@TCF_Namelecc Huh? How in any way was my response hostile to you? I'm simply stating my sincere belief about how people should handle opinions they don't like if they are that offended by them.
The fact that you felt my response was attacking you just underlines the problem that we have with people these days being too coddled and sensitive to the point where their 'safe space' means controlling others. I guess I need to point out here again that by me saying this I'm not attacking you.
"Also, if everyone ignored everything that disagreed with their views, no progress would ever be made."
Censoring someone is the most extreme form of ignoring them. When people are allowed to express themselves even when what they have to say is ugly at least we can be aware that there are people that have these views and others, who chose to do so, can try to engage them and start a dialogue.
I'm not sensitive, I just felt your response was unnecessary given that I actually agreed with you for the most part...
This thing looks like it might turn into a 'trigger fest' ...
Hence, I implore the moderators to, as it were, 'shut er down' ...
#13 I hope it doesn't... I was just confused as to why I received a "if you disagree you can go away" response to my post where I actually agreed with them for the most part. That's all. I'll shut up now.
@TCF_Namelecc I don't mean to be disagreeable by saying this but our points didn't actually mostly agree. I said free speech should not be censored at all, let alone by an AI. So I'm saying neither humans nor AI should be in the business of censorship where as you think that humans should.
But in the spirit of harmony before they shut down this thread let's say that we both agree that AI censoring is worse than human. kumbaya!
I personally thought that was the most important issue at hand as that was the topic of the video itself :) so I thought we agreed for the most part.
Anyways, let's let it rest.
Faith in Conway's Cosmogram is sufficient unto itself, imho ...
@TCF_Namelecc
You wrote:
"Well, if I say something that agrees with him on the main point of the video (that there needs to be more human oversight and less algorithm work in hate-speech detection), and he decides to respond with 'If you don't like what someone has to say feel free not to read it'. How is that not slightly hostile?"
However you are quoting him out of context.
What he said was, "There's a simple answer, If you don't like what someone has to say feel free not to read it."
Out of context it sounds like he means @TCF_Namelecc when he says "you".
But in context it is more likely he means the 'general' you, as in, "If 'one' doesn't like what someone has to say..."
In which case it is hardly hostile, and even in the way you tried to present it, it falls short of what any literate individual would call "hostile."
Words matter, and as a linguist, it is my job to notice these things.
Trying to misrepresent someone's s words also matters.
The real problem with censorship of words (what you call "policing hate speech" as a contemporary euphemism) is that once censored, nobody really knows what was censored. You can post, "this video was removed for hate speech", but nobody knows if that was something approximating whatever taboo language you are advocating to suppress, or whether it was calling out a government for genocide or biological experimentation on a vulnerable demographic of society.
Unless you make the content available for scrutiny, you have ushered in a world where any information can be repressed.
I see that you have found support in your contention that @Bounty77 is the villain here, but I guess we live in that sort of dystopia now. Enjoy.
Instead of human moderators (it would be impossible to monitor 24/7 every day) A.I is pretty much the only option. However, the A.I. needs to be improved.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.