Submitted by SpinRed t3_10b2ldp in singularity
AdminsBurnInAFire t1_j4affd7 wrote
Reply to comment by Cryptizard in Don't add "moral bloatware" to GPT-4. by SpinRed
There’s nothing wrong with supporting free speech.
Idrialite t1_j4dif3i wrote
Should I be able to comment slurs at you, right now, with no consequences? Should I be entitled to Reddit continuing to host my comments if I were to start posting hate speech all over the website? What if I were to organize harassment, encourage suicide on the platform?
All platforms need limits on free speech to keep the space tolerable. And further, there's a moral duty to not host harmful content.
AdminsBurnInAFire t1_j4dj160 wrote
What do you define as harmful? Do you realise how subjective a standard there is? And don’t ask rhetorical questions if you might not like their answers - I am fully in support of you typing whatever you want at me, including slurs without consequences.
Do you realise that there is no moral duty to engender an AI with the cultural and social sensitivities of today, forever. Do you realise how horrifying an idea that is, a stagnant thought-policer without the ability to adapt?
Idrialite t1_j4dl4yf wrote
>What do you define as harmful? Do you realise how subjective a standard there is?
The fact that there are ambiguous cases doesn't mean you can't construct good terms of service. No one will ever be fully satisfied by the rules, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.
Examples of harmful behavior that should definitely be banned were mentioned in my first comment. Kiwi Farms, for example, was a source of organized harassment of trans people in real life. Google shouldn't allow easy access to the site.
>Do you realise that there is no moral duty to engender an AI with the cultural and social sensitivities of today, forever. Do you realise how horrifying an idea that is, a stagnant thought-policer without the ability to adapt?
Please quote where I said that AI should forever be constrained by all and only today's social values.
AdminsBurnInAFire t1_j4dna5g wrote
> Kiwi Farms, for example, was a source of organized harassment of trans people in real life. Google shouldn't allow easy access to the site.
Complete and utter bullshit. If you are casual about your anonymity on the Internet, you cannot call it harassment when your life is discussed on the same platform you were publicly sharing it on. There is far, far more “harassment” on Twitter daily than there is on KF.
Somehow the Internet ran fine in the decades before the days of ubiquitous online censorship by Big Tech no matter how boggling that seems to your mind. We didn’t need Daddy Google to censor site links because they might hurt precious feelings.
Idrialite t1_j4doyo2 wrote
>Complete and utter bullshit. If you...
You're being too vague. Do you think I'm referring to insulting people online as harassment?
No, people organized serious harassment campaigns on Kiwi Farms, often with the intention to drive people to suicide. This included forms of irl harassment like: swatting, doxing, identity theft, and more. None of this is allowed on Twitter and will get you banned and your messages deleted, as it should be.
>Somehow the Internet ran fine...
I don't know how to respond to this. It's too vague and unsubstantiated. I'm sure the internet "ran fine", but that doesn't mean I'd be ok with hate speech and harassment campaigns being hosted on popular platforms.
AdminsBurnInAFire t1_j4dprrx wrote
> No, people organized serious harassment campaigns on Kiwi Farms, often with the intention to drive people to suicide. This included forms of irl harassment like: swatting, doxing, identity theft, and more.
This is simply untrue and you’re relying on the fact that few people know how to access the site and check if your allegations are true. Either that, or you uncritically swallowed the hyperbolic accusations when in reality, the site was moderated heavily for all of those activities (except doxxing, which is not IRL harassment. You do not have a right to privacy on the Internet). There were rare, separate occasions, not at all unusual in such a large social media site, where users broke the rules and were swiftly banned but screenshots were taken the instant calls for IRL harassment were made and a campaign to slander and destroy the website was formed.
Idrialite t1_j4ds3zi wrote
I'll concede that I don't know how tolerated irl action was on the site.
I'm still completely fine with Google preventing the site from showing up in results due to its content. The government shouldn't stop the site from existing, but Google is well within its rights, and is doing the right thing, by not providing easy access to it.
Transphobia (and other hate speech) is bad. Spreading it is bad, platforming it is bad.
AdminsBurnInAFire t1_j4dt6x3 wrote
I fundamentally do not agree with a search provider not showing a website because of political views. But that's Google's prerogative, their business, their rules. I'll just not use Google, there's plenty of search engines out there.
Cryptizard t1_j4aouam wrote
Lol what a clown. I bet you wouldn’t have that opinion if you were on the receiving end of their harassment, which is not protected speech anyway.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments