SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We recently discussed reddit's woes and the hiring of a new CEO. However, we have seen communities come and go for many years.
Clay Shirky wrote about his experience in 1978: "Communitree was founded on the principles of open access and free dialogue... And then, as time sets in, difficulties emerge. In this case, one of the difficulties was occasioned by the fact that one of the institutions that got hold of some modems was a high school. ... the boys weren't terribly interested in sophisticated adult conversation. They were interested in fart jokes. They were interested in salacious talk. ... the adults who had set up Communitree were horrified, and overrun by these students. The place that was founded on open access had too much open access, too much openness. They couldn't defend themselves against their own users. The place that was founded on free speech had too much freedom."
There are two clear trends. One is that less input and customization tends to grow bigger. Note how Geocities was replaced with Myspace which was then replaced with Facebook and Twitter. These newer systems take away personal freedom of expression and makes people follow a 'prescribed' system, albeit an easier one to use. The other trend is that communities that try to be truly free and open end up either stifled by that openness or give up. The only obvious exception is a platform that allows us to simply filter out everything we don't want to see, which becomes a series of the feared echo chamber. With the excessive amount of data and the build up of complex rules on how information is shared, where does this leave us? It seems that like the famous iron triangle allowing free (and legal) speech with the possibility of diverse opinions, a cohesive group, and growth only allows you to pick two.
It seems to me this is a wicked problem, perhaps unsolvable. But I wonder if the community thinks there are other design options? Is this even possible with human nature as it is?
Original Submission
(Score: 1) by ThePhilips on Monday July 20 2015, @10:05PM
Speech is *technically* an act, but a far different kind of act. Don't conflate that with actions that can cause direct harm. The only thing the speaker can be at fault for is speaking. The people who choose to react to that speech in ways that are directly harmful to others are at fault for their own actions, and the speaker had no part in that.
If you really think like that, then either you are shut-in or kindergartner. Anybody who spent at least 20+ years living among people can't be that blind and naive.
The mass media industry became such huge business solely because words do move people. Everybody jumped to capitalize on that. Otherwise, advertisement wouldn't have worked. Yet, it does very very well. Ditto religion. Their existence is simple undeniable proof of that fact.
Many of our human traditions are pathetic, unprincipled, authoritarian, and illogical. Including this one.
And yet, our human civilization keeps churning on and expanding, for millennia now, despite.
Or rather thanks to those people who took on the responsibility, said the words and led the people.
The whole of history is basically about the people who incited others - most of the time with only words - to actions. That's why we have communities, societies, nations, countries and states, all of which almost universally have a leader. A leader, whose sole purpose to guide the people with the words. (Take the USA constitution - made solely of words - as an example.)
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday July 20 2015, @11:36PM
If you really think like that, then either you are shut-in or kindergartner. Anybody who spent at least 20+ years living among people can't be that blind and naive.
Not blind or naive, just more logical.
The mass media industry became such huge business solely because words do move people.
It seems you're missing the point. Whether or not they "move people" is utterly inconsequential; if people choose to react to words in a certain way, that's their doing.
And yet, our human civilization keeps churning on and expanding, for millennia now, despite.
That something did not kill us does not mean that it's not detrimental. It could be that it simply isn't so detrimental that it won't cause our demise.
Or rather thanks to those people who took on the responsibility, said the words and led the people.
If no one did helpful things in response to what those leaders said, they wouldn't have been very effective. It's a collective effort; you can't give all the credit to public figures.
You're just missing the point about speech entirely. Inciting others doesn't have a direct effect; that is indirect. Furthermore, people choose to respond to your speech. I simply put forth the amazing idea that you're responsible for your own actions.
(Score: 1) by ThePhilips on Monday July 20 2015, @11:55PM
You're just missing the point about speech entirely. Inciting others doesn't have a direct effect; that is indirect.
You are missing the point entirely.
Direct or indirect, speech has the effect. That's established fact which even you do not try to demagogue away.
And since there is an effect (which is common knowledge, parents teach kids not to say bad words - the start of the end of the free speech in the humans) then there is the responsibility.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:44AM
Direct or indirect, speech has the effect.
People have the effect. Speech shouldn't be outlawed because that is utterly nonsensical; speech cannot directly harm. Punish those who choose to take actions that are directly harmful.
You think I'm missing the point, but you're missing the point about what I am arguing. I decide what matters to me, not you. The fact that some people might listen to someone else's speech is not what is being argued about, and is irrelevant to me.
