Hacker News Reader

You're making a category error. Sprint is a Common Carrier and protected by law as long as they don't meddle with what traverses their equipment nor deny David Duke his phone number.

If FB did retreat to common carrier, they would not be allowed to run ads nor ban accounts. If they became content providers they would incur civil and criminal liability for content posted on their sites, but also have complete control over who is allowed to have an account and who isn't.

It used to be one or the other, but FB et al wanted to have their cake and have it too, and Section 230 of the CDA was created to allow them to straddle this fence. Well, here we are and it turns out that content is a bigger problem than Section 230 was built to deal with.

That's a pretty backwards slippery slope argument. "They wanted all sites in this category removed, cloudflare removed two sites, why aren't they getting any credit?" The answer is obvious and does not require a slope at all, much less a slippery one.

> If you even try, then next thing you know, you’re somehow culpable for everything you didn’t remove, or didn’t remove quickly enough. Then you get accusations of endorsing it, because you removed X but not Y, so you must approve of Y, right?

I've seen a lot of accusations of cloudflare endorsing this kind of content. I haven't seen a single person or place where those accusations got stronger after they went from 0 or 1 sites removed to 2 sites removed.

I dunno, FB does a pretty good job keeping ISIS recruitment and child porn off its products and I don’t see them getting harangued for that.

I see FB, Twitter, and YouTube accused frequently of not doing enough to take down pedophilia.

Lots of American culture skates very close to pedophilia. At the extreme, there's porn that's only legal because the actors are documented adults. But there are also some hugely popular actors and musicians, who leverage child-like sexuality. And then the pervasive style for girls to dress like prostitutes.

And no, I'm not a prude. I just find it amusing. And, I admit, very sexy.

Edit: If I didn't care about this account, I'd link examples. But I do, so I won't.

> Lots of American culture

lots of what porn producers are producing you mean?

'american culture' also stipulates that it is illegal to disseminate pornographic material to minors.. but this is not being enforced at all against the US pornography industry..

-> $$$

From porn producers, yes. And on ~mainstream TV, for example Alessandra Torresani in SyFy's Caprica: https://bestofcomicbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Ales...

Also lots of amateur content.

And just search about preteen fashion.

It's mostly about money, yes.

> lots of amateur content.

this presumes that mass media doesn't have any bearing on the culture it broadcasts to, when in fact, it is a two-way street.. and also that this is a representative sample size.

Of course it's a two-way street.

But the fact remains that "sexy young woman" is a hugely popular theme in US culture. Also in many other cultures. But the US seems particularly schizophrenic about it.

Youthfulness and pedophilia are very different things. I don’t even see a hint of pedophilia in the SyFy image you posted. She looks feminine and young, but not like a child.

what could be more american than selectively enforcing some law in the interest of private actors? :)

Do tell, how do prostitutes dress?

OK, I've led a ~sheltered life, and have no personal experience with prostitutes. Or at least, women who explicitly demanded money for sex. But I have visited Amsterdam's red light district a few times, just to watch. And I've seen lots of prostitutes in movies, for whatever that's worth.

So basically, prostitutes either wear as little as they can get away with. Or they wear costumes that appeal to various fetishes. The French Maid. The Schoolgirl (or Sexy Librarian) with Big Glasses. Here are some (NSFW) stock images:

    https://www.gettyimages.de/fotos/prostitute

Also, a site that's probably OK, albeit way creepy:

    https://www.scarymommy.com/dress-your-daughter-as-a-whore-day/

Edit: I neglected to ask how you think prostitutes dress. Are you arguing that they dress like everyone else?

And perhaps, that it's some flavor of ...ist to even discuss it? I'm aware of that perspective, but I'm too much of a materialist geek to accept it.

I understand most sex work is not streetwalking and I assume they change into whatever when they arrive at wherever they're hired to go. I've also heard that the Amsterdam Red Light District is a costumed tourist trap.

I appreciate that many sex workers don't dress like streetwalkers, or sex hostesses in bars, clubs, etc. I' sure that there are sex workers who dress like most people dress. Whatever the client wants. Escorts, for example.

But still, there is the "streetwalker / sex hostess" style. As you see in Hooters. And it's not at all uncommon to see preteens dressed like that. I gather that it's considered "cute". Also a way for young women to thumb their noses at society. And I can't deny finding it sexy, at least for the older ones. But it's still strange, in a country that's so freaked by pedophilia.

