Google/youtube building a future of automated censorship

[realibrad]

You're basically arguing that if you have a service open to the public you should give up all control over what is said or expressed there.
No business is ever going to agree with that.

Nope. I am saying that the company if it wishes to serve the public should conform to its user wishes. Where do you see that I am advocating a company giving up control?

A company like google is doing one of two things here. Its either trying to shape the world or its trying to protect its image. It could be both, but for what Im about to say its easier to hold them as split things.

If Google is trying to protect its image then totally fine, but I also will not support that image and will advocate against that and look to do my business elsewhere. That is, if they are pushing the idea that Peterson's ideas are somehow harmful. If they were doing this type of thing to say the Spencer guy who got punched, I would say oh well.

If Google is trying to shape society into what it thinks is "right" then I have a huge problem with that and will be for more adamant in my stance.

 

[realibrad]

You certainly have that crystal ball polished up, assuming my statement is false is telling of what you're willing to make yourself mentally go through to reinforce your own view.

When they start promoting slavery, link me back to this thread. If they choose to censor people who do, I'm not losing sleep over it.

Just so we are clear, you are saying that even slavery is not inherently immoral? If you are not, then your statement is wrong. You first said that everything is subjective and I said it was not. I used slavery to exemplify my position. So unless you think even slavery is subjective you agree with me that not everything is subjective.

Public discourse would change, and people would adapt, as usual. Google is not the internet, neither is youtube. The internet existed before, and would be there without either.

Public discourse would only change if people influence it. I am advocating starting that conversation now before things get worse rather than waiting until things are bad and trying to fix it.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

How am I doing that? I'm not asking for the state to do anything so how am I trying to force anyone. I am trying to persuade people, but not force anyone.

You're still asking for others to conform to your ideals of morality, that's what persuasion is.

Oh I see, so child abuse is not inherently immoral. It can be totally okay to have sex with a 5yo so long as society says its okay.

You (and most, myself included) would find it detestable to do so based on one's personal beliefs/personal morality, but that still doesn't mean it's inherent to our reality. It's still a subjective construct, which is revealed as soon as you start asking 'at what age is it no longer morally reprehensible'. Once you realize morality can be negotiated, you realize it's subjective.

Companies are made up of people. Unless you know of a company that has acted without humans wishing it, then I think you are incorrect.

The company, made of people, may have created the algorithm which made the decision, but the algorithm acted without human intervention. It's immune to morality in that sense. In addition to that, decisions made for the good of a company are generally amoral by nature, because what's good for people is not necessarily what's good for a company, and vice versa. In fact, most would argue that ideal capitalism itself is about as much an antithesis to morality as one can find.

 

[realibrad]

You're still asking for others to conform to your ideals of morality, that's what persuasion is.


You (and most, myself included) would find it detestable to do so based on one's personal beliefs/personal morality, but that still doesn't mean it's inherent to our reality. It's still a subjective construct, which is revealed as soon as you start asking 'at what age is it no longer morally reprehensible'. Once you realize morality can be negotiated, you realize it's subjective.


The company, made of people, may have created the algorithm which made the decision, but the algorithm acted without human intervention. It's immune to morality in that sense. In addition to that, decisions made for the good of a company are generally amoral by nature, because what's good for people is not necessarily what's good for a company, and vice versa. In fact, most would argue that ideal capitalism itself is about as much an antithesis to morality as one can find.

If you think there is any way that sex with a 5yo can be anything but immoral then we have no grounds to start from.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

If you think there is any way that sex with a 5yo can be anything but immoral then we have no grounds to start from.

So per my note about negotiation, at what age do you personally feel it's no longer reprehensible. What's an 'okay age' for sex with a youth?

As an added bonus, does the 'okay age' change if both are the same (or near the same) age?

 

[realibrad]

So per my note about negotiation, at what age do you personally feel it's no longer reprehensible. What's an 'okay age' for sex with a youth?

As an added bonus, does the 'okay age' change if both are the same (or near the same) age?

The age is not as important as the mental ability of the person. Typically, mental maturity to the level of consent is somewhere in the mid to late teens in my experience. That said, every person matures at different rates. It would also be just about impossible to test every person and have a different age of consent. I am for an arbitrary base age, but would be in favor for a mental competency evaluation in cases where a judge would see fit.

