Online hate speech could be contained like a computer virus, say researchers(cam.ac.uk)
cam.ac.uk
Online hate speech could be contained like a computer virus, say researchers
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/online-hate-speech-could-be-contained-like-a-computer-virus-say-researchers
15 comments
> it is startling that we allow ourselves to force information into each others minds, but we don't allow ourselves to shove food into each others mouths, without permission!
I'm sorry, this whole concept irks me in a "not even wrong" way. It's difficult to even begin to explain how wrong I feel this sentiment is. Let me try.
First, it makes no sense to draw an equivalence between taking in information and physically assaulting someone with food. Eating is an active thing. It's something you do. You can be in the same room as a piece of cake and not eat it. You can't choose not to sense something. There is not even an option to consent to communication with someone. If you're near someone and they talk, they've communicated with you, whether you wanted them to or not. (Assuming you speak the same language).
It's the natural state of a person (all living organisms, actually) to be passively receiving as much information as possible all the time. This is because survival is dependent on being as aware as possible of your surroundings so you can detect both threats and opportunities.
Deliberately choosing to limit the type of information you're able to perceive makes as little sense to me as deliberately trying to reduce the number of colors you can see. Or making it so you can feel only pleasure but not pain. There are people who can't feel pain, it's a debilitating disorder that makes it very difficult to navigate the world.
We need to be exposed to uncomfortable ideas just as much as we need to be able to feel pain. Removing any information you "don't like" from your awareness would be about as healthy for your mind as eating only cake and potato chips would be for your body.
I'm sorry, this whole concept irks me in a "not even wrong" way. It's difficult to even begin to explain how wrong I feel this sentiment is. Let me try.
First, it makes no sense to draw an equivalence between taking in information and physically assaulting someone with food. Eating is an active thing. It's something you do. You can be in the same room as a piece of cake and not eat it. You can't choose not to sense something. There is not even an option to consent to communication with someone. If you're near someone and they talk, they've communicated with you, whether you wanted them to or not. (Assuming you speak the same language).
It's the natural state of a person (all living organisms, actually) to be passively receiving as much information as possible all the time. This is because survival is dependent on being as aware as possible of your surroundings so you can detect both threats and opportunities.
Deliberately choosing to limit the type of information you're able to perceive makes as little sense to me as deliberately trying to reduce the number of colors you can see. Or making it so you can feel only pleasure but not pain. There are people who can't feel pain, it's a debilitating disorder that makes it very difficult to navigate the world.
We need to be exposed to uncomfortable ideas just as much as we need to be able to feel pain. Removing any information you "don't like" from your awareness would be about as healthy for your mind as eating only cake and potato chips would be for your body.
So you don't have a spam filter on your email?
What's being proposed is more like that episode of Black Mirror where the mother gets her daughter a brain implant that makes her unable to perceive anything "objectionable" (anything that raises heart rate or upsets her in any way).
Spam/Not Spam is a very limited category to filter. "Things I Like / Things I Don't Like" is very different. Sometimes you need to know about things you don't like.
Suppose everyone who doesn't want to act on climate change just filters out any information related to climate change. Do you think that is helpful for the world?
Spam/Not Spam is a very limited category to filter. "Things I Like / Things I Don't Like" is very different. Sometimes you need to know about things you don't like.
Suppose everyone who doesn't want to act on climate change just filters out any information related to climate change. Do you think that is helpful for the world?
> Suppose everyone who doesn't want to act on climate change just filters out any information related to climate change. Do you think that is helpful for the world?
If they've already made the conscious decision to filter out that information, forcefully shoving it down their throat isn't going to change their mind, and may even reinforce their beliefs.
If they've already made the conscious decision to filter out that information, forcefully shoving it down their throat isn't going to change their mind, and may even reinforce their beliefs.
But existing in a bubble where the only information they get is "Everything is fine, climate change is a hoax" ... is going to change their beliefs? How?
The mere existence of information within your realm of perception doesn't mean it's "shoved down your throat". That is an unnecessarily hostile view to have towards information. I assume you're in a room somewhere with some objects around you. Maybe there's a painting on the wall. Is the painting being shoved down your throat or is it just a thing that you might notice that happens to exist?
Yes, there are definitely ways of presenting information that are counter-productive to changing people's minds, but quarantining them off from information doesn't seem likely to do any better. People can learn and grow and change their views, but they need access to information to do it.
The mere existence of information within your realm of perception doesn't mean it's "shoved down your throat". That is an unnecessarily hostile view to have towards information. I assume you're in a room somewhere with some objects around you. Maybe there's a painting on the wall. Is the painting being shoved down your throat or is it just a thing that you might notice that happens to exist?
Yes, there are definitely ways of presenting information that are counter-productive to changing people's minds, but quarantining them off from information doesn't seem likely to do any better. People can learn and grow and change their views, but they need access to information to do it.
To use your analogy, if I chose to remove all paintings from my wall, you would break into my house to install a painting on my wall to force it into my peripheral vision.
Why should someone be obliged to consume information that they've deliberately and consciously chosen to ignore? Do climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, and flat earth supporters also have the same right to present their side of the story too? And if not, who decides what information people are being forced to consume?
Why can't the user decide for himself?
Why should someone be obliged to consume information that they've deliberately and consciously chosen to ignore? Do climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, and flat earth supporters also have the same right to present their side of the story too? And if not, who decides what information people are being forced to consume?
Why can't the user decide for himself?
But you're not consciously choosing to ignore it. You're handing your conscious choice over to an opaque algorithm and telling it to ignore anything it deems "similar" to some content, via however the person who programmed the algorithm decided to define "similar". That is the opposite of a conscious choice to examine and reject information.
> Do climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, and flat earth supporters also have the same right to present their side of the story too?
Yes! They do! You don't have to read it or agree with it, but of course they have the right to express it. Freedom includes the freedom to be wrong.
The Internet is not your home. Walking around the Internet with filters hiding information from you is like walking around in public with blinders on and headphones in. Sure, maybe it prevents you from feeling uncomfortable sometimes, but sooner or later you're going to get blindsided by a speeding car you didn't see.
> Do climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, and flat earth supporters also have the same right to present their side of the story too?
Yes! They do! You don't have to read it or agree with it, but of course they have the right to express it. Freedom includes the freedom to be wrong.
