The more I am on the Internet the more I grow to dislike any communication model/theory that doesn't believe "what the audience heard" is central.
"Just joking" and needless, deflecting prescriptivism are both incredibly common and both focus entirely on whatever uncommunicated "true meaning" the speaker claims to have meant and not what was actually communicated.
I ate an engineer
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Pewdiepie basically exemplifies..I dunno about everything, but certainly many things I loathe about the internet, particularly the idea that the highest aspiration in life is lol and other people are just a bothersome distraction getting in the way of your bleeps and bloops and memes
I somewhat agree... but I think a significant number of his screw-ups are more related to his inexperience & lack of mentorship than arrogance or malice, for whatever that's worth. He genuinely showed remorse for the fact that the stunt that sunk him also hurt two poor guys from India, for example, and is trying to get them their jobs back.
He probably would have been fine if he had managed to keep the boat afloat long enough that folks from Disney could have kept him flying straight... alas, hubris wasn't going to have any of that.
I deleted a very long post that was incredibly over the top in blaming Youtube and social media as a whole for things like Milo and Trump being President (which I'm not sure will likely never actually seem real to me)
Long story short I don't think giving everyone a platform is inherently a good thing and actually I'd argue that not only is it not a good thing it is inherently a bad thing.
And perhaps even more importantly assuming that everyone that has a platform is legitimate is a fantastically bad idea but one that far far too many people acre going to buy into because that's the way (in theory) things had always been.
Well, I don't think it's great that so much of our culture is effectively locked away in the Disney vault. The emergence of large, independent broadcasters has a potential to essentially retake a lot of our cultural output, refilling our rather empty public domain coffers.
It's just... the current apparatus arose without any institutional memory, old veterans to guide the way into the grand frontier of broadcasting, a parallel body of ombudsmen, etc. Without any of that stuff, go figure it's currently a train wreck.
Everyone having a platform would probably be fine if said platform also came with an instruction manual & training, so to speak. Like, I would just note that most of the respectable YT personalities and independent broadcasters, in a twist you'll never believe, previously worked as entertainers or some sort of media personality.
The Ender on
With Love and Courage
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I'm in a workshop all day and I played around with my big toe inside my boot. Unfortunately my nails are too long and I bent some part of it. Felt really wet after that (blood) and then some low level constant pain. Haven't looked at it yet because I feel like it might be tough to get the boot on again, so I'm saving the joy until I get home.
Also, like, more reasonable levels of punishment on behalf of platform holders rather than a binary, 'You're perfectly fine... oh wait, now you're completely banned forever,' would probably go a long way.
PewDiePie should have been in trouble plenty of times in the past, but there was no punishment for it because he didn't yet go past the point of absolutely no return. That's a pretty poor way of managing expectations & behavior.
The Ender on
With Love and Courage
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Buskers at the train station is one of the things I miss the most from living in a large city.
A lot of them would just do middling renditions of pop music (and there was one guy who was clearly just learning to play, and ugh...)... but once or twice a month, you'd just get this spectacular performance from someone or a group of people.
The more I am on the Internet the more I grow to dislike any communication model/theory that doesn't believe "what the audience heard" is central.
"Just joking" and needless, deflecting prescriptivism are both incredibly common and both focus entirely on whatever uncommunicated "true meaning" the speaker claims to have meant and not what was actually communicated.
Pewdiepie basically exemplifies..I dunno about everything, but certainly many things I loathe about the internet, particularly the idea that the highest aspiration in life is lol and other people are just a bothersome distraction getting in the way of your bleeps and bloops and memes
I somewhat agree... but I think a significant number of his screw-ups are more related to his inexperience & lack of mentorship than arrogance or malice, for whatever that's worth. He genuinely showed remorse for the fact that the stunt that sunk him also hurt two poor guys from India, for example, and is trying to get them their jobs back.
He probably would have been fine if he had managed to keep the boat afloat long enough that folks from Disney could have kept him flying straight... alas, hubris wasn't going to have any of that.
I deleted a very long post that was incredibly over the top in blaming Youtube and social media as a whole for things like Milo and Trump being President (which I'm not sure will likely never actually seem real to me)
Long story short I don't think giving everyone a platform is inherently a good thing and actually I'd argue that not only is it not a good thing it is inherently a bad thing.
