegerU video, simply because these folks have invested so heavily in self-promotion.

But there's a wide swath of content you won't see, either because YouTube's algorithm explicitly censors it for policy reasons, because the media isn't maxing out the SEO YouTube execs desire (the classic Soy Face thumbnail for instance), or because you're not spending enough money to boost visibility.

This has nothing to do with what the generic video watcher wants to see and everything to do with what YouTube administration wants that watcher to see.

RFK Jr is a nasty little freak with some very toxic beliefs. But that's not why he's struggling to get noticed on the platform, when plenty of other nasty freaks with toxic beliefs get mainstream circulation.

RememberTheApollo_ ,

Yeah. That’s also a problem. But then you have to upend corporate ownership of the control of speech, and we’re already facing that problem.

Buttons ,
@Buttons@programming.dev avatar

Yet another tool that uses “freedom of speech” incorrectly

Often freedom of speech is a moral ideal, a moral aspiration, and dismissing it on legal grounds is missing the point.

If I say "people should have a right to healthcare", and you respond "people do not have a legal right to healthcare", you are correct, but you have missed the point. If I say people should have freedom of speech and you respond that the first amendment doesn't apply to Facebook, you are right, but have again missed the point.

In general, when people advocate for any change, they can be countered with "well, the law doesn't require that". Yes, society currently works the way the law says it should. But what we're talking about is how society should work and how the law should change.

Dkarma ,

The thing is people shouldnt have that level of "freedom of speech"

No one is above reproach.

starman2112 ,
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

Okay, but you don't win lawsuits based on how the law ought to be

RememberTheApollo_ ,

That’s lovely, and I appreciate the sentiment. It doesn’t change the fact that someone abuses the term in order to force others to listen to BS. I’m not opposed to the ideal, I am opposed to the expectation that people have a right to make you listen to them.

Dark_Arc ,
@Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg avatar

I'm opposed to the idea, we've got enough people that think their ideas need to be broadcast to everyone in the world.

Buttons , (edited )
@Buttons@programming.dev avatar

I'm okay with algorithms not recommending certain posts. I just don't like shadowbans because the platform is lying to the user, the user interface is essentially telling the user "your post is available for viewing and is being treated like any other post" when it really isn't.

There's a balance between the free speech of individuals and the free speech of the company. I think a fair balance between the two is, once a company is big enough to control a significant percentage of the entire nation's discourse, the company at least has to be up front and avoid deceptive practices like shadow-banning. (This should only apply to large companies, once a company is large enough it has a responsibility to society.)

_lilith ,
@_lilith@lemmy.world avatar

Man talking to himself accuses company of action they are allowed to perform

Fapper_McFapper ,

Correction, a man and his brain worm are having a conversation and accusing a company of action they are allowed to perform.

Sabata11792 ,

You can't get elected without big tech bribes, and he just bit the hand that feeds.

jeffw OP ,

It’s ok. He can’t get elected anyway

ours ,

He'll never recover after the death of his running mate: VP Brain Worm.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Don't worry, VP Brain Worm laid eggs.

Fapper_McFapper ,

Line of succession and all that.

Buttons ,
@Buttons@programming.dev avatar

Yes, because Americans would never consider electing a President with health issues.

Dkarma ,

For a second I thought pences fly had a grub

Blackmist ,

Real life Connor Roy soldiers bravely on.

tsonfeir ,
@tsonfeir@lemm.ee avatar

Not the onion.

jeffw OP ,

Thought about posting it there but I had already made one RFK post there last night and didn’t want to do 2 in a day lol

rottingleaf ,

The whole problem with shadowbans is that they are not very easy to prove (without cooperation from Meta). One can be shadowbanned from one area (by geolocation), but not from another. One can be shadowbanned for some users but not for other. The decisions here can be made based on any kind of data and frankly Meta has a lot to make it efficient and yet hard to prove.

Shadowbans should just be illegal as a thing, first, and second, some of the arguments against him from the article are negligible.

I just don't get you people hating him more than the two main candidates. It seems being a murderer is a lesser problem than being a nutcase for you.

CaptainSpaceman ,

You think hes better than Biden? Why?

ricdeh ,
@ricdeh@lemmy.world avatar

Because he thinks of him as a murderer?

rottingleaf ,

Because I can gather a pretty believable list of pros and cons for him as a person, which make sense together and didn't change too sharply. Not the case with Biden.

