Ostroeuropa wrote:Liriena wrote:I'm not saying it's a good thing, but I am saying that the word "outrageous" is kind of misdirected when used to describe a rule that the platform itself has a history of not really enforcing with any serious diligence.
You can certainly complain that rules against hate speech in online communication platforms are wrong, be it as a matter of principle or in specific cases where their wording is not inclusive enough or lends itself to favouritisms. But you'd be complaining about aspirational abstractions which tend to have little to do with the material reality of how those platforms actually operate.
I kind of agree with this, but i'd question that they don't have a connection to the material reality of how they operate. It seems to me that the lax enforcement of the rules is in part due to them not being sincere, but a cover for the elimination of ideological enemies of the mainstream media. The material reality then is that these platforms kowtow to media narratives and censor criticism of the ideas and perspectives the media enforces on the public.
The lax enforcement of the rules is because they're not sincere principles, but rather, excuses. This is also why "sexism" and "racism" have been stretched beyond all recognition, because it's simple enough to rationalize an excuse for why something is racist, insist that it is so and disagreeing makes you unpersoned, and then demand it be censored. At least, it's simple to do if you hold power over the media.
I'm not entirely sold on the idea that it's an issue of friends and enemies of the mainstream media, at least not mainly. Platforms like Youtube have thrived through channels that sell themselves as alternatives to the established mainstream. Mainstream media shining a spotlight on controversial figures in those platforms can accelerate the platforms' reactions, but I feel like said reactions ultimately end up responding to a broader zeitgeist, rather than the mainstream media specifically.
Plus, online platforms may try to court a diverse or progressive audience, but in practice they often seem to be quite adamantly centrist, if not right-wing liberal. For a long while, for example, people have complained that the supposedly diverse and inclusive Youtube often takes a very Section 28-ish approach to LGBT content, and its rule enforcement often fails to distinguish between extremist propaganda and criticism of extremist propaganda.
And Reddit specifically seems to have an unspoken "both sides" policy whenever they get around to restricting or outright banning a community.