The Internet is not your home. Walking around the Internet with filters hiding information from you is like walking around in public with blinders on and headphones in. Sure, maybe it prevents you from feeling uncomfortable sometimes, but sooner or later you're going to get blindsided by a speeding car you didn't see.
"Would you like to hear a pro-Trump piece of propaganda?" If you say yes, they tell you. If you say no, they move on. But what they don't do is lead with the propaganda.
You can get mired in the details of proper categorization and the fact that people will undoubtedly try to hack the system to create communication without consent. But try not to, and see what I'm trying to say.
Billboards are an example of communication without consent. There you are driving on the freeway, and this brightly lit picture of a half-naked woman is selling you perfume. This is not something you just don't notice, or choose not to allow to influence your mind. I would argue it is exactly like having someone shove a cupcake down in your mouth - and I daresay I'd take the cupcake.
Regarding information, times have changed. In the past, in small rural towns where the biggest thing that happens is when the carnival sets up once a year at the end of summer, sure. You'd probably re-read the Sears catalog just to keep from being bored. In that information-starved environment I don't think "consensual communication" is a problem.
That is not the world we live in. Sadly, computer mediated communication greatly amplifies the moral hazards of lying, of speaking for money not for conviction, and of exercising cruelty. Spam is part of it, surveillance capitalism another. So much of my interaction is paid for by the information that is forcibly shoved into my eyeballs as I try to do something else!
So, yeah, I'd like to have such an agent looking out for me. No, I personally wouldn't want to be always insulated from ideas I disagree with; but nor do I want to be bombarded by the exact same claim, with the exact same argument, that I already decided was bogus. I don't want spam, or robocalls, or to be asked if I've accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior. Amen.
You can get mired in the details of proper categorization and the fact that people will undoubtedly try to hack the system to create communication without consent. But try not to, and see what I'm trying to say.
Billboards are an example of communication without consent. There you are driving on the freeway, and this brightly lit picture of a half-naked woman is selling you perfume. This is not something you just don't notice, or choose not to allow to influence your mind. I would argue it is exactly like having someone shove a cupcake down in your mouth - and I daresay I'd take the cupcake.
Regarding information, times have changed. In the past, in small rural towns where the biggest thing that happens is when the carnival sets up once a year at the end of summer, sure. You'd probably re-read the Sears catalog just to keep from being bored. In that information-starved environment I don't think "consensual communication" is a problem.
That is not the world we live in. Sadly, computer mediated communication greatly amplifies the moral hazards of lying, of speaking for money not for conviction, and of exercising cruelty. Spam is part of it, surveillance capitalism another. So much of my interaction is paid for by the information that is forcibly shoved into my eyeballs as I try to do something else!
So, yeah, I'd like to have such an agent looking out for me. No, I personally wouldn't want to be always insulated from ideas I disagree with; but nor do I want to be bombarded by the exact same claim, with the exact same argument, that I already decided was bogus. I don't want spam, or robocalls, or to be asked if I've accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior. Amen.
What's old is new. Can we bring back PICS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_... ?
In hindsight people killing it as a censorship tool was so unfortunate. The whole point of PICS is YOU pick your rating agency.
In hindsight people killing it as a censorship tool was so unfortunate. The whole point of PICS is YOU pick your rating agency.
Is it intersting that people do not understand intuitively that this can only lead to 1984 sonner or later.
They will understand it only when it's too late.
They will understand it only when it's too late.
The only people who do understand have already been labeled "hateful".
That's a pretty absurd thing to say.
I don't have to post thinly veiled pepe "memes" in order to see how real this slippery slope is.
The fact is that there is is a lot of hate speech online, and it mostly fosters in unmoderated forums and channels. Finding an extremist group (of any kind, really) is as easy as a handful of clicks.
Fringe ideas become normalized and accelerate the extremism due to the ability of these long tail groups to find each other. Flat Earthers have reinforced each other this way, and they continue to attracts new people due to YouTube rabbit holes.
Not sure there is a good solution to it, though. You can rely on private companies to moderate and choose what they allow on their platform, but that's proven to be highly ineffective. Then you face the problem where a platform opens up in order to foster these specific communities (8chan/8kun being the primary example right now), which then forces the companies they pay for their services to react to market pressure to either support or deny them.
They'll always exist, somewhere.
I don't have to post thinly veiled pepe "memes" in order to see how real this slippery slope is.
The fact is that there is is a lot of hate speech online, and it mostly fosters in unmoderated forums and channels. Finding an extremist group (of any kind, really) is as easy as a handful of clicks.
Fringe ideas become normalized and accelerate the extremism due to the ability of these long tail groups to find each other. Flat Earthers have reinforced each other this way, and they continue to attracts new people due to YouTube rabbit holes.
Not sure there is a good solution to it, though. You can rely on private companies to moderate and choose what they allow on their platform, but that's proven to be highly ineffective. Then you face the problem where a platform opens up in order to foster these specific communities (8chan/8kun being the primary example right now), which then forces the companies they pay for their services to react to market pressure to either support or deny them.
They'll always exist, somewhere.
>Fringe ideas become normalized and accelerate the extremism due to the ability of these long tail groups to find each other.
The same is true for good ideas. For instance, suggesting that doctors should wash their hands was originally considered an offensive fringe idea which could get you locked up in an insane asylum.
>Not sure there is a good solution to it, though.
The only solution to bad ideas is to allow them to be freely expressed so that they can be delt with publicly and transparently. Hiding bad ideas through censorship is like keeping a boil covered with a bandaid -- it's only going to fester.
"Like a boil that must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed to the light of human conscience before it can be cured."
The same is true for good ideas. For instance, suggesting that doctors should wash their hands was originally considered an offensive fringe idea which could get you locked up in an insane asylum.
>Not sure there is a good solution to it, though.
The only solution to bad ideas is to allow them to be freely expressed so that they can be delt with publicly and transparently. Hiding bad ideas through censorship is like keeping a boil covered with a bandaid -- it's only going to fester.
"Like a boil that must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed to the light of human conscience before it can be cured."
> The same is true for good ideas.