CaptainSpaceman ,

Way to not answer

rottingleaf ,

I mean, you can look at a wall and say it's a door, it's your right.

kralk ,

Biden, the guy who's been president for four years? You can't tell who he is as a person?

rottingleaf ,

This makes my point stronger. You must be very smart if you can characterize this specific man and get some idea which groups he represents, what is his strategy and to what end.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Shadowbans should just be illegal as a thing

I bet you scream about your first amendment rights being violated whenever a moderator deletes your posts.

rottingleaf ,

I bet you think this reply was sharp-minded and on spot and something else.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

How much would you like to bet? I accept PayPal.

rottingleaf ,

Oh, if this is not a figure of speech, then how much was your bet? I accept BTC (being in a sanctioned country and all that).

Mine was, of course, this is not worth a penny to me, I already know your measure.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

If you would bet nothing, I guess you don't actually believe your own words.

Thanks for admitting what you said was false. I think we can move on now.

rottingleaf ,

If you would bet nothing, I guess you don’t actually believe your own words.

There are a few factors, one of them is your value as a person.

Thanks for admitting what you said was false.

Why would you say that if that's false?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

What is my value as a person?

And your question makes absolutely no sense.

rottingleaf ,

Negligible, like the effort to type this sentence.

I'll repeat - why would you say that I "admitted" something when I didn't?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

https://www.lsd.law/define/tacit-admission

And your considering people to be of lesser value than yourself is noted. I'm sure you'll be a help when the genocide comes.

rottingleaf ,

And your considering people to be of lesser value than yourself is noted.

And that's fully my right and that's normal. Nobody owes you anything.

I’m sure you’ll be a help when the genocide comes.

You've just devalued this word a little bit only to support your own arrogance. This shows that I'm correct.

By the way, my strategy in such conversations is defined by just one realization in my childhood - that for any genocide I don't want to be an accomplice.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Yes, I know it's your right to consider people subhuman. And yes, that's normal. Normal for genocide.

Subhumans don't deserve human rights, now do they?

Don't say you don't want to be an accomplice to genocide if you talk about human beings as if they aren't humans.

rottingleaf ,

You are a shitty human being, now get off me

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Interesting accusation coming from someone who made a vague accusation about me, refused to clarify, then lied about clarifying.

Seems sort of a shitty way to behave to me, but I'm not the one who judges this sort of thing.

rottingleaf ,

OK, you've owned everybody with facts and logic, now go away

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

No one is forcing you to respond to me. If you want me to stop talking to you, stop responding. But if you are going to keep responding, perhaps you could finally tell me what I decided for others and when I decided it?

Buttons ,
@Buttons@programming.dev avatar

A problem is that social media websites are simultaneously open platforms with Section 230 protections, and also publishers who have free speech rights. Those are contradictory, so which is it?

Perhaps @rottingleaf was speaking morally rather than legally. For example, I might say "I believe everyone in America should have access to healthcare"; if you respond "no, there is no right to healthcare" you would be right, but you missed my point. I was expressing an moral aspiration.

I think shadowbans are a bad mix of censorship and hard to detect. Morally, I believe they should be illegal. If a company wants to ban someone, they can be up front about it with a regular ban; make it clear what they are doing. To implement this legally, we could alter Section 230 protections so that they don't apply to companies performing shadowbans.

Dkarma ,

They are in no way publishers...ugh you people who don't know shit about the law are insufferable.

QuadratureSurfer ,
@QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world avatar

Feel free to educate us instead of just saying the equivalent of "you're wrong and I hate reading comments like yours".

But I think, in general, the alteration to Section 230 that they are proposing makes sense as a way to keep these companies in check for practices like shadowbanning especially if those tools are abused for political purposes.

teft ,
@teft@lemmy.world avatar

Shadowbans help prevent bot activity by preventing a bot from knowing if what they posted was actually posted. Similar to vote obfuscation. It wastes bot’s time so it’s a good thing.

rottingleaf ,

It wastes shadowbanned person's time, so it's not.

Similar to vote obfuscation.

Which sucks just as badly.

teft ,
@teft@lemmy.world avatar

Don’t post shit that gets you shadowbanned. Problem solved.

rottingleaf ,

That's a good solution for you, but some of us don't generally bend over to assholes.

And that's not serious. You'll get shadowbanned for any kind of stuff somebody with that ability wants to shadowban you for. You won't know the reason and what to avoid.

I got shadowbanned on Reddit a few times for basically repeating the 1988 resolution of the European Parliament on Artsakh (the one in support of reunification with Armenia).

teft ,
@teft@lemmy.world avatar

Don't hang out in spaces that don't align with your beliefs.

