Split (1)

train · 5.86k rows

text stringlengths 0 9.69k

All of this fills a crucial analytic gap in opening government's case. Why, if this policy is as legitimately controversial as opening opposition says, will people not leave in mass? This is the reason why boycotts are unlikely and hence why this policy has the potential for efficacy, which is a needed mechanism for opening government's case to work.

Two extensions then at closing government. First, by promoting progressive content, it is not just justified per OG but an active moral necessity. And secondly, on how we facilitate political de-radicalization and limit the worst harms that come from violence and racism on social media.

First extension on the principle. Opening opposition is right; social media companies have no legitimate claim to prioritize one ideology over the other. That is a sufficient response to opening government's claim that you couldn't have consented to right-wing values and that right-wing media is dominant in the status quo. Given that opening opposition legitimately proved that there is a contractual duty for social media companies to be fair and respect ideologies, the thesis then of this argument is quite simple.

Historically, and even in the present, despite what crazies on the right like DeSantis will tell you, social media companies legitimately have played a major role in enabling conservative indoctrination in right-wing echo chambers and favoring right-wing perspectives often at the expense of the left. There are three reasons structurally that's true.

The first is that algorithmic systems on social media pigeonhole otherwise center-conservative individuals into outright right-wing echo chambers. The reason why is that algorithms work on the basis of prediction. They assume that the next best thing you want to see is that which you've seen in the past, and hence people, without their consent, gradually become more and more right-wing over time in a way that is manipulative.

That flips opening opposition's principle by demonstrating that moderate right-wingers are often unfairly echo-chambered and pigeonholed into the craziest right-wing views without their consent. This policy is a counterbalancing force against that.

Secondly, right-wing media has historically been far more dominant on social media than the left. Why is that? The right wing historically has been far wealthier. It is connected to established and traditional institutions, which has often meant they have the money to do things like engage in extensive political advertising on Twitter in the lead-up to major elections in many countries, particularly in the developing world.

And the right wing, on average, tends to be more willing to promote the sensationalist content that gets clicks on social media because it is right-wing media like Fox or Breitbart that is willing to ask you to disregard the conventional principles of ethical journalism to get clicks.

In an increasing era of global liberalization, the tactics used by right-wing media have become increasingly unfair to get more people to listen to their stories and watch their news media on social media. That's why, in many cases, right-wing social media or right-wing media platforms are the most likely to do things like utilize sensationalist clickbait articles that get people to click, even if objectively that's unfair for leftist media that's less willing to do so.

It's also intuitively because historically right-wing media has been highly present on social media companies' platforms. The problem is that right-wing media often then has a chilling effect on minority speech because when there is a news article that is harshly xenophobic or has Islamophobic undertones or tacitly suggests support for racist values, that often chills minorities out from speaking openly on these platforms because they legitimately fear for their own emotional safety.

And the discourse promoted by those sorts of news stories often makes people feel unsafe. The ultimate duty of social media is to promote discourse, to enable conversation, to facilitate social connections. They are the open marketplace of the 21st century, and that principal duty is violated when right-wing media dominates on social media.

Look, DeSantis would tell you this argument is crazy; in the real world, it's not. We agree with opening opposition that social media companies ought not prioritize some sets of ideologies over others. This policy then is corrective for the historical favoritism displayed towards right-wing media, outweighing OG by proving the legitimacy of this policy and beating OO's principle at the same time.

This is also independent of efficacy; even if people do not become progressive, there is still a moral duty to expose people to these ideas. Second extension: promoting progressive content reduces radicalization. Before that,

<poi>
everyone recognizes that artificially inflating conservative content is morally bad for the reasons we gave. Surely the alternative is reform, e.g., post-Cambridge Analytica investigations—not to do more of the same and double down on the principal home.
</poi>

No, our claim is not that social media companies actively promote right-wing media; it's that the nature of right-wing media, the tactics it uses, and the finances it has access to artificially favors right-wing media in social media network feeds. Reform is unlikely. Cambridge Analytica was a data scandal not really about news media, and presumably is unlikely to work in the vast majority of cases given entrenched status quo bias and the privileged people who run these corporations.

Second extension: let's talk about political radicalization. The first tier to this argument is that social media feeds tend towards radicalization. That is intuitively because algorithms reinforce your present political biases and hence make you become more radical over time. This is not about politics, to be clear; this is about moral values.

For example, are you willing to engage in racialized violence against the Rohingya minority in Myanmar, which has historically been demonized by hate speech on Facebook? News feeds are particularly important because people often see the headline and scroll away, making broad sweeping conclusions about the world based upon that, which then inform their decisions about whether or not to engage in hate-based politics.