Absolutely. This is precisely why I don't think there is any form of feasible solution out there. Things get weird when forum moderation is used to snuff out dissenting opinions. You see this a lot on certain forums on Reddit in the last few years. r/Conspiracy, for example, was initially overtaken with right wing conspiracies peddled by Alex Jones (Pizzagate being the most obvious), with certain mods banning anyone critical of it and the Trump administration.
Not entirely sure why my post above is receiving down votes, though, as there really isn't a realistic approach to suppressing hate speech outside of the free market that doesn't teeter on opening the door to totalitarianism.
The spread and incubation of hate speech, debunked conspiracies and just general misinformation is, unfortunately, just a byproduct of the existence of the internet. Not much room for inoculation outside of education.
Absolutely. This is precisely why I don't think there is any form of feasible solution out there. Things get weird when forum moderation is used to snuff out dissenting opinions. You see this a lot on certain forums on Reddit in the last few years. r/Conspiracy, for example, was initially overtaken with right wing conspiracies peddled by Alex Jones (Pizzagate being the most obvious), with certain mods banning anyone critical of it and the Trump administration.
Not entirely sure why my post above is receiving down votes, though, as there really isn't a realistic approach to suppressing hate speech outside of the free market that doesn't teeter on opening the door to totalitarianism.
The spread and incubation of hate speech, debunked conspiracies and just general misinformation is, unfortunately, just a byproduct of the existence of the internet. Not much room for inoculation outside of education.
>general misinformation is, unfortunately, just a byproduct of the existence of the internet. Not much room for inoculation outside of education.
The scale of it is greatly enhanced by the internet, but such problems have existed since language itself was invented
The scale of it is greatly enhanced by the internet, but such problems have existed since language itself was invented
And who gets to decide what's 'hate speech'? Censorship is basically the same as propaganda - changing the narrative to influence opinions. One day obvious hate speech is banned, the next day any dissenting opinions are 'hate speech'.
We always must ask this question: WHO ARE THE DECIDERS?
I refuse to believe the challenges we face now are unique to us. We made the decision as a country not to trade comfort for liberty and we must not go back on that.
I refuse to believe the challenges we face now are unique to us. We made the decision as a country not to trade comfort for liberty and we must not go back on that.
Here's the problem. Opponents won't frame it as "comfort" but rather as "death".
People die because we have liberty. If we take some of that liberty away (but not all of it), less people would die. Less people dying is a good thing, right?
- Take away some or all gun liberty. Less people will die in mass shootings, suicides, etc.
- Take away some or all speech liberty. Less people will die by suicide (esp. LGBTQ youth targeted by hate speech)
- Take away some or all liberty to purchase choking hazards such as Kinder Eggs and less children will die.
Basically, for every cause of death or public health issue, you can almost always limit liberty (in the form of laws, regulations, etc.) to mitigate the issue.
Until we as a people decide liberty is worth a few deaths, it'll be a (slow, because democracy is inefficient) race to the bottom.
People die because we have liberty. If we take some of that liberty away (but not all of it), less people would die. Less people dying is a good thing, right?
- Take away some or all gun liberty. Less people will die in mass shootings, suicides, etc.
- Take away some or all speech liberty. Less people will die by suicide (esp. LGBTQ youth targeted by hate speech)
- Take away some or all liberty to purchase choking hazards such as Kinder Eggs and less children will die.
Basically, for every cause of death or public health issue, you can almost always limit liberty (in the form of laws, regulations, etc.) to mitigate the issue.
Until we as a people decide liberty is worth a few deaths, it'll be a (slow, because democracy is inefficient) race to the bottom.
We saw a shift in public perception of this trade-off post-9/11. Take airport security, for instance. It is a disgustingly-invasive policy which is security theater more than anything else, and we have sacrificed significant freedom to maintain this charade. Same with things like the "patriot" act. Every time I hear people demanding that politicians "do something", I am bothered by the sacrifice of freedom; people turn to the government for answers.
The entire history of mankind has decided that liberty is worth quite a lot of lives. I feel that the amount of blood spilled to liberate a country highly correlates with how important freedom is considered to be.
I've spent some time getting to know eastern spirituality. I picked non-dualistic tantra as my poison. After that it was easy to see how people can seem so aloof after learning of it (while still being compassionate).
The scripture tackles this head-on, more or less attributing it to the chaos of the universe, and that there is no notion of good and bad.
Eventually it goes on to share some examples, but they all follow the same pattern: if someone committed murder out of passion—and you were ready to judge them for it or offer them the death penalty—could you absolutely, unequivocally, certainly say—without any doubt–that you would not do the exact same thing in their shoes? In their exact circumstances, their state of mind? With heir psychosis or their grief or their desperation?
If you were to physically embody that other person and their consciousness, would you know better than they did?
The answer is always no.
In that same vein, you have your deeply metaphysical counter-argument to the point you're making.
Do you support the death penalty? Well, what if you committed the same crime and got put on death row?
Do you support censorship and authoritarianism? Well, what if the opposition gets into power and uses that against you?
There's no notion of it being wrong or right; it just challenges how happy you are to accept it as a fact of life and not just a temporary advantage in your favour.
The scripture tackles this head-on, more or less attributing it to the chaos of the universe, and that there is no notion of good and bad.
Eventually it goes on to share some examples, but they all follow the same pattern: if someone committed murder out of passion—and you were ready to judge them for it or offer them the death penalty—could you absolutely, unequivocally, certainly say—without any doubt–that you would not do the exact same thing in their shoes? In their exact circumstances, their state of mind? With heir psychosis or their grief or their desperation?
If you were to physically embody that other person and their consciousness, would you know better than they did?
The answer is always no.
In that same vein, you have your deeply metaphysical counter-argument to the point you're making.
Do you support the death penalty? Well, what if you committed the same crime and got put on death row?
Do you support censorship and authoritarianism? Well, what if the opposition gets into power and uses that against you?
There's no notion of it being wrong or right; it just challenges how happy you are to accept it as a fact of life and not just a temporary advantage in your favour.
It seems like the whole argument boils down to "people don't have free will; you would have been a murderer too had you been born with the same parents under the same circumstances, etc."
>Until we as a people decide liberty is worth a few deaths, it'll be a (slow, because democracy is inefficient) race to the bottom.
We have chosen. This is why cars, sugar, beer and numerous other liberties are legal.
Free choice is woven into the fabric of America. With freedom of choice the collateral death will always be present.
