'...The notion that Twitter couldn’t curb spam bots and Nazis or that Google couldn’t blacklist 4chan from its news overview is absurd. The issue is that, for revenue purposes, engagement with the informational equivalent of a leaking septic tank is indistinguishable from engagement with news sources that aren’t explicitly trying to deceive and defraud readers. The political Facebook ads that were allegedly purchased by the Russian government went into the same money vault as ads from Nike and Pepsi, and rape-threat tweets count just as much on Twitter’s quarterly earnings calls as announcements from NASA and Denny’s. The increasingly toxic internet is working as designed by the companies that control most of it — corporate monoliths that hold the primary channels of digital information distribution and obligations to shareholders, not civil society..'
@jd I do wonder to what extent the Silicon Valley engineers and execs truly have some kind of libertarian ideology about free speech and therefore let the Nazis and trolls to participate in the "market of ideas". I can sympathize with the view, and I'm sure some % of #Mastodon users are here for precisely that reason. I'm not around the Federated timeline enough to know about this, are their Mastodon instances that tolerate that kind of behavior from their users?
The way I see it: these web platforms want to be the de-facto place for communication and publication. Since they are aggressively against the state, they see their platforms as an alternative.
Free speech is a matter of state vs its citizens, but if you replace the state (at least in this space), you still have to embody the moral obligations attached to it.
So, because they want to be the be-all-end-all online social space, they feel the moral obligation to defend "free speech".
If you look at non monopolistic topologies, like the fediverse, you don't need to defend "free speech". Because every instance is a space with a smaller perimeter.
Instances can all follow different sets of rules and decide who they federate with or not.
But you don't have to give a platform to nazis.
If you're the only social space available (and they want to be) you will start to question banning nazis because you feel obligated to offer a space to everyone.
pol, social media, nazis Show more
@alxcndr @jd @Brian this implies that not banning overt whites supremacists/nazis is some sort of uncomfortable neutral position that a monopoly must nobly take so as not to abuse their power. But choosing to allow violence on one’s platform is not “offer[ing] a space to everyone”, it’s excluding those with reason to fear that violence, or worse, subjecting them to it. There is no neutral stance, despite tech’s constant rhetoric.
pol, social media, nazis Show more
One of the core aspect of this issue, is the hegemonic nature of these companies. Because so few are deciding for the many, oppression is bound to happen anyway. In the fediverse this is less likely to happen because more people are in power.
But diluting power goes against capitalism. We always come back to it: the problem *is* capitalism (among other things).
@Brian me I think so, there is a report entry in the menu for a toot (the three dots).
You can't know for sure what an admin would do. But many instances are publishing their moderation policy. This is part of the social dynamics, it's not a technical problem per se.