This media often plays into your fear. It taps into sensationalist media incentives to make people scared that the local immigrant community is racist and drug dealers. Content moderation simply cannot work, and the major reason why is that in developing countries, there is simply a socio-cultural and linguistic barrier.

There are literally 12 people in the entirety of Meta that are fluent in the major languages spoken in Burma, and hence that is why the content produced in areas like the Tigran province of Ethiopia or Burma takes literally weeks to get taken down. Because there are cultural barriers, and the profit incentive of social media companies incentivizes cutting down content moderation.

On our policy is a better substitute for ineffective content moderation because you've exposed people to alternative ideologies. Unlike OG, we don't require you to become progressive; we just need to shatter the idea that the only legitimate beliefs are those shown to you on extremist right-wing media, which become more intense over time. Under our side, we incentivize the production of that progressive media. This isn't about politics; it's about violence, extremism, and hatred. Hence, we propose
</mg>

<mo>
Amazing, Cool. Just a moment. Okay, I'll be starting my speech in three, two, one. Not only the scientists would say the government's case is crazy; I say the same thing. The first thing I'm going to do is prove why the government bench cannot make the claim that progressivism is a good thing. Opening opposition only says they don't prove that. I'm going to prove the opposite.

Two levels here: Firstly, on utility, which is the metric coming from opening government. Know that utility is a human concept, which is to say outside of human, as far as utility is perceived. This means it doesn't exist outside of perception through the lens of subjectivity. On a new intuition level, I can be very rich and still be unhappy because my definition of utility is different from yours or anyone else in this room. For right-wing people, it's insulting to suggest abolishing the right to life. It is immoral to deny a deserving student the right to access the university based on affirmative action. There is true fear that their children are being driven to doubt their sexual identities in schools. This is a deep-seated feeling of immorality, of fear and injustice, to the same extent which people on the left perceive utility when it's given to them.

This means two implications for the government bench: Firstly, they don't increase utility, which is to say therefore that they don't fulfill their metric; but secondly, they arbitrarily preference one set of beliefs over another. This is morally unjust without the knowledge based on which you would do that. But secondly, on the level of existence of objective truth, it is unclear whether it exists, and there is no indication that it does. But more importantly, even if it did, it's inherently epistemically inaccessible because all humans are born into discourse. We are all a priori infected by our linguistic registers, by our cultures, by our moralities, desires, and experiences, which means we cannot even define the metrics of the search for objectivity because the very word "objectivity" is an empty signifier. We have different meanings of what it means to be objective; therefore, if there were such a truth, we cannot find it.

This means fundamentally that the government bench is basing the right of social media to arbitrarily preference one set of content on a moral and intuitive hunch. Insofar as they base their case on utility, I don't care that the right-wing media is currently dominating the world and stuff like this. But CG does something a bit more nuanced, right? They say this is reparatory. I have two responses here: First of all, one moral evil doesn't justify another moral evil. Two, moral evils can coexist. Something being unjustified so far means we need to support things like antitrust laws, not include another element of arbitrariness that they themselves claim is immoral. So they themselves prove that this type of action is immoral.

Secondly, they also concede that the point of social media is about discourse. In support of this, it is literally replacing one type of content with another type of content. They are not engendering discourse, so they’re directly not achieving their metric. But thirdly, because I thought of another one, even if there is a reparatory duty, it's unclear why it's fair to externalize that reparatory duty to people who would speak out in a right-wing manner. Why do the previous evils of social media require me, a third party who did not participate in that evil, to waive my right to speak or to persuade others in order for somebody else to rectify their prior evils? This link was not made.

What are the moral evils that are being made by the side of government on both sides? Firstly, denial of information. Not that people believe in different political truths, and they vote and act to realize the world as close to those political truths. In doing that, information is key. The more arguments, the more statistics, the more views you interact with, the better you're able to cross-reference with your own beliefs and make the vote or political action that's best for you, regardless of ideology. Namely, I can be progressive and stay progressive, but if I hear a conservative criticism of my belief, this might make me reconsider which left-wing party I'm voting for or who I'm voting for in the primaries.

But even if people don't even access this information or don't even try to access it, its very existence is an inherent moral good because it implies the existence of a tool that people may use if they want to achieve the subjective utility that government talks about. Even if there is no practical delta, this motion denies them that because it directly removes certain forms of ideas, therefore certain forms of information. But there also is a practical delta because the current algorithms are not biased in terms of progressivism, which means that they're not that nuanced. If I read the most liberal media, I'll get more Guardian or BBC than I do Fox News, but I'll still interact with a center-right column or op-ed on Guardian, which might switch my beliefs. This doesn't happen on the government side, or at least it doesn't happen if they want their case to be effective because that means a meaningful replacement of right-wing content with left-wing content.