I disagree it is a race to the bottom as we have made life much more livable than in 1787.
We have chosen. This is why cars, sugar, beer and numerous other liberties are legal.
Free choice is woven into the fabric of America. With freedom of choice the collateral death will always be present.
I disagree it is a race to the bottom as we have made life much more livable than in 1787.
> We have chosen.
For now. But remember the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
There are probably quite a few Americans on HN that would like to see cars severely limited or otherwise much more difficult to obtain in favor of trains and public transport. Articles come up regularly about banning cars in cities.
Sugar taxes and sugar drink bans are regularly proposed in California.
Beer... yeah, I concede that will probably never be illegal again, though I could see tobacco becoming illegal some day seeing as the legal purchase age was just raised to 21.
For now. But remember the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
There are probably quite a few Americans on HN that would like to see cars severely limited or otherwise much more difficult to obtain in favor of trains and public transport. Articles come up regularly about banning cars in cities.
Sugar taxes and sugar drink bans are regularly proposed in California.
Beer... yeah, I concede that will probably never be illegal again, though I could see tobacco becoming illegal some day seeing as the legal purchase age was just raised to 21.
On some level I agree with you but you omit the fact that liberty must be limited. What we're arguing about is how much it should be limited.
>Until we as a people decide liberty is worth a few deaths, it'll be a (slow, because democracy is inefficient) race to the bottom.
The implied problem here is "we as a people" deciding that our liberty is worth other people's deaths. Practically by definition, marginalized and minority groups (more likely to suffer the negative consequences of such liberties) would suffer for the sake of the majority's liberty to oppress them.
The implied problem here is "we as a people" deciding that our liberty is worth other people's deaths. Practically by definition, marginalized and minority groups (more likely to suffer the negative consequences of such liberties) would suffer for the sake of the majority's liberty to oppress them.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson
I wonder how many people these days would think he was a terrorist...
I wonder how many people these days would think he was a terrorist...
>I wonder how many people these days would think he was a terrorist...
Jefferson said that in reference to Shay's Rebellion, and he certainly wasn't praising the people behind it, describing the rebellion as having been “founded in ignorance ... The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.”"
The entire quote even ends with him comparing such people to manure. He was, indeed, calling such people "terrorists", as he considered them traitors and a threat to the Union. Jefferson also said the following just prior to that famous quote:
"...what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them."
In other words, while he recognized that rebellion was inevitable in a free society, he did not believe such violence was always justified, or that it should be encouraged.
But is it hate speech? Well... it has been used to justify terrorist activity. Tim McVeigh was wearing the quote on a t-shirt the day he decided to set off the Oklahoma City bombing, and I doubt Jefferson would consider him a patriot doing his duty. So yes, while it wasn't originally hate speech, the nature of the extremist fringe of modern American gun culture, neo-libertarian and anarchist ideology has twisted it around to interpret it in the most hateful way possible.
Jefferson said that in reference to Shay's Rebellion, and he certainly wasn't praising the people behind it, describing the rebellion as having been “founded in ignorance ... The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.”"
The entire quote even ends with him comparing such people to manure. He was, indeed, calling such people "terrorists", as he considered them traitors and a threat to the Union. Jefferson also said the following just prior to that famous quote:
"...what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them."
In other words, while he recognized that rebellion was inevitable in a free society, he did not believe such violence was always justified, or that it should be encouraged.
But is it hate speech? Well... it has been used to justify terrorist activity. Tim McVeigh was wearing the quote on a t-shirt the day he decided to set off the Oklahoma City bombing, and I doubt Jefferson would consider him a patriot doing his duty. So yes, while it wasn't originally hate speech, the nature of the extremist fringe of modern American gun culture, neo-libertarian and anarchist ideology has twisted it around to interpret it in the most hateful way possible.
It's hard defending freedom, as despots will always point to the worst known abuses of said freedom as justification for removing it.
I think a bigger/better question is: "How do we fix people, such that a majority of the population no longer falls for these kinds of tactics?"
[Edit] Some examples:
Support Free Speech? But you're giving a platform to hate!
Support E2E Encryption? But you're helping pedos evade justice!
Support body autonomy? But you're helping anti-vaxers!
Etc etc...
I think a bigger/better question is: "How do we fix people, such that a majority of the population no longer falls for these kinds of tactics?"
[Edit] Some examples:
Support Free Speech? But you're giving a platform to hate!
Support E2E Encryption? But you're helping pedos evade justice!
Support body autonomy? But you're helping anti-vaxers!
Etc etc...
Ideally, I do.
The tools that are needed here would provide the ability for each of us to screen out whatever we don't care to see, whether it be racist speech or just people that won't shut up about crossfit.
And since it's just me controlling my filter, I could easily adjust the level of filtering. Sometimes it's useful to know what people outside my Overton Window are talking about.
The tools that are needed here would provide the ability for each of us to screen out whatever we don't care to see, whether it be racist speech or just people that won't shut up about crossfit.
And since it's just me controlling my filter, I could easily adjust the level of filtering. Sometimes it's useful to know what people outside my Overton Window are talking about.
One thing I worry about with that solution is that it seems that the elite is more and more detached from the common man. They no longer know his concerns, fears or opinions.
Let's say some leader decides to build a thousand new coal power plants, and the people want him lynched for destroying the climate. Filtering that hatred out is not a clear positive.
Let's say some leader decides to build a thousand new coal power plants, and the people want him lynched for destroying the climate. Filtering that hatred out is not a clear positive.
Except, given the premise that this filtering could be tuned on an individual basis:
Those who want to know the stories around the coal plants can allow them through
Those who choose to avoid the more violent parts can choose to not see them
The consequences of and responsibility for seeing/not seeing any topic becomes a personal choice, not one of any corporation or central authority. I see this as a very big positive step.
Those who want to know the stories around the coal plants can allow them through
Those who choose to avoid the more violent parts can choose to not see them
The consequences of and responsibility for seeing/not seeing any topic becomes a personal choice, not one of any corporation or central authority. I see this as a very big positive step.
I'm not sure if I want the leader to be able to filter it out, is what I'm saying.
Let them eat cake!
What's happened historically is that people will go up to the person, in person, and yell at them. Ideally, this chases them out of where they are.
