text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
All of this fills a crucial analytic gap in opening government's case. Why, if this policy is as legitimately controversial as opening opposition says, will people not leave in mass? This is the reason why boycotts are unlikely and hence why this policy has the potential for efficacy, which is a needed mechanism for op... |
Two extensions then at closing government. First, by promoting progressive content, it is not just justified per OG but an active moral necessity. And secondly, on how we facilitate political de-radicalization and limit the worst harms that come from violence and racism on social media. |
First extension on the principle. Opening opposition is right; social media companies have no legitimate claim to prioritize one ideology over the other. That is a sufficient response to opening government's claim that you couldn't have consented to right-wing values and that right-wing media is dominant in the status ... |
Historically, and even in the present, despite what crazies on the right like DeSantis will tell you, social media companies legitimately have played a major role in enabling conservative indoctrination in right-wing echo chambers and favoring right-wing perspectives often at the expense of the left. There are three re... |
The first is that algorithmic systems on social media pigeonhole otherwise center-conservative individuals into outright right-wing echo chambers. The reason why is that algorithms work on the basis of prediction. They assume that the next best thing you want to see is that which you've seen in the past, and hence peop... |
That flips opening opposition's principle by demonstrating that moderate right-wingers are often unfairly echo-chambered and pigeonholed into the craziest right-wing views without their consent. This policy is a counterbalancing force against that. |
Secondly, right-wing media has historically been far more dominant on social media than the left. Why is that? The right wing historically has been far wealthier. It is connected to established and traditional institutions, which has often meant they have the money to do things like engage in extensive political advert... |
And the right wing, on average, tends to be more willing to promote the sensationalist content that gets clicks on social media because it is right-wing media like Fox or Breitbart that is willing to ask you to disregard the conventional principles of ethical journalism to get clicks. |
In an increasing era of global liberalization, the tactics used by right-wing media have become increasingly unfair to get more people to listen to their stories and watch their news media on social media. That's why, in many cases, right-wing social media or right-wing media platforms are the most likely to do things ... |
It's also intuitively because historically right-wing media has been highly present on social media companies' platforms. The problem is that right-wing media often then has a chilling effect on minority speech because when there is a news article that is harshly xenophobic or has Islamophobic undertones or tacitly sug... |
And the discourse promoted by those sorts of news stories often makes people feel unsafe. The ultimate duty of social media is to promote discourse, to enable conversation, to facilitate social connections. They are the open marketplace of the 21st century, and that principal duty is violated when right-wing media domi... |
Look, DeSantis would tell you this argument is crazy; in the real world, it's not. We agree with opening opposition that social media companies ought not prioritize some sets of ideologies over others. This policy then is corrective for the historical favoritism displayed towards right-wing media, outweighing OG by pro... |
This is also independent of efficacy; even if people do not become progressive, there is still a moral duty to expose people to these ideas. Second extension: promoting progressive content reduces radicalization. Before that, |
<poi> |
everyone recognizes that artificially inflating conservative content is morally bad for the reasons we gave. Surely the alternative is reform, e.g., post-Cambridge Analytica investigations—not to do more of the same and double down on the principal home. |
</poi> |
No, our claim is not that social media companies actively promote right-wing media; it's that the nature of right-wing media, the tactics it uses, and the finances it has access to artificially favors right-wing media in social media network feeds. Reform is unlikely. Cambridge Analytica was a data scandal not really a... |
Second extension: let's talk about political radicalization. The first tier to this argument is that social media feeds tend towards radicalization. That is intuitively because algorithms reinforce your present political biases and hence make you become more radical over time. This is not about politics, to be clear; t... |
For example, are you willing to engage in racialized violence against the Rohingya minority in Myanmar, which has historically been demonized by hate speech on Facebook? News feeds are particularly important because people often see the headline and scroll away, making broad sweeping conclusions about the world based u... |
This media often plays into your fear. It taps into sensationalist media incentives to make people scared that the local immigrant community is racist and drug dealers. Content moderation simply cannot work, and the major reason why is that in developing countries, there is simply a socio-cultural and linguistic barrie... |
There are literally 12 people in the entirety of Meta that are fluent in the major languages spoken in Burma, and hence that is why the content produced in areas like the Tigran province of Ethiopia or Burma takes literally weeks to get taken down. Because there are cultural barriers, and the profit incentive of social... |
On our policy is a better substitute for ineffective content moderation because you've exposed people to alternative ideologies. Unlike OG, we don't require you to become progressive; we just need to shatter the idea that the only legitimate beliefs are those shown to you on extremist right-wing media, which become mor... |
</mg> |
<mo> |
Amazing, Cool. Just a moment. Okay, I'll be starting my speech in three, two, one. Not only the scientists would say the government's case is crazy; I say the same thing. The first thing I'm going to do is prove why the government bench cannot make the claim that progressivism is a good thing. Opening opposition only s... |
Two levels here: Firstly, on utility, which is the metric coming from opening government. Know that utility is a human concept, which is to say outside of human, as far as utility is perceived. This means it doesn't exist outside of perception through the lens of subjectivity. On a new intuition level, I can be very ri... |
