I am against censorship. And I am against misogyny, homophobia, racism etc.
But there is a difference between censorship of things people have the right to say (even if a lot would disagree) and hate speech. There is also a difference between polite criticism and statements which are right but formulated in an insulting way.
I do not see anything wrong in tools which would suggest changes to text you want to publish to keep the meaning but make it more polite. Provided that this is just a suggestion, not something forced on you, so that you can publish your text will all insulting parts - and then be accountable for how you formulated it.
Also, some people do not realize that some statements may be offensive, but would avoid them if it was pointed out. Such things happen to me, it's embarrassing and I would not mind a tool which would bring my attention to how my text might be understood.
As for hate speech - this is a bit less easy to solve. Whether it is automated moderation, or a moderation by humans when the published text is reported as hate speech, or something in between - you will always have the problem that a group of people may cause removal of text which is perfectly right but against their vorldview. This happens frequently on Facebook with right wing and fashist group reporting absolutely justified posts without hate speech as hate speech, and the posts are removed.
But this is not a reason to not have mechanisms against hate speech - which may be just disgusting and unpleasant, but may be life damaging and bringing people to commit suicides.
I understand that you’re okay with a tool which would bring your attention to possibly offensive comments. But what if the tool only warns you about statements which could offend the left? I think Tanner is against any such tool, but if there is to be one, I think he would want it to be evenhanded.
As the purpose of not being offensive is not to offend, obviously I would prefer a tool that points to all things which might be offensive, whether to the lefties, righties or the sirens from Titan.
So yes, I completely agree with you, and I understand that even people who are extremely offensive by their nature are vey likely to have some sensitivitiea of their own.
Pointing to things which may be offensive to whoever might be reading would be useful, provided I can decide to ignore the advice or reformulation.
I certainly would not be happy if I were forced to put my ideas into writing according to someone else's rules forced on me against my will. But at the same time I usually value good advice (unless I am seriously annoyed ;) ).
I recently retired from over 40 years in IT, much of that in management. I have seen all this unfold over time. When I saw that this article specifically addresses IT, I felt I should offer my perspective. And I believe that this article's description is out of date by over a year (several years with respect to Xtwitter), at least in the US market which is what I am familiar with. The 180 U-turn has been breathtaking. I talk with former colleagues regularly, and I often hear about long standing practices being abandoned. People in these companies are afraid to raise any concerns about their company's behavior that they would have been open about before. Left leaning speech is more strictly criticized both internally and externally. The level of fear in the industry at present is appalling. All this is in pursuit of approval by an administration. At the end of the day, all that matters to these CEOs is the ability by billionaires to amass even more money. Which leads to the question as to how much the Tech leaders ever really cared about what is described in the article.
I am against censorship. And I am against misogyny, homophobia, racism etc.
But there is a difference between censorship of things people have the right to say (even if a lot would disagree) and hate speech. There is also a difference between polite criticism and statements which are right but formulated in an insulting way.
I do not see anything wrong in tools which would suggest changes to text you want to publish to keep the meaning but make it more polite. Provided that this is just a suggestion, not something forced on you, so that you can publish your text will all insulting parts - and then be accountable for how you formulated it.
Also, some people do not realize that some statements may be offensive, but would avoid them if it was pointed out. Such things happen to me, it's embarrassing and I would not mind a tool which would bring my attention to how my text might be understood.
As for hate speech - this is a bit less easy to solve. Whether it is automated moderation, or a moderation by humans when the published text is reported as hate speech, or something in between - you will always have the problem that a group of people may cause removal of text which is perfectly right but against their vorldview. This happens frequently on Facebook with right wing and fashist group reporting absolutely justified posts without hate speech as hate speech, and the posts are removed.
But this is not a reason to not have mechanisms against hate speech - which may be just disgusting and unpleasant, but may be life damaging and bringing people to commit suicides.
I understand that you’re okay with a tool which would bring your attention to possibly offensive comments. But what if the tool only warns you about statements which could offend the left? I think Tanner is against any such tool, but if there is to be one, I think he would want it to be evenhanded.
As the purpose of not being offensive is not to offend, obviously I would prefer a tool that points to all things which might be offensive, whether to the lefties, righties or the sirens from Titan.
So yes, I completely agree with you, and I understand that even people who are extremely offensive by their nature are vey likely to have some sensitivitiea of their own.
Pointing to things which may be offensive to whoever might be reading would be useful, provided I can decide to ignore the advice or reformulation.
I certainly would not be happy if I were forced to put my ideas into writing according to someone else's rules forced on me against my will. But at the same time I usually value good advice (unless I am seriously annoyed ;) ).
I recently retired from over 40 years in IT, much of that in management. I have seen all this unfold over time. When I saw that this article specifically addresses IT, I felt I should offer my perspective. And I believe that this article's description is out of date by over a year (several years with respect to Xtwitter), at least in the US market which is what I am familiar with. The 180 U-turn has been breathtaking. I talk with former colleagues regularly, and I often hear about long standing practices being abandoned. People in these companies are afraid to raise any concerns about their company's behavior that they would have been open about before. Left leaning speech is more strictly criticized both internally and externally. The level of fear in the industry at present is appalling. All this is in pursuit of approval by an administration. At the end of the day, all that matters to these CEOs is the ability by billionaires to amass even more money. Which leads to the question as to how much the Tech leaders ever really cared about what is described in the article.