For example: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/ted-cruz-wife...
This is a much better approach than going online and screaming vulgarity, because this prevents them from enjoying their actual life. If your opponent is genuinely doing something wrong, you want to make them miserable. You don't want to Be Mad Online at them.
For example: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/ted-cruz-wife...
This is a much better approach than going online and screaming vulgarity, because this prevents them from enjoying their actual life. If your opponent is genuinely doing something wrong, you want to make them miserable. You don't want to Be Mad Online at them.
What you show there is what's referred to as harassment. It is generally against the law.
Speech is speech, and in America, it's constitutionally-protected. If they touched him, sure, but they didn't.
Enough people yelling persistently at someone could be perceived as threatening. Might you not feel threatened by people surrounding you, yelling at you, and refusing to leave? Getting that close crosses from protesting to intimidating. Notice that Sen. and Mrs. Cruz were having difficulty getting through the protesters to leave.
What something is perceived as by the recipient doesn't matter (unless the person who perceives yelling as a threat reacts violently, in which case they'll probably lose office/have their business boycotted, anyway, on top of being faced with whether the judge perceives the "threat" to be credible or not) when it comes to speech. It's still speech.
Edit: The above poster edited this after I had replied, and everything after the first question mark my comment isn't responding to.
Edit: The above poster edited this after I had replied, and everything after the first question mark my comment isn't responding to.
No good can come of this approach.
It worked well for France:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
If it starts earlier, the violence can be avoided.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
If it starts earlier, the violence can be avoided.
Really? How did the French Revolution go? The French Revolution is a famous disaster. Reign of terror, oppressive government, many people killed, tons of bad stuff.
Brought representative democracy to France, made life far better for your average person, directly can be tied to Code Napoléon being enacted across France, sparked democratic revolutions globally that had lasting impacts that can still be felt today...I'd say pretty well. Definitely no worse than the American Revolution.
The deaths of the ruling class were unfortunate, but didn't necessarily outweigh the benefits.
A modern version of the French Revolution is far more desirable than allowing the planet to be made uninhabitable by the actions of the ruling class, for example.
The deaths of the ruling class were unfortunate, but didn't necessarily outweigh the benefits.
A modern version of the French Revolution is far more desirable than allowing the planet to be made uninhabitable by the actions of the ruling class, for example.
In the French Revolution, three hundred thousand people were killed. In the American revolution, thirty thousand died. Killing ten times as many people means the French revolution was worse than the American revolution.
The French revolution resulted in years of oppression before things shook out for the better. The Articles of Confederation were imperfect but were not an oppressive government.
Citation for an improved standard of living due to napoleon's code is needed.
It has been widely-argued that the American Revolution was an influence on the French: https://www.history.com/news/how-did-the-american-revolution...
Finally, I doubt the planet will be uninhabitable. Perhaps harsher or more difficult, but definitely not uninhabitable. Humans are profoundly-adaptable creatures.
The French revolution resulted in years of oppression before things shook out for the better. The Articles of Confederation were imperfect but were not an oppressive government.
Citation for an improved standard of living due to napoleon's code is needed.
It has been widely-argued that the American Revolution was an influence on the French: https://www.history.com/news/how-did-the-american-revolution...
Finally, I doubt the planet will be uninhabitable. Perhaps harsher or more difficult, but definitely not uninhabitable. Humans are profoundly-adaptable creatures.
Won't people just use this to build impenetrable bubbles around themselves?
You say you'll use it to peek outside of your bubble, but I suspect most people would use it to reinforce their bubbles by filtering any speech that is inconvenient or uncomfortable.
You say you'll use it to peek outside of your bubble, but I suspect most people would use it to reinforce their bubbles by filtering any speech that is inconvenient or uncomfortable.
It already exists on reddit. I don't think "T_D" has any kind of significant readership from well-grounded people with genuine curiosity of what the MAGA camp is currently discussing.
Instead, we need to end isolationism and the siloing of audiences. We should be forced to interact with people we have ideological disagreements with so, at the very least, we don't dehumanize them (note that I'm not calling for tolerance of intolerance, and I believe voices of division should be deplatformed).
Instead, we need to end isolationism and the siloing of audiences. We should be forced to interact with people we have ideological disagreements with so, at the very least, we don't dehumanize them (note that I'm not calling for tolerance of intolerance, and I believe voices of division should be deplatformed).
The difference with Reddit is that it's not the general audience that is isolating T_D, It's the Reddit admins. It should be left up to the individual readers as to what they want to see in their feed, not the admins.
You can - Reddit's users can all subscribe to a other subreddits and can unsubscribe from the default subreddits.
Then why do they utilize admins and mods to delete so many submissions and comments that fall outside some predetermined narrative?
and they certainly can. they just can't export their hate and vitriol to people not logged in and subscribed or just browsing all.
People should be able to choose what they want to see, but they shouldn't determine what others wish to see in their feed.
Many platforms use the feedback of other users to rank and deliver content. Views and ratings on you tube influence recommendations, up mods on reddit influence what hits the front page of a sub reddit or the site over all, up mods on HN influence what hits the front page. Many sites on the internet are premised on users consciously allowing others to determine what they see.
People don't change their mind when they are confronted with opposing views. They double down and get more entrenched when that happens.
So letting people live in their bubbles might soften their conviction and keep them open to opposing ideas when they finally encounter them.
So letting people live in their bubbles might soften their conviction and keep them open to opposing ideas when they finally encounter them.
That doesn't help the situation: people who already have extremist opinions would then simply filter-out the mainstream and/or opposition content and be content with their own echo-chamber, which would only further their extremism and end with nasty results.
> Sometimes it's useful to know what people outside my Overton Window are talking about.
People don't have a personal Overton window: The Overton window describe's society's range of acceptable opinions.
And I guarantee that the vast majority of extremists - or even people already on the fringes - are not interested in reading or hearing about the opposition.
> Sometimes it's useful to know what people outside my Overton Window are talking about.
People don't have a personal Overton window: The Overton window describe's society's range of acceptable opinions.
And I guarantee that the vast majority of extremists - or even people already on the fringes - are not interested in reading or hearing about the opposition.
If "the situation" means people thinking whatever they like, then no, this doesn't "help". Personally I'm against telling people what to think, and in any case, I'm convinced that this is a wholly ineffective approach to changing hearts and minds.