I was on reddit for 15 years and never caught a ban and I'm not exactly a demure person. If you go to an anti vax thread (this is an example since i know nothing of armenia) and post stuff about vaccination, even it's 100% factual, it's not surprising when you catch a ban.

kava ,

I've been on reddit for 15 years and I've been banned from dozens of subs. I got banned from /r/libertarian for quoting Wikipedia page of Libetarianism. I got banned from /r/geopolitics for linking a report on the effects of 2019 sanctions on Venezuela. I got banned from /r/socialism for bringing up Henry Ford and his influence on the 40 hour work week. I got banned from /r/kratom for mentioning it's an addictive substance that bindes to opioid receptors. Got banned from /r/the_donald back when it was a thing, don't even remember why.

If you've been talking regularly on reddit and you haven't been banned from at least a handful of places, then in my opinion you haven't actually been saying much.

I believe we need to democratize the banning process and make it more transparent. Sort of like criminal justice system. Jury of your peers. Make a case in your defense and let everyone see it.

The way it's handled right now is authoritarian and allows any mod to arbritarily silence views they personally don't like, even if the community at large would have no issue with.

rottingleaf ,

I usually go to places which (on surface) align with my beliefs in what the end goal should be, and generally on the means.
I
'm willing to drop some of my beliefs on the means if that makes the goal closer. And no system of belief is perfect, so it seems sane to argue on details of achieving something.

Which is when the reality hits that most people don't care about end goals. They just want to join some crowd.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Truth is treason in the Empire of Lies

sugar_in_your_tea ,

So just don't commit thought crime against Big Brother and you'll be good?

When a platform gets to a certain size, we need to consider its effects on society as a whole. Hiding undesirable content and promoting desirable content can be a monopolistic practice for the org to get outsized impact on things it finds important. Whether that's "good" or "bad" depends on how closely that org's interests are aligned with the average person.

I, for one, do not think Meta's interests are aligned with my own, so I think it's bad that they have so much sway that they can steer the public discourse through their ranking algorithm. Shadowbanning is just another way for the platform to get their desired message out.

Instead of trying to restrict yourself to only posting what the platform wants you to post, you should be seeking alternatives that allow you to post what you think is valuable to post.

kava ,

I've seen reddit accounts who regularly posted comments for months all at +1 vote and never received any response or reply at all because nobody had ever seen their comments. They got hit with some automod shadowban they were yelling into the void, likely wondering why nobody ever felt they deserved to be heard.

I find this unsettling and unethical. I think people have a right to be heard and deceiving people like this feels wrong.

There are other methods to deal with spam that aren't potentially harmful.

There's also an entirely different discussion about shadowbans being a way to silence specific forms of speech. Today it may be crazies or hateful speech, but it can easily be any subversive speech should the administration change.

I agree with other commenter, it probably shouldn't be allowed.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I think people have a right to be heard

You are wrong. You have no right to a voice on a private platform.

Buttons ,
@Buttons@programming.dev avatar

Maybe he was speaking morally rather than legally.

For example, if I said "I believe people have a right to healthcare", you might correctly respond "people do not have a legal right to healthcare" (in America at least). But you'd be missing the point, because I'm speaking morally, not legally.

I believe, morally, that people have a right to be heard.

kava ,

I think private platforms that do this are acting in an unethical manner. Lots of things that are perfectly legal but of dubious morality. Like fucking a 16 year old as a 40 year old man in Georgia or used car dealerships.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

This just means privatizing public spaces becomes a method of censorship. Forcing competitors farther and farther away from your captured audience, by enclosing and shutting down the public media venues, functions as a de facto media monopoly.

Generally speaking, you don't want a single individual with the administrative power to dictate everything anyone else sees or hears.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

So if I own a cafe and I have an open mic night and some guy gets up yelling racial epithets and Nazi slogans, it's their right to be heard in my cafe and I am just censoring them by kicking them out?

As the one with the administrative power, should I put it up to a vote?

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

So if I own a cafe

More if you own Ticketmaster, and you decide you're going to freeze out a particular artist from every venue you contact with.

And yes. Absolutely censorship.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Changing the scenario doesn't answer my question.

I came up with a scenario directly related to your previous post.

I can only imagine you are changing the scenario because you realize what I said makes what you said seem unreasonable.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Changing the scenario doesn’t answer my question.

Then why did you change the scenario?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I didn't. I responded to your comment:

This just means privatizing public spaces becomes a method of censorship. Forcing competitors farther and farther away from your captured audience, by enclosing and shutting down the public media venues, functions as a de facto media monopoly.

