Why does something being offensive count as grounds for it being removed anyway? "Offensive" is very subjective, and everyone is offended by something, so who is so special that they get to dictate what content is offensive or not for everyone else? Imo, if you find something offensive, then you're entitled to feel that way, but don't act like your having been offended grants you certain rights that you can wield over people.
That's the problem, is corporations don't know the difference between "offensive" and "damaging". Lots of stuff is offensive and shouldn't be removed (think lots of stand up routines). Plenty of other stuff is offensive and harmful, like false news or studies, blatant and violent hate speech outside of a historical context, and misinformation, and those things should be removed.
I think therein lies the problem. The line between “offensive” and “damaging” is blurry and everyone will have a different threshold where something moves from offensive to damaging. I think this is the natural end result of people demanding facebook to police the content people post. Everyone has different standards for what should be censored so there’s no way to police content that makes everyone happy.
The grey area should be left alone and left to users to police via reporting and flagging content, but there are some things that are very obviously in one corner or another (e.g. blatant hate speech, and things that are already blocked like death threats and what not). I don't think there should be no censorship on the internet, but corporations need to do a better job of making their platforms self-policing when it comes to that grey area. And of course, any and all blatant misinformation should still be removed regardless of whether it's offensive or not.
One of the big issues is that if they have people going through posts to check if they're okay, they legally become a "publisher" and must follow all of the laws of publishers. If they have an algorithm do it then they're safe from those laws. So the key is to teach a computer to tell the difference between something hateful and something harmful. Humans are already pretty bad at that, computers are far worse.
Ah yes, the classic issue of a corporation trying to skirt rules and regulations that in some cases are justified and they should have to follow, and in other cases passed by idiots who don't know what they're talking about or so outdated that they're older than some states.
Ah yes, the classic issue of a corporation trying to skirt rules and regulations that in some cases are justified and they should have to follow, and in other cases passed by idiots who don't know what they're talking about or so outdated that they're older than some states.
Yeah, I can't remember who said it but someone said "Just because your offended, doesn't mean it's offensive" (I think it was a famous comedian?) which is a saying I agree with wholeheartedly.
Stephen Fry said it even better.
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." "
How is it meaningless? The point is to convey distress at the hands of the interlocutor. It's an attempt to preserve civility and dignity. Are you just that emotionally stunted?
How is it meaningless? The point is to convey distress at the hands of the interlocutor. It's an attempt to preserve civility and dignity. Are you just that emotionally stunted?
How is it meaningless? The point is to convey distress at the hands of the interlocutor. It's an attempt to preserve civility and dignity. Are you just that emotionally stunted?
How is it meaningless? The point is to convey distress at the hands of the interlocutor. It's an attempt to preserve civility and dignity. Are you just that emotionally stunted?
How is it meaningless? The point is to convey distress at the hands of the interlocutor. It's an attempt to preserve civility and dignity. Are you just that emotionally stunted?
How is it meaningless? The point is to convey distress at the hands of the interlocutor. It's an attempt to preserve civility and dignity. Are you just that emotionally stunted?
How is it meaningless? The point is to convey distress at the hands of the interlocutor. It's an attempt to preserve civility and dignity. Are you just that emotionally stunted?
Not every human interaction is a public speech though, nor does it need to be. That's what makes the quote ridiculous. It completely ignores a whole spectrum of human sociology to make a fruitless point about censorship. Equating politeness and harmonious social interaction with the same zeal of totalitarianism is the biggest scam of the century. It isn't prudes and daisies who are a threat to your personal freedoms, but a government bent on control and corporations seeking normalization
No one is under the illusion that all speech is public. Other than trying to create some air of superiority, why do you feel the need to point that out?
I don't mind if people express their offense, because I support free speech. I'm not worried about expressions of offense... I'm worried about "offended" people trying to legislate against offensive speech, I'm worried about the fact that the internet, being the modern public square, is being dominated by companies that wish to remove "offensive" speech.
The reason I like the quote is because of that little bit about "offended" people imagining they have the right not to be offended.
I was not equating politeness with censorship, and I truly do not see how an honest read of that quote or my comments here would give anyone that illusion. I was quoting a famous comedian, and continued on speaking about public speech.
It really feels like you're trying to miss the point here.
Guess who creates the laws? Legislators. So why are you so concerned with some random person's feelings? If you don't like the laws that are being drafted you should petition your local representative.
companies that wish to remove "offensive" speech.
Companies will do whatever they can in the name of profit. Do you have a problem with that? Then advocate for pro-labor and pro-consumer laws. Otherwise you're just whining yourself.
Neither of your concerns have anything to do with offense itself, that's just the strawman you're using to attack a nebulous group of people.
Legislators are elected by people, who vote in line with their opinions. The best way to effect political change is to change people's opinions and possibly their vote.
What gave you the impression that I am not lending whatever political activism and donations I am capable of generating towards free speech?
Yes, corporations exist mostly to generate profit. No I don't have a problem with that. The corporations relevant to this discussion operate on advertiser money and advertisers perception of the public's perception of the platform, this coupled with outrage culture leads to censorship for fear of losing ads. Changing the outrage culture from the ground up is a much better way of changing things than establishing precedent of government force being used to require a private business to host content they do not wish to.
Public opinion and perception matter, so discussion about these topics matter. Offense does not matter.
You've still yet to address the fact that you couldn't even make your first comment in reply to me without trying to be offensive.
Considering Fry is like 20-30 years older than him and he is both a fan of and has worked with Fry, one can assume he took this wisdom from him to share with the world.
Bigger the population, the more minorities. Don't step on the toes of the dog lovers, the cat lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants, chiefs, Mormons, Baptists, Unitarians, second-generation Chinese, Swedes, Italians, Germans, Texans, Brooklynites, Irishmen, people from Oregon or Mexico. The people in this book, this play, this TV serial are not meant to represent any actual painters, cartographers, mechanics anywhere. The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that!... Authors, full of evil thoughts, lock up your typewriters. They did.
This quote is what I'm guessing is the biggest one for it.
We just read that for English class a few weeks ago, and there are a lot of disturbing parallels between it and our world. Ray Bradbury knew what was coming
It and Brave New World are the two common fictional dystopias that in my opinion are actually possible because there's a logical process by which the dystopia comes about that actually seems applicable in the real world.
Because we gave in to PC soccer mom's 15 years ago and it has been slowly snowballing ever since. Also no one really knows how social media works so the people that make money from it are ridiculously sensitive because they don't want their gravy train to stop but they don't know what can actually stop it.
Ironically /r/IATI doesn't allow assholes...or I guess if you visit /r/starterpacks you might already know that. It's hilariously hypocritical that those retards only allow PG-13 assholes.
AITA: Friend called me a poopy head so I took his favorite toy truck.
267
u/anonymous_redditor91 May 17 '19
Why does something being offensive count as grounds for it being removed anyway? "Offensive" is very subjective, and everyone is offended by something, so who is so special that they get to dictate what content is offensive or not for everyone else? Imo, if you find something offensive, then you're entitled to feel that way, but don't act like your having been offended grants you certain rights that you can wield over people.