[deleted]
>... extremist opinions ...
Who determines what is an "extremist opinion"?
Who determines what is an "extremist opinion"?
That's (tautologically, I admit) defined implicitly by my answer.
I define it (for the purposes of this conversation) as an opinion that its holders buy into so much that they outright refuse to acknowledge anything in opposition. After-all, if you believe you've bought-in to "the truth" (and lack critical-thinking skills, and/or have been propagandized to this point anyway) then it has to be an extreme position (by whatever the standards of the contemporary Overton window apply) because otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to propagandize or rile similarly-minded people against your opposition.
I define it (for the purposes of this conversation) as an opinion that its holders buy into so much that they outright refuse to acknowledge anything in opposition. After-all, if you believe you've bought-in to "the truth" (and lack critical-thinking skills, and/or have been propagandized to this point anyway) then it has to be an extreme position (by whatever the standards of the contemporary Overton window apply) because otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to propagandize or rile similarly-minded people against your opposition.
[deleted]
100% agreed. Yes there are those who will say that they're creating their own thought bubble, but I'd argue it's already happening especially with regards to mainstream politics. Let me as the user decide for myself (and not for anyone else).
Try posting one-sided political content on Facebook and watch your friends on the opposing side unfollow...they're not obliged to listen to your speech. Or on Reddit look at /r/politics vs /r/The_Donald (left vs right echo chambers).
Try posting one-sided political content on Facebook and watch your friends on the opposing side unfollow...they're not obliged to listen to your speech. Or on Reddit look at /r/politics vs /r/The_Donald (left vs right echo chambers).
The difference between r/politics and r/the_donald, is that one is determined "acceptable" and propagated to everyone, while the other is quarantined and impossible to find.
I never understood the culture of censoring your opponents, it just seems intellectually weak.
I never understood the culture of censoring your opponents, it just seems intellectually weak.
>And who gets to decide what's 'hate speech'?
Typically the democratically elected legislature defines hate speech through legislation and the penalties, if any. The executive branch will generally seek enforcement of the legislatures laws through the courts. Then the last check/balance on power comes by way of the judiciary which may or may not include finders of fact consisting of a jury made up of the very members of the electorate coming full circle.
>Censorship is basically the same as propaganda - changing the narrative to influence opinions.
By that measure almost all communication is propaganda, for example, was you comment intended to control the narrative to influence opinions (i.e. censorship is the same as propaganda)? And are you suggesting the censors be censored?
Typically the democratically elected legislature defines hate speech through legislation and the penalties, if any. The executive branch will generally seek enforcement of the legislatures laws through the courts. Then the last check/balance on power comes by way of the judiciary which may or may not include finders of fact consisting of a jury made up of the very members of the electorate coming full circle.
>Censorship is basically the same as propaganda - changing the narrative to influence opinions.
By that measure almost all communication is propaganda, for example, was you comment intended to control the narrative to influence opinions (i.e. censorship is the same as propaganda)? And are you suggesting the censors be censored?
> Typically the democratically elected legislature defines hate speech through legislation and the penalties, if any. The executive branch will generally seek enforcement of the legislatures laws through the courts. Then the last check/balance on power comes by way of the judiciary which may or may not include finders of fact consisting of a jury made up of the very members of the electorate coming full circle.
So tyranny of the majority is okay? There are many nations where the majority chooses governments which violate the rights of the minority. The obvious caveat to your proposal is that you must implicitly trust the government, not just today but in the future. This in spite of the fact that next election cycle the majority can pick someone bad.
So tyranny of the majority is okay? There are many nations where the majority chooses governments which violate the rights of the minority. The obvious caveat to your proposal is that you must implicitly trust the government, not just today but in the future. This in spite of the fact that next election cycle the majority can pick someone bad.
>So tyranny of the majority is okay?
1) I never said a US-centric system of laws was "okay", I just answered the question of who defines hate speech; 2) it seems to be bad-faith to call such a system as a tyranny of the majority...especially when the laws is question specifically protect minority classes of people. Was the Obama administration a tyranny of the majority? How about Trump? Because Trump actually lost the popular vote, does that make him a tyranny of the minority?
>The obvious caveat to your proposal is that you must implicitly trust the government, not just today but in the future.
I must have missed where I said you must implicitly trust the government and their laws now and forever in the future...In fact, it seems the obvious caveat to the US system of government is that there are 3 branches all providing checks and balances on the others...and implicit in our government is the idea that if you don't like the government or their laws, you have the freedom to organize to elect new legislators who can repeal the laws. Not to mention the idea of the voters themselves (whether from the majority or minority) serve as jurors that make findings of fact over these matters.
>This in spite of the fact that next election cycle the majority can pick someone bad.
Do you have evidence of hate speech protecting the majority class, because again traditionally hate speech laws tends to protect the minority classes of people.
1) I never said a US-centric system of laws was "okay", I just answered the question of who defines hate speech; 2) it seems to be bad-faith to call such a system as a tyranny of the majority...especially when the laws is question specifically protect minority classes of people. Was the Obama administration a tyranny of the majority? How about Trump? Because Trump actually lost the popular vote, does that make him a tyranny of the minority?
>The obvious caveat to your proposal is that you must implicitly trust the government, not just today but in the future.
I must have missed where I said you must implicitly trust the government and their laws now and forever in the future...In fact, it seems the obvious caveat to the US system of government is that there are 3 branches all providing checks and balances on the others...and implicit in our government is the idea that if you don't like the government or their laws, you have the freedom to organize to elect new legislators who can repeal the laws. Not to mention the idea of the voters themselves (whether from the majority or minority) serve as jurors that make findings of fact over these matters.
>This in spite of the fact that next election cycle the majority can pick someone bad.
Do you have evidence of hate speech protecting the majority class, because again traditionally hate speech laws tends to protect the minority classes of people.
Part of the problem is that social media is both personal interaction and a form of publication.
If you view social media as personal interaction then ask yourself how you would react to statements in real life. You would shut someone down if they threatened you or people you care about. I have seen people go so far as to threaten people's lives, but more veiled threats are also in the social space.
Call it censorship if you will. The definition of censorship I will leave to pundits. The pundits have decided to define social media as publication only.