Generally speaking, you don’t want a single individual with the administrative power to dictate everything anyone else sees or hears.

My comment was:

So if I own a cafe and I have an open mic night and some guy gets up yelling racial epithets and Nazi slogans, it’s their right to be heard in my cafe and I am just censoring them by kicking them out?

As the one with the administrative power, should I put it up to a vote?

Now, are you going to answer my questions or are we just going to end the conversation here?

MentalGymnastics ,

Your open mic night hypothetical is not a shadow ban. That's just a normal ban. Which is I think what people are asking for. If these social media companies are going to censor us on the Internet we essentially built via govt subsidies hell we even essentially build these companies by giving straight to them gov't subsidies then fuck yea notify us that we are actively being censored.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

True, but they were talking about censorship, not shadow banning.

teft ,
@teft@lemmy.world avatar

I’ve seen reddit accounts who regularly posted comments for months all at +1 vote and never received any response or reply at all because nobody had ever seen their comments.

Then how did you see them?

kava ,

There's a sub to test if you are shadowbanned. The mods set it up so automod automatically approves any post there, so that way even if you're shadowbanned you can post.

Then a bot goes through and scans to check your comments and sees if they show up.

When shadowbanned, people can still see your comments if they go onto your profile. They just won't see it in the thread.

You ever seen a thread that says something like "3 comments" and you click and only see 1? 2 people commented that were shadowbanned.

I've gone through the sub and browsed through profiles of people who were shadowbanned. Some of them posted nothing controversial to warrant a shadowban.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Shadowbans help prevent bot activity by preventing a bot from knowing if what they posted was actually posted

I have not seen anything to support the theory that shadowbans reduce the number of bots on a platform. If anything, a sophisticated account run by professional engagement farmers is going to know it's been shadowbanned - and know how to mitigate the ban - more easily than an amateur publisher producing sincere content. The latter is far more likely to run afoul of an difficult-to-detect ban than the former.

It wastes bot’s time

A bot has far more time to waste than a human. So this technique is biased against humans, rather than bots.

If you want to discourage bots from referencing their own metrics, put public metrics behind a captcha. That's far more effective than undermining visibility in a way only a professional would notice.

Dkarma ,

They never said shadow bans reduce the number of bots on a platform
Classic straw man.

hedgehog ,

Why should shadow bans be illegal?

rottingleaf ,

Because a good person would never need those. If you want to have shadowbans on your platform, you are not a good one.

A bit like animal protection, while animals can't have rights balanced by obligations, you would want to keep people cruel to animals somewhere where you are not.

hedgehog ,

Because a good person would never need those. If you want to have shadowbans on your platform, you are not a good one.

This basically reads as “shadow bans are bad and have no redeeming factors,” but you haven’t explained why you think that.

If you’re a real user and you only have one account (or have multiple legitimate accounts) and you get shadow-banned, it’s a terrible experience. Shadow bans should never be used on “real” users even if they break the ToS, and IME, they generally aren’t. That’s because shadow bans solve a different problem.

In content moderation, if a user posts something that’s unacceptable on your platform, generally speaking, you want to remove it as soon as possible. Depending on how bad the content they posted was, or how frequently they post unacceptable content, you will want to take additional measures. For example, if someone posts child pornography, you will most likely ban them and then (as required by law) report all details you have on them and their problematic posts to the authorities.

Where this gets tricky, though, is with bots and multiple accounts.

If someone is making multiple accounts for your site - whether by hand or with bots - and using them to post unacceptable content, how do you stop that?

Your site has a lot of users, and bad actors aren’t limited to only having one account per real person. A single person - let’s call them a “Bot Overlord” - could run thousands of accounts - and it’s even easier for them to do this if those accounts can only be banned with manual intervention. You want to remove any content the Bot Overlord’s bots post and stop them from posting more as soon as you realize what they’re doing. Scaling up your human moderators isn’t reasonable, because the Bot Overlord can easily outscale you - you need an automated solution.

Suppose you build an algorithm that detects bots with incredible accuracy - 0% false positives and an estimated 1% false negatives. Great! Then, you set your system up to automatically ban detected bots.

A couple days later, your algorithm’s accuracy has dropped - from 1% false negatives to 10%. 10 times as many bots are making it past your algorithm. A few days after that, it gets even worse - first 20%, then 30%, then 50%, and eventually 90% of bots are bypassing your detection algorithm.

You can update your algorithm, but the same thing keeps happening. You’re stuck in an eternal game of cat and mouse - and you’re losing.