And perhaps even more importantly assuming that everyone that has a platform is legitimate is a fantastically bad idea but one that far far too many people acre going to buy into because that's the way (in theory) things had always been.
Well, I don't think it's great that so much of our culture is effectively locked away in the Disney vault. The emergence of large, independent broadcasters has a potential to essentially retake a lot of our cultural output, refilling our rather empty public domain coffers.
It's just... the current apparatus arose without any institutional memory, old veterans to guide the way into the grand frontier of broadcasting, a parallel body of ombudsmen, etc. Without any of that stuff, go figure it's currently a train wreck.
Everyone having a platform would probably be fine if said platform also came with an instruction manual & training, so to speak. Like, I would just note that most of the respectable YT personalities and independent broadcasters, in a twist you'll never believe, previously worked as entertainers or some sort of media personality.
...a really tiny amount of our culture is locked away in the disney vault.
I'm talking about readily accessible global platforms that allow people with hateful ideologies to easily reach a ridiculous number of people and you respond with "I think it's a problem people can only buy Disney movies on occasion"?
The more I am on the Internet the more I grow to dislike any communication model/theory that doesn't believe "what the audience heard" is central.
"Just joking" and needless, deflecting prescriptivism are both incredibly common and both focus entirely on whatever uncommunicated "true meaning" the speaker claims to have meant and not what was actually communicated.
on the other hand you have that portion of the audience who either wilfully misinterprets or just are dumb and genuinely misinterpret (it's very hard to tell the difference)
Also, like, more reasonable levels of punishment on behalf of platform holders rather than a binary, 'You're perfectly fine... oh wait, now you're completely banned forever,' would probably go a long way.
PewDiePie should have been in trouble plenty of times in the past, but there was no punishment for it because he didn't yet go past the point of absolutely no return. That's a pretty poor way of managing expectations & behavior.
Ooooon the other hand: Is managing the behaviour of the creators really the responsibility of the platform holders?
Because, after all, everything that is not across the line, is not across the line. If somebody seems to be moving towards that line, that is essentially their issue to fix.
0
Options
GonmunHe keeps kickin' me inthe dickRegistered Userregular
@OnTheLastCastle sorry your service sucked. Actually a place we go too is slow like that but usually the food makes up for it. But most of them in DC are really fast. I didn't realize it was your first time ever. I find a lot of African food to be messy because you don't use utensils but that is the fun part. Were you using your injera to pick up the food? That was the grey pancake bread stuff. Also I love how spicy it is though there are non-spicy things. I am guess you got tibs right? Shiro is also amazing if you want to try again. Or come to DC. We are like the Ethiopian center of the US. There are so many good places here.
when i was sleeping 12 hours i quasi dreamt that my cat jumped upon the bed and came to snuggle but of course the cat actually lives with my parents
and then it freaked me out because the sensations were very real
Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I'm pretty sure the hardest part is spending years facing rejection even when you've gotten to a point where you are tantalizing close to mastery and yet can see fault in everything.
Getting started is pretty hard though yeah
beginner's mind yo
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
How many people has Sig banned now? Are we at double digits?
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
Also, like, more reasonable levels of punishment on behalf of platform holders rather than a binary, 'You're perfectly fine... oh wait, now you're completely banned forever,' would probably go a long way.
PewDiePie should have been in trouble plenty of times in the past, but there was no punishment for it because he didn't yet go past the point of absolutely no return. That's a pretty poor way of managing expectations & behavior.
Ooooon the other hand: Is managing the behaviour of the creators really the responsibility of the platform holders?
Because, after all, everything that is not across the line, is not across the line. If somebody seems to be moving towards that line, that is essentially their issue to fix.
Well, if it isn't the responsibility of the platform holders, why ban them at all then? If we prefer the Libertarian approach, then ultimately responsibility should rest on the viewer to curate their own experience and media should just be utterly untamed by design.
Yes, IMHO, it is the responsibility of YouTube and Twitter and Facebook, etc, to have reasonable punishment structures in place that modify the behavior of their users & manage expectations. It is certainly a shared responsibility with content creators, but right now I think far too much slack is cut for the platforms and the enforcement mechanisms / penal codes are often ridiculous.