This means two implications for the government bench: Firstly, they don't increase utility, which is to say therefore that they don't fulfill their metric; but secondly, they arbitrarily preference one set of beliefs over another. This is morally unjust without the knowledge based on which you would do that. But second... |
This means fundamentally that the government bench is basing the right of social media to arbitrarily preference one set of content on a moral and intuitive hunch. Insofar as they base their case on utility, I don't care that the right-wing media is currently dominating the world and stuff like this. But CG does someth... |
Secondly, they also concede that the point of social media is about discourse. In support of this, it is literally replacing one type of content with another type of content. They are not engendering discourse, so they’re directly not achieving their metric. But thirdly, because I thought of another one, even if there ... |
What are the moral evils that are being made by the side of government on both sides? Firstly, denial of information. Not that people believe in different political truths, and they vote and act to realize the world as close to those political truths. In doing that, information is key. The more arguments, the more stat... |
But even if people don't even access this information or don't even try to access it, its very existence is an inherent moral good because it implies the existence of a tool that people may use if they want to achieve the subjective utility that government talks about. Even if there is no practical delta, this motion d... |
Secondly, it implies the denial of the right to expression. Know that nobody has full access to the repository of your emotions, thoughts, etc. Therefore, the only thing people interact with is the image you project outwardly. Insofar as I'm now denied, as a right-wing person, the capacity to speak to others, I am deni... |
On the nuance level, not my earlier comparison as to why current algorithms don't prevent this to a certain extent, also governments talk about, you know, right-wing stuff and how this is not left-wing biased today proves that. But thirdly, as far as there is no objective truth, persuasion is morally legitimate and the... |
So even if the delta is small, it is still a moral evil. The way this weighs up is, first of all, it's true regardless of backlash. Secondly, even if people become more right-wing or don't become more right-wing, we don't care; we prove it's a moral evil. But thirdly, the principle from opening opposition is, "Ah, peop... |
I've also engaged on the practicalities, but before I do that, I'll take open governments |
<poi> |
On both sides. There are echo chambers, so your comparative isn't multiple nuanced viewpoints for the sake of engagement; it's likely another echo chamber that is just not progressing. |
</poi> |
One, I gave you nuance already. Secondly, I've already told you that one moral evil doesn't nullify another; it doesn't rectify other moral evils. |
Now, on efficiency, opening opposition is correct to already point out that there is a large interest, and the margin is that the right wing can now say there is a conspiracy because this is what they've done. But what is the actual comparative? People might stay on Facebook. I'm not saying they're going to stop using ... |
On Facebook, if you're a Trump person, you are in an echo chamber, and you will interact with strong particles, but you're less likely to interact with Qanoon because there are fact-checkers, EU regulations, and civic integrity groups that |
Reduce, the reach of that content and remove that content. So the worst excess is there's a difference between whether you believe Trump should win or whether you should storm the Capital; whether there is reverse racism or whether it requires vigilante action against black people. The worst excesses of hate speech, th... |
</mo> |
<gw> |
POI's in the chat exclusively, please. Just give me one second. Let me turn on the light. I want to start with odd extension and how it compares to OG. The first reason we beat OG is because we prove that people who are centered right actually stay in these platforms, which is the contingency for OG to get any of their... |
Second, OG says they are addicted, but they give you no reason why alternate social media platforms are any less addictive. So at the end of OG, we lack a mechanism for why people stay in these platforms, which is the contingency to their case. Ryan gives you this mechanization that Tim ignores when he makes his final ... |
Second, in most countries, this is literally infeasible because big social media companies established an early presence on the Internet. They were often the first investors because they got massive user bases that way. So Facebook with Internet.org, for example, or Reliance Jio pumping up big social media companies an... |
The second pathway that we give you is about fighting violence and extremism, and this is critical because all of closing opposition's claims about identity exploration depend on you living in the first place. Violence is a fundamental attack on who you are as a person and on your identity. We show that violence reduce... |
The implication is social media algorithms often implicitly overweight right-wing content that gets a lot more engagement, and center-right people therefore move to substantially more extreme rhetoric. But beyond just right-wing content, it's often the case that people go from majorities with privileged networks doing ... |
Why do we solve this problem? We are not contingent on convincing people to change their minds. We solve this problem by taking space away from the echo chamber because the central right people who are most susceptible to having their minds changed get less exposure to these ideas if we overweight progressive content i... |
The key point is they have more donors because they benefit from the traditionalist setup, which is what conservatism is. Progressivism is about changing the established status quo, and therefore people who are progressive often benefit less from the established status quo. What that means is all the claims about the l... |
Now I want to comprehensively engage off-bench and explain why they lose independent of our extension. First, closing opposition—they say the more arguments you interact with, the better you cross-reference beliefs. Problem one: social media is a substantial echo chamber due to the constant recommendation of algorithms... |
<poi> |
Moving on to Truth Social was only one of our harms. We proved more generally that this will lead to centrists immediately discrediting progressive content because they see it as lies... |
</poi> |
I'll respond that I'll respond that let me just finish Closing opposition—so closing opposition's other claims that right to free expression, that people can only access one image; you're not denied a right to free expression because you still, as a right-wing person, have more of a platform. If you're privileged, you ... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.