Secondly, it implies the denial of the right to expression. Know that nobody has full access to the repository of your emotions, thoughts, etc. Therefore, the only thing people interact with is the image you project outwardly. Insofar as I'm now denied, as a right-wing person, the capacity to speak to others, I am denied the right to project my image; therefore, to control my social environment. Secondly, for a lot of people, it is crucial to their identity that they try to persuade others, regardless of whether they're successful. You are denying the capacity of persuasion to these people.

On the nuance level, not my earlier comparison as to why current algorithms don't prevent this to a certain extent, also governments talk about, you know, right-wing stuff and how this is not left-wing biased today proves that. But thirdly, as far as there is no objective truth, persuasion is morally legitimate and therefore should not be denied. You should not externalize blame in the way the government bench does. Identity only exists insofar as it's affirmed by other individuals, as far as I can communicate and get a response. But social media is doing here, even if the status quo is imperfect, it's unknowingly denying people their right to have or at least denying it to a larger extent than today.

So even if the delta is small, it is still a moral evil. The way this weighs up is, first of all, it's true regardless of backlash. Secondly, even if people become more right-wing or don't become more right-wing, we don't care; we prove it's a moral evil. But thirdly, the principle from opening opposition is, "Ah, people are going to think, you know, this is theft and stuff." But the theft argument only works if there are practical arguments on people knowing this. It doesn't work because if they know, they can just use other platforms, so this argument stands regardless.

I've also engaged on the practicalities, but before I do that, I'll take open governments

<poi>
On both sides. There are echo chambers, so your comparative isn't multiple nuanced viewpoints for the sake of engagement; it's likely another echo chamber that is just not progressing.
</poi>

One, I gave you nuance already. Secondly, I've already told you that one moral evil doesn't nullify another; it doesn't rectify other moral evils.
Now, on efficiency, opening opposition is correct to already point out that there is a large interest, and the margin is that the right wing can now say there is a conspiracy because this is what they've done. But what is the actual comparative? People might stay on Facebook. I'm not saying they're going to stop using Facebook, but because they know that their feeds are being tailored and they believe this happens to a bigger extent than it does, even if it's actually gradual, because they're being primed by people like Trump or the scientists to believe that, they're going to go deeper into platforms like deep Reddit, like 4chan, like Trump social. This is where they become more easily radicalized, which leaves the closing government claim because these are the worst areas where stuff like hate speech is promulgated.

On Facebook, if you're a Trump person, you are in an echo chamber, and you will interact with strong particles, but you're less likely to interact with Qanoon because there are fact-checkers, EU regulations, and civic integrity groups that
Reduce, the reach of that content and remove that content. So the worst excess is there's a difference between whether you believe Trump should win or whether you should storm the Capital; whether there is reverse racism or whether it requires vigilante action against black people. The worst excesses of hate speech, the worst excess of harms to people are removed and exacerbated at the point where you boost people on these moral platforms. But lastly, I just don't think they're efficient. At the point where this is gradual and you only see one article a day or something like this, you're still surrounded by your family, by your religion. Most of your articles are still right way. You're going to tweet that article as an exception and continue believing your own framework. People don't abandon their entire identities just because of one article. They don't have efficiency for centric; it's uncomparative because they already have a balanced amount of content anyway in the status quo. We win this debate as closing opposition
</mo>

<gw>
POI's in the chat exclusively, please. Just give me one second. Let me turn on the light. I want to start with odd extension and how it compares to OG. The first reason we beat OG is because we prove that people who are centered right actually stay in these platforms, which is the contingency for OG to get any of their benefits of people being convinced by progressivism, including moderates. Here's the extent of OG's mechanization on this plant: one, they say people won't find out because this narrative exists anyway. But even if they weren't to find out, as opening opposition points out, getting an overload of progressive content on your feed or getting multiple progressive articles might make you want to disengage with social media. And Aston says move to Truth Social.

Second, OG says they are addicted, but they give you no reason why alternate social media platforms are any less addictive. So at the end of OG, we lack a mechanism for why people stay in these platforms, which is the contingency to their case. Ryan gives you this mechanization that Tim ignores when he makes his final extension that you switch to 4chan and finally interact with Qanoon. We give you three reasons why you don't: one, strong network effects. Large amounts of people, especially in developing countries, depend on singular social media platforms for introduction because everyone else is on the platform and there's a collective action problem. But if only the right people move to Truth Social, you don't have a platform to interact with a person who gives you looks every day on WhatsApp like you would in India. Therefore, when very large groups don't move together, the first mover that is a social media platform has a massive advantage to begin with.

