[zaptheimpaler]

Well they already are doing something to fight it.. you want them to do more, but someone will always want more given they cannot solve the problem a 100% or even 50%. What they do will never be enough because the problem cannot be solved even close to 100%.

>1. The question of can is entirely separate from the question of should. Sometimes someone should, or even absolutely must, do something even if they currently can't, and the inability to do it does not make the demand that they do unjustified.

Wow... perhaps can/should are separate philosophically but frankly it makes no sense in the real world. We "should" all eat 200 calories a day so theres enough food to go around, we should all generate electricity out of thin air so theres less global warming, we should all be sure never to spread infectious diseases by force of willpower alone.. i mean what purpose does a demand that cannot be met serve? Thats insane.

BRB lemme go protest outside my barbershop demanding they solve the crisis in Chechnya.

Or maybe closer to home, I will be sure to demand that any software consultant I hire builds a system to handle 1M writes per second on an Arduino, and gets 1ms latencies across the world, real world be damned.

[pron]

> i mean what purpose does a demand that cannot be met serve?

Even assuming that it cannot be met (that's your assumption, not mine), it serves to set a goal and a system of values. Most religions demand that there be no murder and theft even though they know there always will be. It makes sure that people do not fall into a naturalistic fallacy. The fact you can never make it to 100% doesn't mean you should be content at 40%.

> lemme go protest outside my barbershop demanding they solve the crisis in Chechnya.

What kind of power does your barber have in Chechnya?

> real world be damned.

I don't understand. Do you have some kind of scientific proof that Twitter cannot do any more than they're doing now to reduce the rampant harassment in the community they've built? Twitter is not some natural phenomenon. It is a community built by people.

[zaptheimpaler]

>Even assuming that it cannot be met (that's your assumption, not mine)

With 350K tweets per minute I feel that is a much more likely assumption than the opposite.

>I don't understand. Do you have some kind of scientific proof that Twitter cannot do any more than they're doing now to reduce the rampant harassment in the community they've built? Twitter is not some natural phenomenon. It is a community built by people

I know they are taking some action already - with muting features and suspending certain accounts. I know whatever action they take manually cannot scale to stop most abuse. So there WILL be harassment. A lot of it. Ultimately its up to what people choose to do, and they have very little control in that.

Pretty much all online communities tend to become toxic without moderation, so when I see one of the biggest online communities in the world becoming toxic, and I know it cannot be effectively moderated... well my reaction is not to blame the people running the forum. The hate there is a reflection of hate in society.

I don't have proof that they cannot do any more, but I would ask if you have reasonable standards for how much they should do or proof that they are not meeting those standards. I just feel an online forum only reflects the views of its community, and as such it is not within their power or responsibility to change the people posting there. I feel the hate is better directed at the hateful people. This feels analogous to blaming paper manufacturers when people print hateful things on paper. They only create the medium, not the message.