The age of the other partner should be irrelevant.

 

[bshole]

If people are unaware of who exactly Jordan Peterson is. Here is what Wikipedia says:

Jordan Bernt Peterson (born June 12, 1962) is a Canadian clinical psychologist, cultural critic and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. His main areas of study are the psychology of religious and ideological belief, and the assessment and improvement of personality and performance. He authored Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief in 1999.

Peterson grew up in Fairview, Alberta. He earned a B.A. in political science in 1982 and a B.A. in psychology in 1984, both from the University of Alberta, and his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from McGill University in 1991. He remained at McGill University as a post-doctoral fellow for two years before moving to Massachusetts, where he worked as an assistant and an associate professor in the psychology department at Harvard University. In 1997, he moved to the University of Toronto as a full professor.

In 2016, Peterson released a series of videos on his YouTube channel in which he criticized the Canadian government's Bill C-16. The videos sparked a controversy that received significant media coverage.

Here is where the controversy is:

On September 27, 2016, Peterson released the first installment of a three-part lecture video series, entitled "Professor against political correctness: Part I: Fear and the Law".[8][14] In the video, he stated he would not use the preferred gender pronouns of students and faculty, and announced his objection to the Canadian government's Bill C-16, which proposed to add "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, as well to the list of identifiable groups against whom it is illegal under the Criminal Code to promote genocide or publicly incite hatred.[15]

He stated that his objection to the bill was based on potential free speech implications if the criminal code is amended, as he claimed he could then be prosecuted under provincial human rights laws if he refuses to call a transsexual student or faculty member by their preferred pronoun.[16] Furthermore, he argued that the new amendments paired with section 46.3 of the Ontario Human Rights Code would make it possible for employers and organizations to be subject to punishment under the code if any employee or associate says anything that can be construed "directly or indirectly" as offensive, "whether intentionally or unintentionally."[17] Other academics challenged Peterson's interpretation of C-16.[16]

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The age is not as important as the mental ability of the person. Typically, mental maturity to the level of consent is somewhere in the mid to late teens in my experience. That said, every person matures at different rates. It would also be just about impossible to test every person and have a different age of consent. I am for an arbitrary base age, but would be in favor for a mental competency evaluation in cases where a judge would see fit.

The age of the other partner should be irrelevant.

A reasonable stance, but not everyone would agree with you, especially on that final point. There's plenty of long-term abusers (mental and emotional) which would happily prey on 15-19 year olds, and would have an easy time of it.

Your stance is based in your sense of morality which is different form others'. Neither is right nor wrong, they're purely subjective constructs.

 

[realibrad]

A reasonable stance, but not everyone would agree with you, especially on that final point. There's plenty of long-term abusers (mental and emotional) which would happily prey on 15-19 year olds, and would have an easy time of it.

Your stance is based in your sense of morality which is different form others'. Neither is right nor wrong, they're purely subjective constructs.

That has nothing to do with your stance that everything is subjective. This only proves that one other thing is. Sex with a 5yo is immoral. I cannot believe that anyone with any sort of reason would argue that sex with a 5yo is moral in any way.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

That has nothing to do with your stance that everything is subjective. This only proves that one other thing is. Sex with a 5yo is immoral. I cannot believe that anyone with any sort of reason would argue that sex with a 5yo is moral in any way.

Why are you assuming that if something isn't immoral, it's inherently moral?

You're missing the point here, it's not binary. It's subjective.

 

[realibrad]

Why are you assuming that if something isn't immoral, it's inherently moral?

You're missing the point here, it's not binary. It's subjective.

Some things can be neutral but sex with a 5yo is not. I think we are done here.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Some things can be neutral but sex with a 5yo is not. I think we are done here.

You do realize, you're using the same 'think of the children' argument used by politicians and lawyers for decades to push their agenda, whether it's for the good or bad of others, right?

 

[agent00f]

Nope. I am saying that the company if it wishes to serve the public should conform to its user wishes. Where do you see that I am advocating a company giving up control?

A company like google is doing one of two things here. Its either trying to shape the world or its trying to protect its image. It could be both, but for what Im about to say its easier to hold them as split things.