And since there is an effect (which is common knowledge, parents teach kids not to say bad words - the start of the end of the free speech in the humans) then there is the responsibility.
No! The speech did not force them to do anything, so it is nonsensical to punish the speaker for someone else's actions. All they did was say words that other people could ignore or respond to (in positive or negative ways).
Also, the concept of "bad words" is just absurd; there is no such thing as a "bad word". There are only words that some people arbitrarily deem to be bad, but it is subjective in the end. I could just as easily decide that any random word is 'bad', and it would be no less arbitrary. I am not offended by any so-called "bad word" in existence. And "bad words" are not outright banned, so "free speech" does not end there.
You're likely not going to get anywhere with these arguments; I've heard them a million times.
(Score: 1) by ThePhilips on Tuesday July 21 2015, @07:43AM
The speech did not force them to do anything
The existence of NLP, [wikipedia.org]hypnosis and [wikipedia.org]suggestion [wikipedia.org] all are factual evidence of precisely the opposite.
You're likely not going to get anywhere with these arguments; I've heard them a million times.
Those are not arguments. Those are fucking facts.
Your blind rejection of everyday facts is not an argument. It is just that: blindness and naivety.
the concept of "bad words" is just absurd; there is no such thing as a "bad word".
You are a retarded moron. I think I have just complimented you.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday July 21 2015, @03:03PM
The existence of NLP, hypnosis and suggestion all are factual evidence of precisely the opposite.
Putting my objections with the social 'sciences' aside, whether unconscious events happen or not, speech is not a magical force that forces others to do its bidding. Whether you're in complete control of yourself or not is irrelevant. The only way you could convince me of what you're claiming is if you could show that the speech itself was a physical entity that took control of someone else's body in a physical manner and forced them to do something. Good luck with that. But you don't understand my arguments in the first place, so you have clue why I'm objecting to what you're saying, and nor do you seem to care.
Those are not arguments. Those are fucking facts.
You are factually incorrect.
You are a retarded moron. I think I have just complimented you.
And you're an authoritarian scumbag who thinks that 'safety' is more important than our fundamental liberties.
Not sure why you replied in that way to that specific part of my post. I was replying to this: "(which is common knowledge, parents teach kids not to say bad words - the start of the end of the free speech in the humans)". Pointing out that there is no such thing as a word that is objectively bad is a perfectly valid reply.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday July 21 2015, @03:07PM
So, in conclusion: Everything I've said is a fact.
Your blind rejection of everyday facts is not an argument. It is just that: blindness and naivety.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday July 21 2015, @03:15PM
But if you think that there is such a thing as an objectively 'bad' word, then you're engaging in magical thinking. You might as well believe in a deity.
(Score: 1) by ThePhilips on Tuesday July 21 2015, @04:15PM
[...] speech is not a magical force that forces others to do its bidding.
Absolutely correct. I have even posted links to the scientifically proven methods to manipulate others with words.
But you do not seem to believe in science and facts. Ah, well.
P.S.
Not sure why you replied in that way to that specific part of my post.
I was exercising my right to free speech while bearing no responsibility whatsoever, you dumb twat. Despite being a stupid moron, you've been a good teacher to me. I'm joining your ranks of the mentally retarded anarchists! You have won the argument!! Congratulations! Collect your internet points at the closest exit from this planet.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday July 21 2015, @05:55PM
You've made it clear that you have absolutely no idea what you're actually arguing against. I'd rather not argue with your straw men.
(Score: 1) by ThePhilips on Tuesday July 21 2015, @06:25PM
Facts are straw men?... *Face palm*
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday July 21 2015, @06:59PM
No, you're arguing against points I'm not even making and claiming I support certain things I do not support. Straw men.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @12:48PM
The speech did not force them to do anything
The existence of NLP, hypnosis and suggestion [wikipedia.org] all are factual evidence of precisely the opposite.
Seriously?
None of the above are anywhere close to yielding guaranteed action, at best they set up default impulses
In a sentient being there's still a decision point between impulse and action (that's the critical property that what makes you sentient IMHO), irregardless of whether that impulse originated in emotion, instinct, subconscious mind, pavlovian reflex, cultural prejudice or training .
Making use of that decision point is a skill called 'impulse control' by psychology, in philosophy it's called 'free will'
It most definately falls fully under the responsibility of the person that _chooses_ if and how to act on the impulse.
The fact that we have whole sections of society (such as marketing) trying to discourage the successful use of the 'impulse control'-skill does that change the basic reality.