What gives? Well, you made a huge mistake when you set the system up to ban bots immediately. In your system, as soon as a bot gets banned, the bot creator knows. Since you’re banning every bot you detect as soon as you detect them, this gives the bot creator real-time data. They can basically reverse engineer your unpublished algorithm and then update their bots so as to avoid detection.

One solution to this is ban waves. Those work by detecting bots (or cheaters, in the context of online games) and then holding off on banning them until you can ban them all at once.

Great! Now the Bot Overlord will have much more trouble reverse-engineering your algorithm. They won’t know specifically when a bot was detected, just that it was detected within a certain window - between its creation and ban date.

But there’s still a problem. You need to minimize the damage the Bot Overlord’s accounts can do between when you detect them and when you ban them.

You could try shortening the time between ban waves. The problem with this approach is that the ban wave approach is more effective the longer that time period is. If you had an hourly ban wave, for example, the Bot Overlord could test a bunch of stuff out and get feedback every hour.

Shadow bans are one natural solution to this problem. That way, as soon as you detect it, you can prevent a bot from causing more damage. The Bot Overlord can’t quickly detect that their account was shadow-banned, so their bots will keep functioning, giving you more information about the Bot Overlord’s system and allowing you to refine your algorithm to be even more effective in the future, rather than the other way around.

I’m not aware of another way to effectively manage this issue. Do you have a counter-proposal?

Out of curiosity, do you have any experience working in content moderation for a major social media company? If so, how did that company balance respecting user privacy with effective content moderation without shadow bans, accounting for the factors I talked about above?

rottingleaf ,

"Major social media companies" in my opinion shouldn't exist. ICQ and old Skype were major enough.

Your posts reads like my ex-military uncle's rants when we talk about censorship, mass repressions, dissenters' executions and so on.

These instruments can be used solely against rapists, thieves, murderers and so on. Usually they are not, because most (neurotypical) of us are apes and want power. That's why major social media shouldn't exist.

hedgehog ,

But major social media companies do exist. If your real point was that they shouldn’t, you should have said that upfront.

rottingleaf ,

No, I don't think so. My real point was the one I described which is the same as that they shouldn't exist. And any true statement is the same as all other true statements in an interconnected world. That's a bit abstract, but saying what others "should" do is both stupid and rude.

hedgehog ,

That's a bit abstract, but saying what others "should" do is both stupid and rude.

Buddy, if anyone’s being stupid and rude in this exchange, it’s not me.

And any true statement is the same as all other true statements in an interconnected world.

It sounds like the interconnected world you’re referring to is entirely in your own head, with logic that you’re not able or willing to share with others.

Even if I accepted that you were right - and I don’t accept that, to be clear - your statements would still be nonsensical given that you’re making them without any effort to clarify why you think them. That makes me think you don’t understand why you think them - and if you don’t understand why you think something, how can you be so confident that you’re correct?

rottingleaf ,

You seem to think proving anything to you has any effect on the world, it doesn't

hedgehog ,

No, I don’t think anything you do has any bearing on reality, period.

kava ,

Nice writeup but there's one key piece of information here that's wrong in the context of reddit.

The "bot overlord" can easily tell if an account is shadowbanned. I use my trusty puppeteer or selenium script to spam my comments. After every comment (or every x interval of comments), I load up the page under a control account (or even just a fresh page with no cookies/cache, maybe even through VPN if I'm feeling fancy, different useragent, different window size.. go wild with it) and check if my comment is there.

Comment is not there after a certain threshold of checks? Guess I'm shadowbanned, take the account off the list and add another one of the hundreds I have to the active list

The fact is that no matter what you do, there will be bots and spammers. No matter what you do, there will be cheaters in online games and people trying to exploit.

It's a constant battle and it's an impossible one. But you have to try and come up with solutions but you always have to balance the costs of those solutions with the benefits.

Shadowbanning on reddit doesn't solve the problem it aims to fix. It does however have the potential for harm to individuals, especially naive ones who don't fully understand how websites work.

I don't think the ends justify the means. Just like stop and frisk may stop a certain type of crime or may not, but it definitely does damage to specific communities

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Shadowbans should just be illegal as a thing

I mean, regional coding makes sense from a language perspective. I don't really want to see a bunch of foreign language recommendations on my feed, unless I'm explicitly searching for content in that language.

But I do agree there's a lack of transparency. And I further agree that The Algorithm creates a rarified collection of "popular" content entirely by way of excluding so much else. The end result is a very generic stream of crap in the main feed and some truly freaky gamed content that's entirely focused on click-baiting children. Incidentally, jesus fucking christ whomever is responsible for promoting "unboxing" videos should be beaten to death with a flaming bag of nalpam.

