[jariel]

I don't have a lot of faith that we will resolve this, but the 'Net Neutrality' vs. 'Ban Someone I Don't Like' hypocrisy is dizzying.

The positions are ideological and naive - they are obviously contradictory - it's only that when they are framed in certain ways, often 'straw-man-ish', do people think they have clarity on them.

For example, it's easy to understand why we don't want Verizon charging customers different prices based on the nature of the content. It's easy for us to want to 'ban Nazis' from Reddit. But both of those are unrealistic ideals (i.e. straw men) because neither contemplate the broader application. It's a very slippery slope.

It's not a big deal that Nazis get banned from somewhere, and maybe it's not a big deal that Verizon wants to design services such that your profitable business costs 2x on their network - but those bounds expand very rapidly.

On the front pages of CNN and Fox right now we have a completely ridiculous war over 'Goya' canned foods because of some arbitrary comments the founder made about Trump.

This issue is only going to get much worse and more complicated over time.

We have basically no choice but to define what kinds of businesses can use what thresholds, and try to infer what those thresholds are.

[thephyber]

> It's a very slippery slope.

> This issue is only going to get much worse and more complicated over time.

Slippery slope is a fallacy. Humans aren't required to follow the precedent of previous decisions like SCOTUS justices are. People eventually see the problems with previous choices once the consequences hit a tipping point.

We are having multiple moral panics right now. They will pass.

People will eventually get more tolerant of others making mistakes on social media; it will accelerate once more of us know someone who directly loses their job/status/etc to a moral panic. Also, there are examples of people who were targeted by moral panic mobs (eg. Colin Kaepernick) who survived the outrage and overcame it.

Once enough people get {"cancelled", fired, boycotted, excommunicated, etc}, these calls carry less and less effect over time and social media mobs lose their power.

> On the front pages of CNN and Fox right now we have a completely ridiculous war over 'Goya' canned foods because of some arbitrary comments the founder made about Trump.

Those are bad gauges of anything except outrage-for-clicks. Those two webpages rile up their core viewership to generate eyeballs and collect web-ad revenue. Trump only got to the front of the 2016 Republican primary because the rest of the field was boring and he riled up moral panics and owned most of the news cycles since.

> but those bounds expand very rapidly

Not always. And this ignores the observable fact that there is almost always a regression to the mean. There are social frictions which prevent these moral panics from burning too long.

[jariel]

The 'slope' has been 'slipping' for at least 10 years, and here is no indication that it's going to let up.

The opposite of 'fallacy' - it's literally happening all around you:

1) We now have major corporate support for 'social claims' with brands backing (and cashing in) on celebrities for their politics, not their skill at 'whatever', and supporting some causes surrounding a lot of public disruption. These have led to some groups trying to 'ban' others.

2) The attempted influencing of electoral outcomes via 'bad information' from outside agents, agitators, along with a plethora of information - with no guidance other than the whims of CEOs. There's all sorts of 'banning' on FB and YouTube and it's all pretty grey, often it can have major consequences.

3) CEO's brought to congressional hearings for these issues - this is a sign that 'ban' culture is now a top concern.

4) Weekly national 'pop culture wars' over which brand has transgressed which group, promoted widely in the press, resulting in calls for bans of some products or services.

5) 'Social concern' as the primary legitimacy for populism, even among those who are supposed to be popular for their acting, music, or athletics. In the last 10 years - ever 'celeb' has embarked upon a 'personal branding campaign' to imbue themselves with moral authority. There was always a little bit of this - but now it's 'the thing'. Go and have a look at social media, try 'Kristen Bell'. Every few posts are about some kind of moral concern. Otherwise: they could get the ban. A host of globally respected individuals had to sign an piece in Harper's. This is basically 'shocking' to anyone of a certain age, because intellectuals and their ilk used to be the one's fighting for freedom of expression against the authorities - now, 'ban' culture has infiltrated their organisations and become a populist issue.

6) There are disruptions and protests around what would be normal, common, mundane events: 'The Joker' review by the Daily Beast was entitled: "Everything About the Joker was Absolutely Infuriating". The 'infuriating' parts had nothing to do with the film, but rather the supposed politics of the film. The DB and others wanted the film to not be released is it were. There are weekly arguments over who can play who in film, supposed issues of representation, wars over the composition of selection committees - often resulting in the 'cancelling' of individuals.

Twitter and social media have created the ability for agitators to move giant waves of people in an emotional, populist direction, resulting in quite a lot of effort to ban, cancel, disassociate.

It's far worse than ever before, and it's going to be worse before it gets better.

I see no pathway for it 'getting better' anytime soon, because the pathways to outrage have formed, hardened and are now part of our culture.

Individually - yes - most of us are getting sick of it - but that won't change the fact of the activity in the news, on Twitter, and journalists 'calling for the resignation' of so and so for this and that with the basic moral impetus of 'someone on Twitter said it, therefore, that's how America feels'.

CloudFlare, Facebook - your startup - does not want to deal with this, there needs to be some kind of collective clarity.

[1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/everything-about-joker-is-abso...

[htfu]

1, partly 5) Who are you to be the arbiter of what is 'supposed' to make people popular? It doesn't work that way. Can you read the mind of Kristen Bell and know she acts out of fear?

2, 3) No guidance other than the whims of CEOs... oh and congress. How does that add up?

4) On a slippery slope from yellow journalism to...

I'm sorry for the low-effort post, but something like this is quite tricky to respond to. Much like your view of the thing you're railing against, any legit points you may have drown in a sea of outrage completely lacking perspective and full of non sequiturs.