The Ender on
With Love and Courage
0
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
when i was sleeping 12 hours i quasi dreamt that my cat jumped upon the bed and came to snuggle but of course the cat actually lives with my parents
and then it freaked me out because the sensations were very real
Um cats have spirit projection it was real
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+2
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Cats can be the best thing in some circumstances but there are other circumstances where they aren't
Not joking
Slept like crap last night. April kept pacing back and forth, back and forth. Then jumping up onto the bed down at my feet, walking up to the pillow, jumping across my head, walking down the other side and down again to resume pacing.
when i was sleeping 12 hours i quasi dreamt that my cat jumped upon the bed and came to snuggle but of course the cat actually lives with my parents
and then it freaked me out because the sensations were very real
Um cats have spirit projection it was real
my mistake
Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
+1
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Also, like, more reasonable levels of punishment on behalf of platform holders rather than a binary, 'You're perfectly fine... oh wait, now you're completely banned forever,' would probably go a long way.
PewDiePie should have been in trouble plenty of times in the past, but there was no punishment for it because he didn't yet go past the point of absolutely no return. That's a pretty poor way of managing expectations & behavior.
Ooooon the other hand: Is managing the behaviour of the creators really the responsibility of the platform holders?
Because, after all, everything that is not across the line, is not across the line. If somebody seems to be moving towards that line, that is essentially their issue to fix.
Well, if it isn't the responsibility of the platform holders, why ban them at all then? If we prefer the Libertarian approach, then ultimately responsibility should rest on the viewer to curate their own experience and media should just be utterly untamed by design.
Yes, IMHO, it is the responsibility of YouTube and Twitter and Facebook, etc, to have reasonable punishment structures in place that modify the behavior of their users & manage expectations. It is certainly a shared responsibility with content creators, but right now I think far too much slack is cut for the platforms and the enforcement mechanisms / penal codes are often ridiculous.
I think you're misreading Abdy's argument as he's not arguing for any kind of libertarianism here; he's saying that platforms do not need to moderate problematic behavior before it crosses the line, especially by some kind of tiered punishment approach.
Also, like, more reasonable levels of punishment on behalf of platform holders rather than a binary, 'You're perfectly fine... oh wait, now you're completely banned forever,' would probably go a long way.
PewDiePie should have been in trouble plenty of times in the past, but there was no punishment for it because he didn't yet go past the point of absolutely no return. That's a pretty poor way of managing expectations & behavior.
Ooooon the other hand: Is managing the behaviour of the creators really the responsibility of the platform holders?
Because, after all, everything that is not across the line, is not across the line. If somebody seems to be moving towards that line, that is essentially their issue to fix.
Well, if it isn't the responsibility of the platform holders, why ban them at all then? If we prefer the Libertarian approach, then ultimately responsibility should rest on the viewer to curate their own experience and media should just be utterly untamed by design.
Yes, IMHO, it is the responsibility of YouTube and Twitter and Facebook, etc, to have reasonable punishment structures in place that modify the behavior of their users & manage expectations. It is certainly a shared responsibility with content creators, but right now I think far too much slack is cut for the platforms and the enforcement mechanisms / penal codes are often ridiculous.
I think you're misreading Abdy's argument as he's not arguing for any kind of libertarianism here; he's saying that platforms do not need to moderate problematic behavior before it crosses the line, especially by some kind of tiered punishment approach.
Yes, but having a line and a punishment for crossing it means that one acknowledges a certain level of responsibility for curating content. YouTube is already saying, 'We will moderate problematic behavior' - I'm saying the approach is flawed.
If you've drawn a line at the end for things that absolutely won't be tolerated, I do not see a good reason for failing to have a couple of speed bumps to try and steer people away from the deep end before they get there. Most good penal systems do exactly this.
Also, like, more reasonable levels of punishment on behalf of platform holders rather than a binary, 'You're perfectly fine... oh wait, now you're completely banned forever,' would probably go a long way.
PewDiePie should have been in trouble plenty of times in the past, but there was no punishment for it because he didn't yet go past the point of absolutely no return. That's a pretty poor way of managing expectations & behavior.
Ooooon the other hand: Is managing the behaviour of the creators really the responsibility of the platform holders?
Because, after all, everything that is not across the line, is not across the line. If somebody seems to be moving towards that line, that is essentially their issue to fix.
