What to do about social media corporations?

[Pat]

Instead, we live in a world where many people unironically say "someone [the government] should do something", under the naive assumption that just throwing money at something or getting the right people in power can fix any problem.

I mean your preaching to the choir here. Which is why I said I have to compromise my principle of 'Free speech all the time' with 'Except calls to violence and defamation', because reality isn't perfect. If it means curtailing a rightous revolution, thats a price I see as acceptable to curtail things like mobs of people just using social influence to end the lives of others.

That's where we disagree. I think there are valid reasons to reject the use of force at this particular time, but I also completely reject the idea that the use of force is never acceptable. Tyrannies tend not to go quiet in to the good night.

The main reason to avoid the use of force now are pragmatic. We're in a hyper-sensitive safety-focused society driven by sensationalized media, so incidents involving violence can be blown up completely out of proportion and garner very strong reactions. This is a highly selective lens, with most incidents of violence being completely ignored; but which incidents are selected and how they're presented is highly politicized (cf. Floyd vs. Rittenhouse, the 1/6 "Insurrection" vs the 2020 "peaceful protests", etc.). It's not true that all publicity is good publicity, because incidents of force by anyone opposing the progressive narrative are used as weapons to destroy them and everyone who can be tentatively or even falsely linked with them. So there's a very good argument to completely avoid any violent resistance, because even one trivial incident will be used for years to bolster the mainstream narrative.

However the retention of the tools of force, like guns, are absolutely vital to the continuation or reestablishment of a free republic. If those are ever surrendered, there might not be any coming back.

[Shrieking Banshee]

That's where we disagree. I think there are valid reasons to reject the use of force at this particular time, but I also completely reject the idea that the use of force is never acceptable. Tyrannies tend not to go quiet in to the good night.

I didn't say that. I said I can understand the legal structure of the state not having a 'initiate a legal violent revolution against me' clause.

In addition 9 times out of 10 what happens after a violent revolution is a worse dictatorship then before that makes everybody regret it happening in the first place. Its just the nature of force and power. Because the people doing the revolution have to break many moral scruples to win, and then those morals don't come back after their in charge. Or they never had said morals in the first place.

[Ghostmaker]

"Treason ne'er prosper; why, what's the reason?
If it doth prosper, then none dare call it treason."

Granted, going full insurrection is a lot like flipping the game board in a Monopoly game and trying to fistfight with the banker. Nothing's the same afterward.

[Pat]

That's where we disagree. I think there are valid reasons to reject the use of force at this particular time, but I also completely reject the idea that the use of force is never acceptable. Tyrannies tend not to go quiet in to the good night.

I didn't say that. I said I can understand the legal structure of the state not having a 'initiate a legal violent revolution against me' clause.

Okay. Except that almost never happens. Usually, it's the state that initiates the violence. For instance, Ruby Ridge. Or the Civil War. In both cases it was the state (the Union in the latter case) that exerted force. The state just decided it couldn't let them go, or let them be, and ultimately resorted to force. The reason that's an important distinction is because so many people deny things like taxation are violence, under the rationale that the state doesn't immediately send stormtroopers to your door. Instead, they issue a warning, then maybe send a citation, or expect you to pay a fine, and then there's a hearing, maybe a warrant somewhere in there, and then a court date, and a trial, and only at the end of the process do they resort to violence. But that's still exercising force, and all the obfuscation and indirection doesn't change that.

[Shrieking Banshee]

Okay. Except that almost never happens.

What happens? A state exists with a 'initiate violence against me' clause? Well yeah. If it had that, it wouldn't exist and be replaced by a state without said clause.

But that's still exercising force, and all the obfuscation and indirection doesn't change that.

I know. Again, you are preaching to the choir. I know how the state operates. I also know how people operate and a state is the logical outgrowth of human nature.

[Pat]

Okay. Except that almost never happens.

What happens? A state exists with a 'initiate violence against me' clause?

People initiating violence against the state. Usually, the state initiates it.

[Shrieking Banshee]

People initiating violence against the state. Usually, the state initiates it.

I mean yes, the state exists through force. But im not sure how thats relevant to the arguments about free speech.

[Shasarak]

Instead, we live in a world where many people unironically say "someone [the government] should do something", under the naive assumption that just throwing money at something or getting the right people in power can fix any problem.

I mean your preaching to the choir here. Which is why I said I have to compromise my principle of 'Free speech all the time' with 'Except calls to violence and defamation', because reality isn't perfect. If it means curtailing a rightous revolution, thats a price I see as acceptable to curtail things like mobs of people just using social influence to end the lives of others.

Have you ever thought that Free Speech without calls to violence is not Free Speech at all?