None of this is socially desirable or good, but it all appears to be incredibly profitable. Its a social media environment that's converged on "Oops! All Ads!" and is steadily making its way to "Oops! All scams!" as the content gets worse and worse and worse.

The shadowbanning and segregation of content is just a part of the equation that makes all this possible. But funneling people down into a handful of the most awful, libidinal content generators is really not good.

rottingleaf ,

Yes, thank you for explaining the same thing politely, I had a slight hangover yesterday.

The problem is with unneeded people making unneeded decisions for you anonymously (for them), centrally and obviously with no transparency.

The advantages of the Internet as it came into existence for us were disadvantages for some people. Trapping people inside social media with one entry point and having the actual communication there allows for control which the initial architecture was intended to make hard.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

The problem is with unneeded people making unneeded decisions for you anonymously (for them), centrally and obviously with no transparency.

In business, it's described as a kind of Principal-Agent problem. What happens when the person you're working with has goals that deviate from what you contracted with them to do?

A classic "unsolved problem" of social relationships.

rottingleaf ,

I agree it's an unsolved problem, but have you contracted police to, well, police your area? Had Soviet citizens contract NKVD?

It's rather between the two. In fact it's a mechanism imposed on you with power, but there's a lot of effort to conceal it as an imperfect market.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

have you contracted police to, well, police your area?

Sadly, I've been outvoted in every election that centers on inflating police budgets.

Had Soviet citizens contract NKVD?

The NKVD was a tool of the Russian Soviets to police itself. So, less a contract between citizens than between party bosses.

But Soviet police were far closer to the ideal community policing model than their Western peers, simply because they weren't built atop the framework of plantation overseers, slave catchers, and anti-indigenious paramilitary.

Pick up a copy of Fanshen (Chinese Cultural Revolution, not Russian Stalinist era, but it's the same through line). The social transition from a country of sovereign landlords to egalitarian policing was rocky, but it was real and significant.

it’s a mechanism imposed on you with power

All societies are. The question becomes whether you find value in this mechanism or whether it is entirely extractive.

The difference between a plantation overseer and a union rep is significant primarily because of who they answer to.

rottingleaf ,

The NKVD was a tool of the Russian Soviets to police itself. So, less a contract between citizens than between party bosses.

NKVD means "People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs". And in Stalin's era they still retained the pretense of a democracy on new principles from the 20s.

But Soviet police were far closer to the ideal community policing model than their Western peers, simply because they weren’t built atop the framework of plantation overseers, slave catchers, and anti-indigenious paramilitary.

No. If you ever learn Russian well enough ... I actually don't know what specifically to recommend you. Vysotsky's songs? It's just everything you read that will communicate some idea of how it all worked.

Soviet "militia" (it was called that, but in fact it was police, of course) was quite similar to all three things you've mentioned.

Also NKVD was both what later became KGB and what later became MVD (after Stalin and Beria USSR had sort of a moment of epiphany, not complete, but hundreds of thousands of people were released from prison camps, hundreds of thousands rehabilitated postmortem, and it was said publicly and officially that such things shouldn't happen again), so it included both people in black leather coats who'd come at night and people in white coats who'd regulate road traffic and catch small time thieves at day. With pretty similar methods between them.

Imagine if German police under Nazis and Gestapo were one and the same organization administratively. There'd be more "cultural exchange" than there was in reality.

Pick up a copy of Fanshen (Chinese Cultural Revolution, not Russian Stalinist era, but it’s the same through line). The social transition from a country of sovereign landlords to egalitarian policing was rocky, but it was real and significant.

I will, but my knowledge of Stalinism is closer to the root, and Russian is my first language, so I don't think this will be useful for that kind of example.

The difference between a plantation overseer and a union rep is significant primarily because of who they answer to.

Since USSR came into this discussion, official unions in USSR made that difference very small. Their main activities were about organizing demonstrations on all the important days, though. And also the usual Soviet organization stuff - distribution of some goods via that organization to its members (like some fruit which would rarely be seen in some specific area due to Soviet logistics being not very good), sending children of some members to some kinda better summer camps or some competitions, all that.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

NKVD means “People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs”.

Internal Affairs. Yes. Internal to the Russian Communist Party.

Imagine if German police under Nazis and Gestapo were one and the same

The NKVD weren't Jew-hunters, engaged in a policy of ethnic cleansing.

my knowledge of Stalinism is closer to the root, and Russian is my first language

You could say the same thing about Ayn Rand.