If you view social media as personal interaction then ask yourself how you would react to statements in real life. You would shut someone down if they threatened you or people you care about. I have seen people go so far as to threaten people's lives, but more veiled threats are also in the social space.
Call it censorship if you will. The definition of censorship I will leave to pundits. The pundits have decided to define social media as publication only.
> You would shut someone down if they threatened you or people you care about.
I guess there is some ambiguity in this but large classes of threats are illegal:
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federa...
> A criminal threat involves one person threatening someone else with physical harm. The threat must be communicated in some way, though it doesn't necessarily have to be verbal. A person can make a threat through email, text message, or even through non-verbal body language such as gestures or movements. However, some states require written or verbal threats, and in those states gestures are not enough.
I'm not aware of anybody asking that this should be legal either or of anybody defending this. So at least in this regard I can assure you people defending free speech for the most part (>99%) are not trying to change the law to make criminal threats non criminal.
I guess there is some ambiguity in this but large classes of threats are illegal:
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federa...
> A criminal threat involves one person threatening someone else with physical harm. The threat must be communicated in some way, though it doesn't necessarily have to be verbal. A person can make a threat through email, text message, or even through non-verbal body language such as gestures or movements. However, some states require written or verbal threats, and in those states gestures are not enough.
I'm not aware of anybody asking that this should be legal either or of anybody defending this. So at least in this regard I can assure you people defending free speech for the most part (>99%) are not trying to change the law to make criminal threats non criminal.
Perhaps compare this to snail mail: if you recognize the piece of mail as coming from a known source of offensive material, you can choose to open it, discard it, or respond, as you see fit.
This sort of filter just puts an envelope on material online so that choice can be restored/ported from earlier media behavior.
This sort of filter just puts an envelope on material online so that choice can be restored/ported from earlier media behavior.
it's a terrible idea based on the belief that "AI" can solve anything. "all we need is better AI", as Zuck tried to convince Congress of. It's not a technical problem[1], and any technical solutions are bound to be riddled with trust issues.
[1] imo it's a sociological problem. we should be connecting irl and not be online which just leads to isolated people ending up alienated and indoctrinated with hate. instead of only "hunting down" hate speech we need to address the fact that people join such groups in the first place. There are some really hard questions when it comes to dealing with white-power groups: https://twitter.com/EmilyGorcenski/status/120998572902520422... and unless we can find a solution to them people will continue getting clicks for snake-oil solutions such as "better AI" (AI really just stands as an excuse to continue the current revenue model of information extraction and surveillance capitalism)
[1] imo it's a sociological problem. we should be connecting irl and not be online which just leads to isolated people ending up alienated and indoctrinated with hate. instead of only "hunting down" hate speech we need to address the fact that people join such groups in the first place. There are some really hard questions when it comes to dealing with white-power groups: https://twitter.com/EmilyGorcenski/status/120998572902520422... and unless we can find a solution to them people will continue getting clicks for snake-oil solutions such as "better AI" (AI really just stands as an excuse to continue the current revenue model of information extraction and surveillance capitalism)
Like classifying "hack tools" as malware to get users to stop using them.
"Hate speech" seems to be imbued with somewhat religious meaning, since most conversations about it make huge assumptions about its impact, frequency, and scope.
I noticed several years ago that you can mentally replace terms like "problematic" with "sinful" and "hate speech" with "blasphemy" without losing any meaning in most instances. They basically convey nothing more than a subjective moral judgment informed by group affiliation and puritan ideology.
"Racist/sexist/homophobic" still convey a little bit of information since they hint at a way in which something might be genuinely bad. But their definitions have been so irresponsibly broadened that you have to take it on a case-by-case basis whether the label even means anything let alone whether it's accurate.
This is a bad problem and everyone should worry about it, because a meaning vacuum is like a power vacuum. Even people who don't care about cis white men getting verbally abused need to realize that when you publish insane histrionics about OK signs and cartoon frogs, you generate confusion and doubt that actual white supremacists can use for cover. Extremism begets extremism.
"Racist/sexist/homophobic" still convey a little bit of information since they hint at a way in which something might be genuinely bad. But their definitions have been so irresponsibly broadened that you have to take it on a case-by-case basis whether the label even means anything let alone whether it's accurate.
This is a bad problem and everyone should worry about it, because a meaning vacuum is like a power vacuum. Even people who don't care about cis white men getting verbally abused need to realize that when you publish insane histrionics about OK signs and cartoon frogs, you generate confusion and doubt that actual white supremacists can use for cover. Extremism begets extremism.
Problem is a tribe and all its associated organizations become dependent on a fresh supply of racists, sexists in order to justify its own continued existence. Evolutionarily, it must continue to find more and more of them to survive, even if they are mostly imaginary
Communication should be consensual. If I want to pre-emptively block some kind of content, or delegate such authority to some trusted third party, that's great. It's what we do with ad blockers all the time, which are less controversial here for some reason than self-defined "safe spaces."
If anything, the ability to block content as opposed to individual users would lead to more exposure to new viewpoints. For instance, I think Rod Dreher has lots of interesting things to say. But it seems like a quarter of his posts are rants about trans people using bathrooms, which I just don't have time for. And as a result I mostly skip everything he writes, including the good stuff. But if we built tools that emphasized filtering on content instead of people, it would simultaneously let us get presented with arguments we're actually interested in having and also not prejudge content by association with other content that shares the same author.
If anything, the ability to block content as opposed to individual users would lead to more exposure to new viewpoints. For instance, I think Rod Dreher has lots of interesting things to say. But it seems like a quarter of his posts are rants about trans people using bathrooms, which I just don't have time for. And as a result I mostly skip everything he writes, including the good stuff. But if we built tools that emphasized filtering on content instead of people, it would simultaneously let us get presented with arguments we're actually interested in having and also not prejudge content by association with other content that shares the same author.
We accept ad blockers more readily because it's commonly accepted that ads are a different sort of speech, in an ethical way. It's not somebody telling you something; it's a machine trying to sell you something.
This is already done on some sites through shadow-banning.
On big social media sites, people will likely work around the restrictions. I can think of hundreds of ways to bypass such bans. GIFs, different languages and character sets, slang, linking blogs rotating domain names, rot13, base64, Morse code browser plugin, to name a few. Those that bother don't may find themselves in echo chambers.
