Where One Color Ends And Another Begins

Social media companies have found themselves in the awkward position of deciding the extent to which free speech is protected on their platforms. Given the influence of social media in modern society, the extension of this is that these companies are the de facto judges for interpreting this right for people beyond their platform as well. The problem with this is not just that these companies are unqualified to do so, but that even the very best interpretation of those rights, namely free speech, is filled with subjective nuance. The spectrum of expressible ideas comprise a continuum--one end is easily justifiable (e.g. sharing information with others), but the other end criminally dangerous (e.g. threats to harm). Policy necessarily distinguishes where on this spectrum is appropriate to draw the line, though that decision will remain somewhat arbitrary, depending on the whims of the decision-maker. It would be similarly impossible to determine where on a color spectrum to draw the line to distinguish any two colors from each other. It's a lose-lose scenario for social media platforms, where any decision provokes uproar from some part of its user base, but making no decision leaves its users exposed to horrible abuses.



Comments

  1. CotcanNovember 11, 2020 at 7:43 PM

    Reddit is a perfect example of this situation playing out. Reddit has rules that ideally allow for a good back and forth conversation to be had. When one person crosses the line, they can just punish that one user. However when a whole subreddit or community crosses the line, it gets harder to deal with. If Reddit removes them, those who were part of that subreddit will get enraged and feel censored. But if left, it allows them to continue to break the rules. It becomes difficult to know where the line exists to best deal with this situation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownNovember 15, 2020 at 5:49 PM

    I think another problem social media companies have is that they are not transparent with their process. It is hard to fight against claims of offensive material because the companies don't really explain why they block what they block and don't block other things. If they were more transparent about the reasons why then less people would get upset

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Sincerest Form of Flattery

It is absurd that replicating an idea or performance can be litigated against . The rationale for intellectual rights certainly does not hold up universally to reason, indicating it does not succeed in protecting something of inherent value without also producing at least some harm. Suppose that the first person to walk upright had claimed that action to be a novel and creative feat, and forbade anyone to mimic their style--with only the exception of this first-doer , or so-called "artist," the entire human race would be reduced to crawling (assuming  that was not also copyrighted). This imposes severe restrictions on human attainment, and more importantly their wellbeing. The rationale behind intellectual property is that it incentivizes innovation within a capitalist system, to justify the overhead cost in speculative research and development. In truth the necessity for such laws indicates a severe shortcoming of capitalism . The initiative to innovate is not naturally ac...
Read more

How the Sausage Gets Made

Cancel Culture is the manifestation of a revolution currently under way!  Essentially the domination of one sentiment over the other, at large scale and with unsettling instances of collateral damage , it is exactly what one might expect to occur if a social revolution was enabled by modern technology . The digital aspects particular to this  revolution aside, the essence of the phenomenon has analogues in history: during the American Revolution, the sentiment that was silenced was British sympathy-- not all colonials were supportive of the push for independence, and expressing that sentiment exposed oneself to serious harm. For the sake of self-preservation, non-sympathizers find themselves trying to not get trampled. Revolutions are characteristically messy, the very best causes will still make one's stomach churn when looking too closely. Even where a revolution is necessary to right horrendous systemic problems, my heart goes out to the ones so unlucky as to be "tied up ...
Read more

A Petty Problem

One would think that there existed a topic out there in the world which was so inconsequential that people would not even bother expending energy to come to a resolution over it--some disagreement whose subject just plain does not matter . If this were the case, then we could prioritize issues whose resolution makes real improvements to society. Unfortunately even the silliest distinctions seem to provoke heated discussion around them to justify one side and fault the other. The significance of the smallest sentiments is regularly inflated, even to the suggestion that normative ethics could be derived from the smallest issue. For example, elaborate sketches can be designed to denigrate entire generations  over a distinction in just vernacular, as if during this  two minutes, fifty-seven seconds  one imagines that the only thing that mattered in the world was the inflection one used during conversation; and countless programming convention standards will tirelessly war ov...
Read more