Their main activities were about organizing demonstrations on all the important days, though

You definitely sound very knowledgeable

rottingleaf ,

Internal Affairs. Yes. Internal to the Russian Communist Party.

No, to the union. That included police.

The NKVD weren’t Jew-hunters, engaged in a policy of ethnic cleansing.

Actually they were that too for a short period of time before Stalin's death, when he got paranoid.

Also did you know there were unofficial quotas for good universities for the amount of Jewish students, while some simply didn't accept any? In MSU such quotas existed, while in Gnesinka there were no Jews at all.

You could say the same thing about Ayn Rand.

She is usually criticized for her simplistic understanding of the world outside of Soviet matters, not for understanding them wrong.

You definitely sound very knowledgeable

Well, what they clearly was outside of their usual activities was protecting worker rights.

Nobody ,

Does everyone hate Bobby Kennedy so much that they’ll side with Facebook and Zuckerberg over a career environmental attorney because he’s running for president?

glouriousgouda ,
@glouriousgouda@lemmy.myserv.one avatar

I don't think anyone "hates" him. He's just an absurd human that no one takes seriously. And we all agree we have much more dire things to discuss than what rich white people are calling managers about now.

PrinceWith999Enemies ,

No, because he’s actually quite mad and belongs nowhere near any kind of power. I can see his conspiracy theories appealing to the Q type, but most of them are going to go for Trump. He’s polling this highly because he’s an unknown. As more people start paying attention to who he actually is, he will be the Herman Cain of the race.

Nobody ,

Would you agree that Bobby Kennedy would draw more voters from Trump as it stands?

A “conspiracy theorist” is rejected on the left until government-sanctioned evidence is provided. The right doesn’t have that constraint.

zarkanian ,
@zarkanian@sh.itjust.works avatar

The left believes conspiracy theories. They're just different conspiracy theories.

rottingleaf ,

No, because he’s actually quite mad and belongs nowhere near any kind of power.

I'd trust a person openly mad more than a person still likely mad.

He actually had (much smaller) power from time to time in his career, and after becoming as he is now too. He did better with it than many people would.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I'm not sure how he's any more 'openly mad' than Trump. Neither of them admit it.

AverageLemmmmmmytor ,

Fucking 12 yo retard lol

rottingleaf ,

Trump is demented, not mad.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Second word from the top on the list:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/demented

rottingleaf ,

Demented is usually used meaning that somebody's intelligence has sharply declined.

Mad is usually used meaning that somebody's sanity has sharply declined.

djsoren19 ,

Nah he's great. He should take the rest of those brain worms, I think the worms should be in charge!

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Worms/Kennedy 2024!

vividspecter ,

He's an unhinged anti-vaxxer and all around conspiracy theorist. Summarizing him as an environmental lawyer is being real generous.

rottingleaf ,

That's true. I'd pick that over thieves and murderers any time though. Especially as a politician to vote for.

aniki ,

No one cares

rottingleaf ,

How would you know who cares or not, if you are not even a person by my measure?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I'd prefer not to die in a pandemic because a president is afraid of THE AUTISMS, but you do you.

rottingleaf ,

Somebody quoted him saying that his family is vaccinated.

Not everyone likes to decide for others as much as you do.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

What did I decide for others and when did I decide it?

rottingleaf ,

It's the most likely cause of assuming that his presidency would lead to mass deaths because of antivaxxers.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

The most likely cause of assuming that his presidency would lead to mass deaths because of antivaxxers is me deciding something for others?

Again, what did I decide for others and when did I decide it?

rottingleaf ,

People generally expect others to act like they would.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Yet again, what did I decide for others and when did I decide it?

rottingleaf ,

I've answered that a few comments before, don't act stupid and don't put that "owned by facts and logic" tone on, you don't know shit about either

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

You absolutely did not answer it. That is simply a lie:

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8734dd77-0024-40f7-9f1c-0cb6c7561dfd.png

So please tell me what I decided for others and when I decided it.

Nollij ,

“Let’s imagine: It’s time to elect a world leader, and your vote counts. Which would you choose:

“Candidate A: Associates with ward healers and consults with astrologists; has had two mistresses; chain-smokes and drinks eight to ten martinis a day.

“Candidate B: Was kicked out of office twice; sleeps until noon; used opium in college; drinks a quart of brandy every evening.

“Candidate C: Is a decorated war hero, a vegetarian, doesn’t smoke, drinks an occasional beer, and has had no illicit love affairs.

