Thoughts On Moderation
On Moderation:
Humanity is a very interesting species. If you look at us, we are not the most genetically endowed - We are neither the strongest, nor the fastest, nor the most adaptable, nor the highest in reproductive abilities. Yet, we sit at the top of the food chain? If you look at history, our evolutionary ancestors used to do foraging, scavenging, and even eat droppings of other animals to get their nutrition and survive. What led to this aberration in order of nature?
If you look closely at our evolution - it was the ability to communicate and transfer knowledge in better and more effective ways than other species.
This also had evolutionary benefits. Our pre-frontal cortex is more developed vs other species. Speech actually helped us improve our ability to think, our ability to express emotion, our ability to form bonds and do higher order thinking much better than any other species on Earth.
As speech evolved, communication evolved, we built communities - another aspect came into existence - moderation of speech.
If you look at moderation, it evolves naturally from speech. Anything, if left unchecked - causes harm.
Speech also does, especially one directed towards attributes that cause division - gender, race, caste, socio-economic strata, physical attributes, even geographical separation.
Which belies the importance of gatekeepers to control and limit speech.
But as moderation became an accepted norm, people in power realized how powerful this tool is. Especially against people who wish to speak truth to power, (mostly from marginalized walks of life). And you began seeing this time and again - Whenever a ruler wished to wield power beyond the norms of ordinary checks and limitations - they'd first impose restrictions on freedom of speech - Whether it's Hitler, Musollini, Indra Gandhi or even to soem extent the current ruling parties (in various prominent countries).
But now we are in digital space. Our speech is also via digital social media. The challenge to moderate this speech - was passed onto the social media platforms themselves. While these platforms were able to shed responsibility of what's being said (and get sued for defamation and other lawsuits for what's being said through their means), they still had the obligation of moderating content (both from governments and users themselves - too much hate speech drives down retention in long term). Again an issue came out. How do the gatekeepers (which were content moderation teams of these social media platforms) ensure their bias doesn't creep into the discourse. It's fair to assume they couldn't. Twitter, Meta became beacons of left winged, "inclusive" politics. This of course causes resentment in factions that didn't support this thinking. I don't think a lot of people found issue with the organization's stand - The issue was that this stand was supplemented with suppression of speech from the other side. Cancel culture, tweets getting suppressed, accounts getting blocked - all fo this led to a bubble that burst with Elon acquiring twitter and dissolving all the content moderation rules built out. We all know how that's panned out.
But why am I saying this? Because I am a libertarian who believes in free speech. I might not agree with you, but I will defend your right to say it.
I have, myself, seen the power of discourse. Only when you have strong opposing principles, you elevate your argument. You think deeply at your own flaws, because the other side will leave no stone unturned to point it out.
Which is why I despise moderation so much. I challenge it to the extent possible - this platform has been a witness to it numerous times. And I punch up. I rile the person who thinks he's in power and push him to the extreme.
Of course, in doing so - You get snowflakes - that's the risk I take.
Also, in doing so I'll cross lines I shouldn't have - it will border on bullying, on causing distress, on causing mental discomfort - but I learn and know where the line is.
You can't know where the line without crossing it a few times.
It’s the price you pay to combat censorship…
Talking product sense with Ridhi
9 min AI interview5 questions
Are you implementing this in your office scenarios as well? Do you speak your mind with your manager/director or is it just a keyboard warrior thing over social media?
I absolutely support free speech and stand firmly against any kind of totalitarian control over what people can say. Open dialogue is essential for almost everything.
That said I think moderation needs to be considered in the context of each platform's purpose and community. A platform like twitter which aims to be a space for broad public discussions , might lean toward more open dialogue even if it means some uncomfortable or controversial opinions.
But other platforms like Grapevine or smaller focused communities or forums exist to serve specific audiences with particular goals. For them moderation is not about suppressing dissent but about cultivating an environment that aligns with their purpose and values.
Free speech is indispensable but it also needs to fit within the framework of each platform's mission and the expectations of its users. After all, every niche platform or group is built with a certain idea or motivation in mind about what kind of environment they want to create and what conversations they want to foster.
umm, some rights are absolute.
You can’t confine them.
Because it’s a slippery slope, you’ll always find reasons to suppress free speech no matter how large the audience, by finding the right levers.
Will give you an example - When India was at war with Pak, journalists like Md Zubair were involved in curtailing misinformation- some of which was being spread by our own faction (10% cases)As a country, you can take the action that their role surmounted to sedition against the country. So, do they deserve to be thrown in jail.
Or take the example of a cult right. A cult is a small niche group existing to support the whim of its leaders. Should members of the cult not have free absolute rights - Right to life or right to autonomy over your body?
If such rights exist (and should exist) absolutely, so should right to freedom of speech - because it is also an equally important one
Free speech goes out the window as soon as it starts to impact your bottom line.
yes true but this was more from a principle standpoint and not necessarily business standpoint