If Google is trying to protect its image then totally fine, but I also will not support that image and will advocate against that and look to do my business elsewhere. That is, if they are pushing the idea that Peterson's ideas are somehow harmful. If they were doing this type of thing to say the Spencer guy who got punched, I would say oh well.

If Google is trying to shape society into what it thinks is "right" then I have a huge problem with that and will be for more adamant in my stance.

No, the conservative shill is arguing that private companies should adhere to GOP guidelines or else.

 

[realibrad]

No, the conservative shill is arguing that private companies should adhere to GOP guidelines or else.

Hello Agent. Feeling lonely and had to come say hello?

 

[agent00f]

Hello Agent. Feeling lonely and had to come say hello?

I do love to mock low hanging fruit. Hardly my fault you have a talent for it.

 

[JSt0rm]

So per my note about negotiation, at what age do you personally feel it's no longer reprehensible. What's an 'okay age' for sex with a youth?

As an added bonus, does the 'okay age' change if both are the same (or near the same) age?

wtf is wrong with you?

 

[JSt0rm]

you better get your pedo fantasies fixed before you get worked.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

wtf is wrong with you?

you better get your pedo fantasies fixed before you get worked.

Excuse me? That's quite an assumption, followed by a fairly thinly veiled threat. I assume you also missed the entire point of the conversation?

 

[realibrad]

Excuse me? That's quite an assumption, followed by a fairly thinly veiled threat. I assume you also missed the entire point of the conversation?

What it started as was me saying some things are inherently moral and immoral. I used sex with a 5yo as an example of something inherently immoral. Your defense was no, even that is subjective. No real defense there guy.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

What it started as was me saying some things are inherently moral and immoral. I used sex with a 5yo as an example of something inherently immoral. Your defense was no, even that is subjective. No real defense there guy.

No, I got accused of being a pedophile because I was voicing my thoughts on morality, by someone who made a bold, and irrational assumption founded in absolutely nothing.

My views on morality don't mean I support pedophilia (much less make me one), and I'm rather astonished that anyone would presume that.

 

[agent00f]

What it started as was me saying some things are inherently moral and immoral. I used sex with a 5yo as an example of something inherently immoral. Your defense was no, even that is subjective. No real defense there guy.

Morality is an artificial human construct. There's no morality between the lion and gazelles no matter how young. Sex with minors is amoral by modern western standards, arguably for good reason.

Of course you'll forever pretend to be too dumb to understand this, because that's your thing.

 

[SharpHawk]

I'm rather astonished that anyone would presume that.

You should not be astonished by anything the Anandtech Politics posters say or do, except for your own insistence to continue engaging with them.

 

[Jhhnn]

People upload content to YouTube at 300 hours per minute, 24/7/365. It seems likely that they'd rather avoid spreading the poison & being part of the problem, so they developed automated tools to help them.

So... Wah. Just Wah.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Just so we are clear, you are saying that even slavery is not inherently immoral? If you are not, then your statement is wrong. You first said that everything is subjective and I said it was not. I used slavery to exemplify my position. So unless you think even slavery is subjective you agree with me that not everything is subjective.

Slavery was the straw you grasped in whatever frame of mind you're trying to paint me. You could choose from quite a few different topics to define me with, not sure why you chose this one. Plus, I never said what you're claiming I said. Please just google the word indifferent.

Morals are based on perceived right and wrong. In today's day and age, we've decided to accept slavery as not just immoral, but outright wrong without question. I wholeheartedly agree, and see the idea of owning another human detestable.

If I was born 2k years ago, I would likely be of a different mindset depending on who raised me, since perceived right and wrong was different back then.

So, in reflection on humans history, slavery being right/wrong is completely to subjective.

Public discourse would only change if people influence it. I am advocating starting that conversation now before things get worse rather than waiting until things are bad and trying to fix it.

Start it then, go on a crusade against google. enjoy.

 

[realibrad]

Morality is an artificial human construct. There's no morality between the lion and gazelles no matter how young. Sex with minors is amoral by modern western standards, arguably for good reason.

Of course you'll forever pretend to be too dumb to understand this, because that's your thing.

Morality is inherent to humans sure, but how can you say its a western idea and arguable at the same time. If the argument is valid, then it becomes inherent. If there is not a valid argument then its not inherent.

Do you think sex with a 5yo is not inherently immoral?