Do people still create new slang or code speak these days?
One of my favorites, but probably not useful on facebook:
On big social media sites, people will likely work around the restrictions. I can think of hundreds of ways to bypass such bans. GIFs, different languages and character sets, slang, linking blogs rotating domain names, rot13, base64, Morse code browser plugin, to name a few. Those that bother don't may find themselves in echo chambers.
Do people still create new slang or code speak these days?
One of my favorites, but probably not useful on facebook:
perl -le '$_="6110>374086;2064208213:90<307;55";tr[0->][ LEOR!AUBGNSTY];print'I'm glad they are suggesting something short of censorship.
I've always supported the idea of letting people choose what they want to see. If moderators could tag posts with tags like 'spam', 'nsfw', 'graphicviolence', 'racistagainstraceX', etc... and if people could then choose what kinds of posts they want to see... and if anyone could be a moderator... and if people could then subscribe to only the moderators they trust... problem solved.
I just can't figure out how to make such a system scale. I've tried a few architectures but I'm still looking for the breakthrough to make it scale.
The problem today is if you don't like Twitter moderators you go to Mastodon or to Gab, and the community fractures into bubbles, and that drives people further apart. I think fixing moderation is going to be the next big thing.
I've always supported the idea of letting people choose what they want to see. If moderators could tag posts with tags like 'spam', 'nsfw', 'graphicviolence', 'racistagainstraceX', etc... and if people could then choose what kinds of posts they want to see... and if anyone could be a moderator... and if people could then subscribe to only the moderators they trust... problem solved.
I just can't figure out how to make such a system scale. I've tried a few architectures but I'm still looking for the breakthrough to make it scale.
The problem today is if you don't like Twitter moderators you go to Mastodon or to Gab, and the community fractures into bubbles, and that drives people further apart. I think fixing moderation is going to be the next big thing.
A lot of the comments here seem to be missing the point of the article. Hate speech wouldn't be removed, it would just require an additional click or two to take a look at it. I like this because it gives the user a choice.
Lets say you are a black man who just wants to scroll through Facebook at the end of the day to see what your friends are up to, without having to see racist comments that friends of friends have left. You would see the warnings that hate speech might exist behind the filter, and, since you are trying to relax at the end of the day, you could make the conscious decision that looking at that stuff wouldn't be good for you.
But then, some other time, like maybe early the next day, you could make the conscious decision to click through to see what the person said, and tell them off, or, if the content was misflagged, let the algorithm know.
The current state is that we remove the content completely and pretend like people aren't racist/sexist/phobic, or we leave the content up and allow people to get dragged into flamewars at all hours of the day. This new proposed tech would be akin to HN's option to "showdead," except with more context about what you're opting into potentially seeing.
Lets say you are a black man who just wants to scroll through Facebook at the end of the day to see what your friends are up to, without having to see racist comments that friends of friends have left. You would see the warnings that hate speech might exist behind the filter, and, since you are trying to relax at the end of the day, you could make the conscious decision that looking at that stuff wouldn't be good for you.
But then, some other time, like maybe early the next day, you could make the conscious decision to click through to see what the person said, and tell them off, or, if the content was misflagged, let the algorithm know.
The current state is that we remove the content completely and pretend like people aren't racist/sexist/phobic, or we leave the content up and allow people to get dragged into flamewars at all hours of the day. This new proposed tech would be akin to HN's option to "showdead," except with more context about what you're opting into potentially seeing.
> This approach is akin to spam and malware filters
I think "spam" is a better analogy than a computer virus.
I think "spam" is a better analogy than a computer virus.
>Definitions of hate speech vary depending on nation, law and platform
according to the Russian laws and their application the speech critical toward the government falls under "extremist speech spreading/inciting hate toward a specific social group" (in this case the social group is the government).
according to the Russian laws and their application the speech critical toward the government falls under "extremist speech spreading/inciting hate toward a specific social group" (in this case the social group is the government).
That's weird...I thought would be a link to the Chinese military. Oh just the UK...close enough.
wallace_f(1)
So contained like a computer virus, sounds good, I suppose whatever these computer virus things are they're not a big problem for people or anything.
anyway one obvious way this is different - when the popup says this might be a dangerous file continue users click yes without thinking about it because they want to see the funny thing that Bob sent them. When the popup says this might be homophobic hate speech they will click no if they don't want homophobic hate speech and yes if they do - because some people do want it, which is part of the problem.
The problem is only partially that gay people have to read homophobic hate speech, the other insoluble part of the problem is that there are non gay people who are interested in reading it, and reading more of it, and more virulent hate speech, and then going out and beating up a gay person.
Anyway researches say that two totally unlike each other things can be handled in the same way because they're here to help https://xkcd.com/1831/
anyway one obvious way this is different - when the popup says this might be a dangerous file continue users click yes without thinking about it because they want to see the funny thing that Bob sent them. When the popup says this might be homophobic hate speech they will click no if they don't want homophobic hate speech and yes if they do - because some people do want it, which is part of the problem.
The problem is only partially that gay people have to read homophobic hate speech, the other insoluble part of the problem is that there are non gay people who are interested in reading it, and reading more of it, and more virulent hate speech, and then going out and beating up a gay person.
Anyway researches say that two totally unlike each other things can be handled in the same way because they're here to help https://xkcd.com/1831/
If “hate speech” has a computable signature, then not-“hate speech” also has a computable signature.
Therefore, we can expect all kinds of bad actors to take advantage of that.
Sooner or later, Internet outrage mobs will form around vulnerable people whose speech wasn't not-“hate speech” enough.
I'm sure that plenty of people, around here, can dream up some more nightmare scenarios.
Therefore, we can expect all kinds of bad actors to take advantage of that.
Sooner or later, Internet outrage mobs will form around vulnerable people whose speech wasn't not-“hate speech” enough.
I'm sure that plenty of people, around here, can dream up some more nightmare scenarios.
And yes, if this function came under central control, you might have yourself a very merry dystopia. You might have a dystopia anyway if people can set their filter not just on hate speech and paid speech, but on any predicate they define, including anything that disagrees with them. It's the ultimate information silo, and would no doubt be deadly to any democracy. It might even be deadly to any form of government, since it would tend to seriously weaken the intellect of the population.