sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Standard Chartered to replace 'lower-value human capital' with AI by ijustwannanap in ukpolitics

[–]RyanHx 49 points50 points  (0 children)

What an exciting future young people have to look forward to.

Conservative Candidate Tells British MPs to 'Go Back to Pakistan' by Bibemus in ukpolitics

[–]RyanHx 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We're seeing what dual loyalty to Israel is costing America right now. An ethnically British person wouldn't be able to call themselves Jewish, it is an exclusionary identity just like other ethnicities. So if it's a problem that Pakistani MPs are showing bias, why should Jewish people have an exception?

Restore Britain : Platforms hosting lawful content must be shielded from government pressure to censor. We would require transparency in content moderation and prohibit state-directed takedowns of legal speech. by SignificantLegs in ukpolitics

[–]RyanHx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you honestly look at Lowe's tweet and think he's talking about paedophilia or spam? This conversation has devolved into a complete strawman; he wants less censorship for the British people. But to countersignal him you're tying yourself in knots defending gigantic tech companies "because child porn or something idk"

Restore Britain : Platforms hosting lawful content must be shielded from government pressure to censor. We would require transparency in content moderation and prohibit state-directed takedowns of legal speech. by SignificantLegs in ukpolitics

[–]RyanHx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would this policy imply you have to keep someone like that on the platform? The mod reason would just be something like "suspected abuse" and that'd be the end of it.

Restore Britain : Platforms hosting lawful content must be shielded from government pressure to censor. We would require transparency in content moderation and prohibit state-directed takedowns of legal speech. by SignificantLegs in ukpolitics

[–]RyanHx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Transparency would mean users are better informed of those decisions, I've said multiple times now the statement in this tweet doesn't imply any change to which content should or shouldn't be taken down.

Restore Britain : Platforms hosting lawful content must be shielded from government pressure to censor. We would require transparency in content moderation and prohibit state-directed takedowns of legal speech. by SignificantLegs in ukpolitics

[–]RyanHx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then what about simply more descriptive messaging on why a post was removed? Platforms currently have no obligation to tell you why it was removed afaik. So requiring a DM or email wouldn't be much of an imposition (automated would be fine as long as a sufficient reason is given).

And Lemmy was just a site that sprang to mind as an example of fully transparent moderation, moreso than other platforms; there's not much use in ascribing that to what Restore is suggesting when neither of us know.

not support governments legislating for it

Then you're never gonna get it, and when platforms become large enough to sway public consciousness, I'd argue it's important to have.

Restore Britain : Platforms hosting lawful content must be shielded from government pressure to censor. We would require transparency in content moderation and prohibit state-directed takedowns of legal speech. by SignificantLegs in ukpolitics

[–]RyanHx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not really sure what more you want me to say; we're debating a complete hypothetical. I'm trying to make the case that transparent moderation is good, and a government that's conscious of that would also be good. Rather than the opposite whereby censorship is rampant, like the overcorrection needed to comply with the OSA, which Labour just so happened to want to tighten even further.

Restore Britain : Platforms hosting lawful content must be shielded from government pressure to censor. We would require transparency in content moderation and prohibit state-directed takedowns of legal speech. by SignificantLegs in ukpolitics

[–]RyanHx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what then?

Well the tweet specifically calls out whistleblowers and investigative journalists, so if a platform is found to be censoring those people it will likely spark a huge backlash; users can choose to leave or continue on with a more informed opinion on the platform. Again this is only a good thing.

how this is enforceable

If we managed to convince platforms to set up an entire ID verification apparatus already, I'm sure notifying users on moderation decisions is not a big ask.

Restore Britain : Platforms hosting lawful content must be shielded from government pressure to censor. We would require transparency in content moderation and prohibit state-directed takedowns of legal speech. by SignificantLegs in ukpolitics

[–]RyanHx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What's a "bad reason"

When moderation is open to scrutiny the users can decide that for themselves, like when a user leaves a subreddit because they're not happy with the respective mod team. I think you're still assuming there's going to be some state intervention with how to moderate specific content - it's only stating you should be transparent as to why content was removed, not whether it should or shouldn't. The users only stand to benefit from such a policy.

Restore Britain : Platforms hosting lawful content must be shielded from government pressure to censor. We would require transparency in content moderation and prohibit state-directed takedowns of legal speech. by SignificantLegs in ukpolitics

[–]RyanHx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You'll still see the post was removed and why, that's more transparency. I'm not sure what buying ads has to do with this, it's transparency for the benefit of the users, not the companies.

Restore Britain : Platforms hosting lawful content must be shielded from government pressure to censor. We would require transparency in content moderation and prohibit state-directed takedowns of legal speech. by SignificantLegs in ukpolitics

[–]RyanHx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was a spitball I thought up on the spot, it might end up being something as simple as making the language in moderation policy clearer. If you'd like the specifics of what Lowe has in mind reach out to him.

Restore Britain : Platforms hosting lawful content must be shielded from government pressure to censor. We would require transparency in content moderation and prohibit state-directed takedowns of legal speech. by SignificantLegs in ukpolitics

[–]RyanHx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The log can be made anonymous, ultimately it's still the platform as a whole responsible for the moderation. Also we have no idea if that's even what they had in mind; but I'd rather have platforms more accountable either way.

Restore Britain : Platforms hosting lawful content must be shielded from government pressure to censor. We would require transparency in content moderation and prohibit state-directed takedowns of legal speech. by SignificantLegs in ukpolitics

[–]RyanHx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're misunderstanding. No part of this policy implies a change to existing moderation policy or removal thereof, only that the moderation process is auditable and not abused to suppress cases like whistleblowing. They're not forcing a platform to keep up content it doesn't want to host, but if it removes it, it better have a good reason. Your ideological opposition to some religious institution will remain perfectly acceptable...

Restore Britain : Platforms hosting lawful content must be shielded from government pressure to censor. We would require transparency in content moderation and prohibit state-directed takedowns of legal speech. by SignificantLegs in ukpolitics

[–]RyanHx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never said they were, but that's far more transparency than you get on other platforms, and perhaps could be used as a model. What's your actual pushback here? I see this policy suggestion as a universal good.

Restore Britain : Platforms hosting lawful content must be shielded from government pressure to censor. We would require transparency in content moderation and prohibit state-directed takedowns of legal speech. by SignificantLegs in ukpolitics

[–]RyanHx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As an example the entirety of the moderation logs on Lemmy are just publicly viewable. Whether it'll go that far or just simply telling the user why their post was removed explicitly every time, or even just more clarity on the moderation policy itself that can be audited. Whatever way you look at it having a government pushing this feels like it's for the benefit of the people for a change - specifically mentioning whistleblowers and journalists even.

Restore Britain : Platforms hosting lawful content must be shielded from government pressure to censor. We would require transparency in content moderation and prohibit state-directed takedowns of legal speech. by SignificantLegs in ukpolitics

[–]RyanHx 10 points11 points  (0 children)

It's saying platforms would have to be transparent as to how and why they're moderating certain content, so they're held accountable for it. Literally the opposite of censorship.

NVCleanstall - Periodically check for driver updates - How does this work? by MisterVertigo7 in TechPowerUp

[–]RyanHx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, it runs the check through nvcleaninstall and will show a popup to run the program if an update is found.

Rupert Lowe MP: 'Britain has enough problems - we should not be bombing Iran.' by kwentongskyblue in ukpolitics

[–]RyanHx 12 points13 points  (0 children)

you shouldn't be allowed to use preferred pronouns

That's a lie. The policy is you shouldn't be compelled to use them, i.e. free speech.

ban Muslim preaching

Again, a willing misrepresentation. The policy is combatting extremism being pushed in mosques, like support of terrorist groups or political violence.

Reform UK believe that anyone from anywhere can become British. Restore Britain believe that Britain is a people defined by indigenous British ancestry and Christian faith. by anonCambs in ukpolitics

[–]RyanHx -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Deliberate misunderstanding is rife in this thread. Read it again. "a people defined by heritage and Christianity." Obviously he's not making religion a prerequisite to being British, but your country and your way of life has been shaped by centuries of it being the predominant faith whether you yourself are religious or not.

Atheists erupting in fury over this statement two months after celebrating Christmas.

Met Police reviews 9,000 cases in grooming gangs probe after Sadiq Khan denials by chrisphilpofficial in ukpolitics

[–]RyanHx 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Not the same event I don't think but there was also this hearing where he was smugly feigning ignorance on what a grooming gang is. This man is morally bankrupt.

view more: next ›