Well, if it isn't the responsibility of the platform holders, why ban them at all then? If we prefer the Libertarian approach, then ultimately responsibility should rest on the viewer to curate their own experience and media should just be utterly untamed by design.
Yes, IMHO, it is the responsibility of YouTube and Twitter and Facebook, etc, to have reasonable punishment structures in place that modify the behavior of their users & manage expectations. It is certainly a shared responsibility with content creators, but right now I think far too much slack is cut for the platforms and the enforcement mechanisms / penal codes are often ridiculous.
Why ban them at all? Because certain content is unacceptable, of course.
I'm not saying anything about some libertarian-ish anything. Just that, I'd say that the only person responsible for modifying the behaviour of content creators, are the content creators.
The platform holder's responsibility is whatever is on their platform.
What I'm saying is, I don't see anything principally wrong with having a penal system for your platform where the one and only punishment is the chopping block, for anything that goes past the line of acceptable for that platform.
If someone seems to be edging closer to it, the only ones who have an actual responsibility for heading that off, is themselves, is my point.
EDIT: I will agree that far too much slack is cut for them - I'm not at all on board with the idea that editorial responsibility shouldn't apply at all, as seems to be the case
EDIT: I will agree that far too much slack is cut for them - I'm not at all on board with the idea that editorial responsibility shouldn't apply at all, as seems to be the case
Also, like, more reasonable levels of punishment on behalf of platform holders rather than a binary, 'You're perfectly fine... oh wait, now you're completely banned forever,' would probably go a long way.
PewDiePie should have been in trouble plenty of times in the past, but there was no punishment for it because he didn't yet go past the point of absolutely no return. That's a pretty poor way of managing expectations & behavior.
Ooooon the other hand: Is managing the behaviour of the creators really the responsibility of the platform holders?
Because, after all, everything that is not across the line, is not across the line. If somebody seems to be moving towards that line, that is essentially their issue to fix.
Well, if it isn't the responsibility of the platform holders, why ban them at all then? If we prefer the Libertarian approach, then ultimately responsibility should rest on the viewer to curate their own experience and media should just be utterly untamed by design.
Yes, IMHO, it is the responsibility of YouTube and Twitter and Facebook, etc, to have reasonable punishment structures in place that modify the behavior of their users & manage expectations. It is certainly a shared responsibility with content creators, but right now I think far too much slack is cut for the platforms and the enforcement mechanisms / penal codes are often ridiculous.
Why ban them at all? Because certain content is unacceptable, of course.
I'm not saying anything about some libertarian-ish anything. Just that, I'd say that the only person responsible for modifying the behaviour of content creators, are the content creators.
The platform holder's responsibility is whatever is on their platform.
What I'm saying is, I don't see anything principally wrong with having a penal system for your platform where the one and only punishment is the chopping block, for anything that goes past the line of acceptable for that platform.
If someone seems to be edging closer to it, the only ones who have an actual responsibility for heading that off, is themselves, is my point.
EDIT: I will agree that far too much slack is cut for them - I'm not at all on board with the idea that editorial responsibility shouldn't apply at all, as seems to be the case
But that seems moralistic rather than practical? Like, yes, ideally a person would engage in self reflection and back off rather than steaming full ahead towards the red line... but people aren't ideal constructs, and when you consider the relatively low cost to tell someone, 'Hey, you're going in the wrong direction. This is not good behavior,' I think there must be onus put on the platform to establish this kind of tiered punishment system.
I mean, the current paradigm certainly isn't working very well regardless of any oughts about human behavior.
Posts
"Just joking" and needless, deflecting prescriptivism are both incredibly common and both focus entirely on whatever uncommunicated "true meaning" the speaker claims to have meant and not what was actually communicated.
I can't really tell 100% from this audio but I'm fairly sure my reaction is "Can we get this guy into a studio?"
Well, I don't think it's great that so much of our culture is effectively locked away in the Disney vault. The emergence of large, independent broadcasters has a potential to essentially retake a lot of our cultural output, refilling our rather empty public domain coffers.
It's just... the current apparatus arose without any institutional memory, old veterans to guide the way into the grand frontier of broadcasting, a parallel body of ombudsmen, etc. Without any of that stuff, go figure it's currently a train wreck.
Everyone having a platform would probably be fine if said platform also came with an instruction manual & training, so to speak. Like, I would just note that most of the respectable YT personalities and independent broadcasters, in a twist you'll never believe, previously worked as entertainers or some sort of media personality.