Second, in most countries, this is literally infeasible because big social media companies established an early presence on the Internet. They were often the first investors because they got massive user bases that way. So Facebook with Internet.org, for example, or Reliance Jio pumping up big social media companies and giving them favorable internet access given the absence of net neutrality laws in the developing world. Third, there's simply a resource asymmetry that social media companies have; massive data centers and know precisely how to hook you because they have more data about you and know how to make you addicted to that specific kind of social media. Truth Social isn't kicking off; Carla literally shut down. This means people actually stay in these platforms, which is the contingency for opening governance case that they did not prove.

The second pathway that we give you is about fighting violence and extremism, and this is critical because all of closing opposition's claims about identity exploration depend on you living in the first place. Violence is a fundamental attack on who you are as a person and on your identity. We show that violence reduces in a manner critically that doesn't depend on turning you into a progressive because without promoting progressivism, we show you the narratives you get on social media platforms are often primarily violent extremism in developing countries. Why is this the case? The reason why is because by extreme necessarily gets substantially more engagement to begin with. The reason why is liberals and conservatives might both be stuck in echo chambers, but liberals are far more willing to break out of their echo chambers and engage with conservatives, both because it's OG faint's liberals come from a culture of free speech and because things like call-out culture empirically substantially cascaded onto the liberal atmosphere a lot more, meaning they are willing to be engaged with right-wing content as well while right-wingers are often less willing to engage with progressive content.

The implication is social media algorithms often implicitly overweight right-wing content that gets a lot more engagement, and center-right people therefore move to substantially more extreme rhetoric. But beyond just right-wing content, it's often the case that people go from majorities with privileged networks doing things like spreading rumors on social media, building up anti-Rohingya Facebook groups that get a lot of attention simply because they're often the first people to access the internet and the first people to get to use social media to begin with. Critically, moderation does not solve this. Social media companies have limited moderation capacity, often running sweatshops in countries like Ghana where moderators run their time, especially moderators in a wide spectrum of different languages and a motivation system that depends on reporting that never happens. This is why Facebook facilitated the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, because extreme rhetoric spreads easily on social media, is much more polarizing, and gets more engagement necessarily uplifting it.

Why do we solve this problem? We are not contingent on convincing people to change their minds. We solve this problem by taking space away from the echo chamber because the central right people who are most susceptible to having their minds changed get less exposure to these ideas if we overweight progressive content in their algorithm. Because the mechanism through which they are convinced is often repetition, when you have progressive content in the algorithm, you take space away from this extreme content, which reduces violence. Our third pathway is justice. The primary claim, so the thesis of this argument is that the right wing has a rigged system on social media. Now OG sort of hints at this; they say Murdoch-type things have power. The right wing has power over the media, but they do not actually explain why the right wing is wealthier and how they use that on social media apart from my claims on sensationalism.

The key point is they have more donors because they benefit from the traditionalist setup, which is what conservatism is. Progressivism is about changing the established status quo, and therefore people who are progressive often benefit less from the established status quo. What that means is all the claims about the lack of an objective moral truth are flipped. Pin's response, "two wrongs don't make a right," our point is not that you simply have a reparative obligation. A point is if you primarily get exposed to conservative content right now and you have a bunch of feeders into conservative content, even if we overweight progressive content, you don't lose out on conservative content; that just levels the playing field, which is a moral virtue in and of itself as opposition concedes.

Now I want to comprehensively engage off-bench and explain why they lose independent of our extension. First, closing opposition—they say the more arguments you interact with, the better you cross-reference beliefs. Problem one: social media is a substantial echo chamber due to the constant recommendation of algorithms that you like. Pin says his case is more nuanced, but he adds no further nuance for why they get cross-reference beliefs. Apparently, there are center-right Guardian articles; I don't know them. I don't know who's engaging with them. Yeah OO,

<poi>
Moving on to Truth Social was only one of our harms. We proved more generally that this will lead to centrists immediately discrediting progressive content because they see it as lies...
</poi>

I'll respond that I'll respond that let me just finish Closing opposition—so closing opposition's other claims that right to free expression, that people can only access one image; you're not denied a right to free expression because you still, as a right-wing person, have more of a platform. If you're privileged, you can pay for Twitter Blue; you have larger social networks reading your content in the first place. All this justice levels the playing field.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.