This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Senator Josh Hawley:
Huh? For reference, section 230 is here. In short, section 230 says that companies aren't liable for information posted on their websites by third parties. This means that Google can't be sued for showing ISIS.com on your search results, because ISIS is a third party, and ISIS.com is their content, not Google's. Section 230 doesn't apply to generative AI because generative AI isn't a third party. If Google Gemini replies to your prompt with, "Thank you for joining ISIS. Recommended pipebomb targets in your area are X, Y, and Z," Google can't use section 230 as a defense if Y sues them for being bombed, because Google generated the information.
If I were to steelman Hawley's point, I guess it would be that Google as a company benefits from section 230, and so repealing it would punish them for creating "woke" AI and cut off a source of funds for AI development, but I don't think Hawley's use of the phrase "these AI companies" is easily read as referring to only "AI companies which are bankrolled by social media products."
If you are familiar with simulacrum levels, you may have had a bit of difficulty grokking level 4. I think an intuitive definition of level 4 is, "politician speak that doesn't fit into levels 1, 2, or 3". Which level is the tweet by Hawley on? It's not 1, because it isn't true. It's not really 2, because it's not trying to convince you of a proposition. It's not 3, replace "conservatives" with "liberals" and "Google Gemini" with "𝕏", and it could be from AOC. That leaves 4. It's just word associations. Woke AI is bad. Tech companies make woke AI. Section 230 something something big tech censorship. Put it in a box, shake it up, let the manatees do their thing, post whatever comes out to Twitter.
I do wonder if Section 230 should be amended to something like "If you want the protections of section 230 you must be a 'public square' and you follow nothing stricter than US speech guidelines. If you choose to exercise editorial control, and you are responsible for what your users post".
This is covered partly by @ControlsFreak's post below.
As I see it tech companies kind of want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the protections of a free speech regime that prevents them from getting in trouble. But they also want to control speech for the sake of their brand/ideology.
This is roughly where I land with Section 230. The intention was to allow large tech companies (and small blogs, etc.) to host user comments without taking on liability for hosting illegal or defamatory content. Maybe I'm reading between the lines too much here, but the intent appeared to be to shield companies who had user-generated content from liability for content they didn't control.
As large companies work more and more toward controlling what users can say on their platform, the argument could be made that they are getting closer and close to editors, who choose what content goes in their paper. And if you're picking and choosing who can say what on your platform, and are telling users "you can't say this, it's misinformation", it sounds like editorial activities, and it certainly seems like platforms should have the capability (and as such, the responsibility) to police libelous and other content.
Were I able to dictate my preference to the big tech companies, my idealized solution would be a situation where the tech company itself doesn't police anything stricter than US guidelines, but provide an API for third parties to review and filter posts that users can subscribe to. You want to hide all posts with profanity? Choose that provider. Want to hide all posts with misgendering? There's a filter for that too. But then the user is doing the "editing" rather than the platform.
Yeah, I think part of the issue is that all big tech companies had to develop censorship technologies and capabilities just to comply with copyright laws. So once they had the process in place they thought "why are we just using this for copyright stuff?"
I'm even fine with the companies themselves providing those filters, because I suspect a highly requested filter will be "marketing spam". But it also seems possible that the whole "filters" issue is a self-solving problem with the way some social media properties work. You just follow people you want to hear from, and unfollow them if you don't like what they are saying. And you just don't see things you don't follow. Or shared follow lists become the norm, so instead of companies doing blacklisting of content the individuals are doing mass whitelisting.
This is a good point that I hadn't previously considered. They had a previously designed compliance tool available to them, and in that case, why not use it to make their platform a better and more pleasant place (however they define it)?
If I'm looking to consume or ingest information (or keep up with friends), this is the way to go. The downside for companies is a lack of discoverability, which limits the time you spend on their platform.
I'm sure a large chunk of especially social media company's desire to curate/editorialize user content is a desire to keep users cozy, and incentivize time spent on the platform.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link