PewDiePie should have been in trouble plenty of times in the past, but there was no punishment for it because he didn't yet go past the point of absolutely no return. That's a pretty poor way of managing expectations & behavior.
Tsk tsk
I guess that's why they are habits
Buskers at the train station is one of the things I miss the most from living in a large city.
A lot of them would just do middling renditions of pop music (and there was one guy who was clearly just learning to play, and ugh...)... but once or twice a month, you'd just get this spectacular performance from someone or a group of people.
I imagine you just getting injured constantly out of habit more than anything.
This applies a whole lot to forum moderatin'.
JUST JOKING YOU CAN'T INFRACT ME FOR THAT NOW IM INVINCIBLE
...a really tiny amount of our culture is locked away in the disney vault.
I'm talking about readily accessible global platforms that allow people with hateful ideologies to easily reach a ridiculous number of people and you respond with "I think it's a problem people can only buy Disney movies on occasion"?
Nope. Just, no.
on the other hand you have that portion of the audience who either wilfully misinterprets or just are dumb and genuinely misinterpret (it's very hard to tell the difference)
"What the audience heard" is far from monolithic.
We'll see about that!
Geth, infract @Neco !
*sinister anime laugh*
Not joking
Agreed
Sometimes I need to eat something, and cars are not good for that
Ooooon the other hand: Is managing the behaviour of the creators really the responsibility of the platform holders?
Because, after all, everything that is not across the line, is not across the line. If somebody seems to be moving towards that line, that is essentially their issue to fix.
We've learned Neco is secretly Truckzilla.
and then it freaked me out because the sensations were very real
beginner's mind yo
Well, if it isn't the responsibility of the platform holders, why ban them at all then? If we prefer the Libertarian approach, then ultimately responsibility should rest on the viewer to curate their own experience and media should just be utterly untamed by design.
Yes, IMHO, it is the responsibility of YouTube and Twitter and Facebook, etc, to have reasonable punishment structures in place that modify the behavior of their users & manage expectations. It is certainly a shared responsibility with content creators, but right now I think far too much slack is cut for the platforms and the enforcement mechanisms / penal codes are often ridiculous.
Um cats have spirit projection it was real
NNID: Hakkekage
None yet but that's because we've all performed the ritual.
Slept like crap last night. April kept pacing back and forth, back and forth. Then jumping up onto the bed down at my feet, walking up to the pillow, jumping across my head, walking down the other side and down again to resume pacing.
I think you're misreading Abdy's argument as he's not arguing for any kind of libertarianism here; he's saying that platforms do not need to moderate problematic behavior before it crosses the line, especially by some kind of tiered punishment approach.
Yes, but having a line and a punishment for crossing it means that one acknowledges a certain level of responsibility for curating content. YouTube is already saying, 'We will moderate problematic behavior' - I'm saying the approach is flawed.
If you've drawn a line at the end for things that absolutely won't be tolerated, I do not see a good reason for failing to have a couple of speed bumps to try and steer people away from the deep end before they get there. Most good penal systems do exactly this.
Why ban them at all? Because certain content is unacceptable, of course.
I'm not saying anything about some libertarian-ish anything. Just that, I'd say that the only person responsible for modifying the behaviour of content creators, are the content creators.
The platform holder's responsibility is whatever is on their platform.
What I'm saying is, I don't see anything principally wrong with having a penal system for your platform where the one and only punishment is the chopping block, for anything that goes past the line of acceptable for that platform.
If someone seems to be edging closer to it, the only ones who have an actual responsibility for heading that off, is themselves, is my point.
EDIT: I will agree that far too much slack is cut for them - I'm not at all on board with the idea that editorial responsibility shouldn't apply at all, as seems to be the case
Soft moderation is hard.
10,000
But that seems moralistic rather than practical? Like, yes, ideally a person would engage in self reflection and back off rather than steaming full ahead towards the red line... but people aren't ideal constructs, and when you consider the relatively low cost to tell someone, 'Hey, you're going in the wrong direction. This is not good behavior,' I think there must be onus put on the platform to establish this kind of tiered punishment system.
I mean, the current paradigm certainly isn't working very well regardless of any oughts about human behavior.
Soft moderation is me telling people to cut that shit out.