How do you know they are keeping ISIS from recruiting? By ISIS I'm sure you mean al-qaeda because ISIS is a regional terrorist army/group where al-qaeda is a global group who would recruit worldwide.

A lot of terror attacks where perpetrated by people claiming to be from ISIS, even without being from the Iraqi/Syrian region. For example : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISIL-related_terror_attacks_in...

While factually correct it's good to bear in mind that a large part of the 'ISIS' entity is online and not restricted by borders.

Superficial debates. Superficial actions.

People as it is have a Negativity Bias. Facebook/Twitter/Youtube's biggest content producers use it and depend on it, to hit their engagement metrics. Elevating threat perception or a fight response doesn't require censored content. Once you build such a machine that operates at population scale, what does it matter which content is censored?

All the content is fucking everyone in someway everyday. And the effects of that accumulate over time. Just ask your friendly neighborhood shrink whether business is booming.

The problem is that each individual believes they alone have the moral high ground.

CNN, MSNBC, FOX, All Mainstream Media, Alt Media, and independents all play off on a consumers slightly unique belief structure to exploit their emotions, adrenaline and fear.

SV Tech is cutting it's own throat trying to police this content. for better or worse the second they take down one site they are obligated to take down every site or become liable.

Honestly, The arrogance and elite personas of the trust and safety teams in social media is frightening.

Believe me. Matt Price et, al, and every other censor are going to be held accountable for the loss of 230 exemption.

"Where does it end" arguments are the kind of "winning" internet argument I hate seeing [0].

There's a lot to be said to building up your business in an environment that is a liberal democracy with free movement of ideas, commerce, and people. And then protecting those principles from those that hijack such liberties to promote illiberal ideas.

An existing (but old and outdated, badly needing reform) legal construct exists: Title 2 protections (being pipes). Only, no one wants to be Title 2 (not even Verizon, Sprint, Comcast) because all the money is in non-Title 2 (content).

Sounds like you may be interested in Title 1 and 2 overhaul.

[0] (satire) https://cjslep.com/c/blog/winning-internet-arguments

While "slippery slope" / "where does it end" arguments can be used in bad faith and often are not productive regardless of intention, I don't think they are inherently bad. I think the best use of it is to call into question things the original argument thinks is obvious.

Your article's example of using pronouns to show empathy and the saboteur response show this well. It is not clear if Person 1 thinks all people regardless of whether they are a furry, goth, etc are deserving of empathy or whether there is some group of people who don't deserve empathy. I think the position that all people deserve empathy is probably at least a slightly controversial claim, and if only some people deserve it you should provide the reasoning why LGBTQ deserve it.

I don't think Person 1's argument could convince anyone who doesn't already believe either: all people deserve empathy or LGBTQ people deserve empathy. Provide more reasoning to support either of those positions would help convince people to refer to people by their preferred pronouns.

I don't think slippery slopes are productive to constructive discourse at all, and are merely used as a rhetorical device with the goal of invoking Ethos or Pathos to certain demographics. Aka, "virtue signalling".

The "this policy/rule/law (moral or legal) could be applied in a way that I don't like" argument is a tired, boring, uninteresting, and fearful one. It is tautologically true of any policy/rule/law. Better is putting forth an actual argument for an alternative policy/rule/law, whether it's merely a small clarification or a complete systemic overhaul, turning that fear into a constructive argument with actual participation in the matters at hand.

Less fear and signaling, more activism and constructive dialogue without divisive rhetoric.

Edit: if instead the intent of the arguer is to refine something someone else said, just ask! Going back to your example, the (no-longer) sabatuer asking pointedly "Do you think all people deserve empathy, only LGBT (as opposed to flurries and goths), or something else?" is way more productive to directly ask than perform a slippery slope dance. The argument can then be provided without reservation since everyone is being genuine and clear. It might be compelling, it might not. Either way, it'll get made. Rhetoric matters to discourse quality.

So what's your plan then; do nothing?

Is your argument that because Matthew Prince of Cloudflare didn't get more positive reinforcement for dropping 8ch from their service, that means that Facebook shouldn't try and reduce bot traffic?

Because it sure seems like this is the actual crux of your argument, but it makes little sense.

No, it seems to me that commenter is praising Facebook for targeting behavior rather than content.

(Targeting bots is targeting behaviour, not content.)

I don’t know how you parsed what I wrote and ended up at that. I would agree with that not making sense.