this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
346 points (95.1% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3223 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

IDK, I think it can be an effective tool against trolls because it wastes the time they'd otherwise spend harassing people.

But that's not what RFK is, he's a legitimate candidate for president and should be given the same consideration other candidates are, not shadowbanned because someone doesn't like his message.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Nothing legit about him. He has no chance.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

He's legit in that his campaign went through the process to get on the ballot in certain states. That has nothing to do with his chances.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

I suppose in a strict legal sense, fuck him though.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

That's fine. But he shouldn't be silenced. If he gets some traction, debate him to show voters what's wrong with his ideas, that really shouldn't be hard.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Takes time and money to explain the truth. Lying is free.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Would you really argue that he's been silenced as we sit here discussing him in the comments for an article written about him?

I don't know, I guess we'll need to see how the lawsuit turns out. I'm sure RFK Jr. will bring some evidence that'll help us understand what Meta may or may not have done.

[–] baggachipz@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Ah yes because debating Trump exposes him to people so well

I'd love to see Trump and RFK Jr. debate. Two old nutjobs duking it out, with Biden just sitting back eating popcorn.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Effectiveness is irrelevant here. Breaking troll's kneecaps would be very effective too.

This mental manipulation and gaslighting has no place in our society. We're literally suffering the consequences of this right now.

[–] kn98@feddit.nl 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Could you name an example of those consequences?

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The rise of alt-right and conspiracies would be a one obvious one.

[–] kn98@feddit.nl 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

But how is that a consequence of shadowbanning?

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You don't see how opaque manipulation fuels conspiracies and paranoia? Come on dude.

[–] kn98@feddit.nl 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It seems to me that’s it’s often the conspiracy-theorists that get shadowbanned.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You have real stats to back that claim? Because leaving this up to benevolent dictators is kinda silly.

[–] kn98@feddit.nl 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

No stats at all, I just got that impression. It’s silly, but it’s often argued that social media are private platforms, that can decide themselves what content they allow. Do you suggest laws against shadowbanning should be a thing? I’m not sure that’s a good idea.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's unrelated to the current topic but yes. Terms of service should be both ways. We already do that for user data through GDPR and similar laws and inevitably all users will have more rights including right to transparency.

I find it kinda funny that you argue against this on a platform that was founded because reddit was extremely opaque. We even have a transparent mod log here. So you really need more examples that transparency is good?

[–] VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Nestle is a private company and buying up everyone's water to sell back to them is their choice

Private companies shouldn't get to do whatever they like.

I agree shadow banning should be illegal, along with various other policies which can cause psychological and material damage.

[–] Jestzer@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So, you’re suggesting that shadow banning has caused the rise of the alt-right and their conspiracy theories, which implies that they wouldn’t exist without shadow bans.

Or they already exist and are in such a fragile state that even an explicit ban makes them upset (which it does.)

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I never said it was a singular cause just a contributor

[–] Jestzer@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Again, if you’re already that far down the rabbit hole, anything that tells you, “No, you’re wrong” is going to upset you. That includes a shadow ban, explicit ban, or somebody just telling you that you’re wrong.

If you think I’m wrong and you think shadow bans especially push people towards being alt-right and believing conspiracy theories, then I’d love to see a study that says so because that’s what would likely convince me.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Nah man it's completely different when society regulates itself through transparent rules vs opaque ones. It's more organized and self balancing.

[–] VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

It will but a shadow ban plays perfectly into their conspiratorial victim complex

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Like any tool, it's bad when used improperly. Shadowbanning should be used to waste trolls' time; it's especially effective for cheaters in MMOs (lump the cheaters together so they don't bother anyone). Shadowbanning shouldn't be used to control the discussion, like silencing an unpopular or undesirable (to the platform) individual.

I think we're doing too much of the latter, but that doesn't mean shadowbanning as a tool is morally bankrupt.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

It's definitely morally bankrupt imo and we can agree to disagree here as I don't think this topic can be expanded further.