Maybe it all started to go downhill when you could not challenge your accuser to a Duel at dawn.

[Shrieking Banshee]

Have you ever thought that Free Speech without calls to violence is not Free Speech at all?

Well possibly, but I can only see that sort of thing ending in a chaotic mob rule situation.

[Ocule]

It's totally a problem with the judges. Imo any social media company engaged in "editing" to include removing posts or censoring groups of people should lose 230 protections and become editors. Would be plenty of incentive to either serve as a communication platform or be responsible for each and every poster on their platform.

[Shasarak]

Have you ever thought that Free Speech without calls to violence is not Free Speech at all?

Well possibly, but I can only see that sort of thing ending in a chaotic mob rule situation.

Only if the mob has the only Guillotine.

[Kyle Aaron]

It's totally a problem with the judges.

It might also be a problem with the scale. I can't find it now but the other day I glanced at a study - I was on the train, which is why I can't now find it and didn't read it properly - which talked about how the productivity of an online discussion forum or group essentially dropped to nil past 150 members or so. Dunbar's number and all that.

It's like how if you have more than a dozen or so chickens, they forget their pecking order and start to fight among themselves, if you want a larger flock then you have to put a rooster in there to sort them out.

Likewise, if you have a large forum of discussion - whether in-person or online - past a certain number nobody can possibly know and get along with everyone and fights will break out, so you put in roosters. This is why we get political parties and then factions within them and so on.

Within a small group of friends, you can get some pretty good tolerance of a fairly wide variety of opinions. But stand up in front of 1,000 people and someone's going to throw cabbage at you, and eventually it occurs to someone to ban people from saying certain things just to keep the peace.

We've spent 120,000 or so years of human history living in little tribal groups, and not much since living in big cities and countries. We're still adapting.

[Pat]

^ If you do find the study, I'd be interested.

[Kyle Aaron]

^ If you do find the study, I'd be interested.

It took me a bit because I just couldn't remember it. Then I was glancing over Brave New War by John Robb, and I always dog-ear the pages with stuff I want to look further into. This was one of them - so I'd not seen the study, just the passing mention of it. And then I went looking just now and it's less a study and more just discursive observations, but perhaps there's more recent rigorous stuff. It's a guy called Chris Allen.

http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03/the_dunbar_numb.html

For those who don't know, essentially the idea is that maintaining a relationship requires "social grooming", like monkeys picking bugs out of each-other's fur. They do it far more than required for health - it maintains relationships. Having language means that human monkeys can groom more efficiently and effectively, and have larger social groups.

As well though, it's not enough to know about my relationship with Anna and my relationship with Bob, I have to know how Anna and Bob feel about each-other. If Anna likes Bob and I badmouth him, I piss her off; likewise if she dislikes Bob and I praise him, I piss her off. So it becomes more complicated as the number in the group goes up, and you have to spend more and more time figuring out who's who and how they all feel about each-other - and less time doing other stuff.

As Allen writes,

This all leads me to hypothesize that the optimal size for active group members for creative and technical groups -- as opposed to exclusively survival-oriented groups, such as villages -- hovers somewhere between 25-80, but is best around 45-50. Anything more than this and the group has to spend too much time "grooming" to keep group cohesion, rather then focusing on why the people want to spend the effort on that group in the first place -- say to deliver a software product, learn a technology, promote a meme, or have fun playing a game. Anything less than this and you risk losing critical mass because you don't have requisite variety.

I would suggest that this is the reason for things like the oppressive moderation on places like rpg.net, and it being so ideological. To handle the relationship between me, Anna and Bob no ideology or grand principles are needed. But to handle the relationships between thousands and thousands of people you may need some broader principles.

Anyway, the 150 is more-or-less a maximum. There are some individuals who'll have networks up to 250 or so, however the group as a whole will be limited by the lower end of the range, as the people whose limit is 150 end up causing trouble when the group climbs to 250.

There are some other details of the model which talk about some group sizes struggling and then improving with more members, which explains a lot of things like the historical sizes of infantry sections or game groups, platoons or extended families, infantry companies or villages, and how adding things like survival challenges change it.

Anyway, it's interesting stuff to look into. It's helped me have good insights into being a gamer and a trainer, for example 4-5 people seems to be a productive group, but 6 or more means there'll never be only one conversation going on. So for my game groups I aim for 5 people, and in my gym I aim for 6.

[Mistwell]

A lot of the powers that be on the internet cracked down HARD on pro-anorexia sites a while back and nobody complained

Huh. I had not heard about that one. Any idea where I'd find out more information about that? Not doubting you at all, just a topic that was completely not on my radar that sounds like it might be worth reading more about.