“Which of these candidates is your choice? You don’t really need any more information, do you? Candidate A is Franklin Roosevelt. Candidate B is Winston Churchill. Candidate C is Adolf Hitler.”

Biased and selective comparisons can prove anything.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Okay, but he also has admitted to have decreased cognitive function and memory problems because of the brain worms. I don't think that it's a horrible bias to say that people who have decreased cognitive function and memory problems because of brain worms probably shouldn't be president.

Nollij ,

I agree, the statement earlier was another example. RFK is a terrible choice for many reasons (the worms thing is almost certainly bullshit though). But everyone has some good qualities you can focus on if you want to promote them. Similarly, everyone has bad qualities if that's your M.O.

dullbananas ,
@dullbananas@lemmy.ca avatar

he also has admitted to have decreased cognitive function and memory problems because of the brain worms.

Not permanently

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I'm not sure why you're not aware of this, but brains don't grow back.

dullbananas ,
@dullbananas@lemmy.ca avatar

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rfk-jr-claims-doctor-parasite-ate-part-brain/story?id=110027317

Doctors interviewed by ABC News clarified that these types of parasites don't actually eat brain tissue. Rather, they absorb nutrients passively before dying.

According to doctors interviewed by ABC News, an infection like this could lead to seizures, which could potentially cause short-lived memory problems as Kennedy described, but most patients would mount a full recovery.

Dkarma ,

None of that has anything to do with policy.

If you pick someone based on this criteria you're a fucking idiot.

Politicians are there to set policy you stupid fuck...not be a cult of personality.

PrincessLeiasCat ,

According to Kennedy, Meta is colluding with the Biden administration to sway the 2024 presidential election by suppressing Kennedy's documentary and making it harder to support Kennedy's candidacy. This allegedly has caused "substantial donation losses," while also violating the free speech rights of Kennedy, his supporters, and his film's production company, AV24.

In this case, Meta and the Biden administration are claimed to be co-conspirators colluding to block citizens from promoting their favorite presidential candidate.

We can very much dislike both while also agreeing that this is fucking stupid. While we continue to very much dislike both, one is clearly in the wrong on this issue and pointing out the sheer stupidity of Kennedy’s actions is not “siding” with Zuckerberg.

I don’t care what his profession is/was - he’s wrong and it would be disingenuous to give him a pass because he did a thing at some point in his life that I agreed with.

rottingleaf ,

The second quote is stupid, but acceptable in a contentious environment. He can say that.

The first quote is formally wrong (because Meta is a privileged entity which is a platform when it's convenient and a private something not subject to free speech when that is convenient), but in fact almost certainly true. Even obvious. It would take Meta to go out of their way to not do that.

PrincessLeiasCat ,

The first quote is formally wrong (because Meta is a privileged entity which is a platform when it's convenient and a private something not subject to free speech when that is convenient), but in fact almost certainly true. Even obvious.

I have no idea if it is or isn’t, but they’re both still terrible people.

rottingleaf ,

How is RFK terrible?

PrincessLeiasCat ,

I don’t think it’s productive to spend time regurgitating what’s already been said numerous times regarding his antivax beliefs and other conspiracy theories.

If you don’t think those are bad, then you do you, but I’m not going to debate it here. Have a good night.

rottingleaf ,

Yes, it'd be productive for you to defend your point of view and not refer to some crowd thinking some way, I could care less about tons of bullshit which have already been said. Since the invention of machine gun this should have ceased to be an argument even emotionally.

Obviously it's only my point of view and arguments against yours , "everybody does that" means that you are an irresponsible person who shouldn't be considered.

Obviously yes, I don't think these are worse than what others do.

Also it was morning for me.

sugar_in_your_tea ,

Yeah, I'm no fan of RFK, but I would much rather live in a world where people like RFK can speak their mind instead of this one where Meta gets to decide whose voices are heard. It's pretty easy to ignore a crazy person, it's hard to find worthwhile content the major players don't want you to find.

So don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, having a free society means we'll have to deal with people like RFK every so often.

MeekerThanBeaker ,

On the one hand, I hope he loses.

On the other hand, I hope Meta also loses.

Something tells me we are the ones who lose.

RagingSnarkasm ,

I am the one who walks away from Omelas.

breakingcups ,

Regardless, the lawyers win.

neidu2 ,

And for 9nce I'm OK with that

SlopppyEngineer ,

"When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers"

Snapz ,

And on the brain... Worms!

LifeInMultipleChoice ,

I can't see how Meta could lose. 1 unreliable information, and 2 they can deny access to anyone they want if they are a private company last I knew.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • technology@lemmy.world
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •