Search Mailing List Archives
[liberationtech] Facebook Asks - Hard Questions: Social Media and Democracy
Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes
alps6085 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 23 11:27:58 PST 2018
I always bitch about “Western Civilization.”
Except for what has come to be called “Humanismo Solidario.” Sorry, apparently the English language doesn’t have a proper equivalent of the word “Solidario.” Dictionaries throw darts in the dark with “supportive,” “caring,” and even (Google Translate) “solitary (autocorrected by Apple to “solitary” Q.E.D. :D).” But the American Heritage Dictionary comes up empty when asked for a definition of “solidary,” so it’s all “hearsay” which is not bad but it shows the pathos of the English Language as Utilitarian par excellence, which in modern times translates to “what’s in it for me?” - NOTHING. what’s in it for me in being a humanista solidario is all to the other. Not to me, except that “warm and fuzzy feeling” of knowing that I’m “doing the right thing” and helping others, especially when they’re at the bottom of the ruthless pyramid of the modern world. This “Humanismo Solidario” has grown considerably in modern times. Recently I read there were 1.2 Million plus non-profits in the US alone. Lots of volunteers (humanismo solidario by the masses) even weeding out those “causes” that are really not kosher at all...
Going back to “Humanismo Solidario:" “humanism” that is unencumbered by Ivory or Black towers, but rather roams free and engages in direct action helping oppressed peoples.
Translate that to an online platform and we’re cool. None of today’s social media, pandering advertising and “big data analytics" to the biggest bidder and flashing those bidders the zillions of views they’d get (exhibitionists them all), qualify. No matter how many “codes of ethics” they write and try to enforce.
The only sensible proposal I’ve read so far is to take a supposedly “struggling” social media platform like Twitter and make it open source and public. No Ads.
> On Jan 23, 2018, at 12:21 PM, Yosem Companys <ycompanys at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is an important discussion. I'm so glad to see so many people weighing in.
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Richard Brooks <rrb at g.clemson.edu <mailto:rrb at g.clemson.edu>> wrote:
> >> Should it allow antifa? Should it include racists?
> > If the rules of the discursive process are sufficiently
> > well defined, then everyone is inhibited from causing
> > damage or bring forward opinions that aren't compatible
> > with previous fundamental decisions such as human rights
> > etc. To ensure that rules are respected you need
> > moderators and to ensure that moderators aren't abusing
> > their powers you need judges. That's what it takes to
> > really have online democracy - simplifications may fail.
> You are begging the question. Who makes those rules?
> If it is the majority, then 50 years ago gay speech
> (let alone transgender) would have been suppressed.
> How do you deal with the tyranny of the majority?
> And the hecklers veto? Are pro-nazi statements
> permitted (in the US, yes. In Germany with a
> constitution written in large part by the US,
> Saying that it is possible to define a set of rules,
> ignores the issue of who defines the rules and
> how minority rights are protected.
> And allowing a majority mob-rule is not an answer,
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech <https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech>. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at zakwhitt at stanford.edu <mailto:zakwhitt at stanford.edu>.
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at zakwhitt at stanford.edu.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the liberationtech