jasonshaev

I do see your point and your explanation does add some nuance to my thinking on this topic. That being said, I still think it was a poor choice of words as evidenced by the fact that the majority of the replies are debating the OPs language as opposed to their original point.

I was not familiar with the term "euphemism treadmill." Thanks for the info, that phrase does help bring some clarity and specificity to the discussion.

These are all hypotheticals. Is there any serious, non-academic question about whether the word we're actually discussing is harmful? Even if there is, we all have a choice about what language we use and whether to respect the fact that certain words may hurt others. The cost of NOT using the relevant word is ... zero. This isn't an academic exercise. It's an emotional exercise.

"The origins of the latest epithet in vogue are harmless." The origin of the word is irrelevant. Words mean things and can be harmful, regardless of the origin of the word. The meaning and context of words can change over time, regardless of the origin of the word.

Bringing Charles Darwin into the conversation does not help your point.

"Is it worse to have some condition of your birth used as a casual insult -- a reminder of your misfortune? Or is it worse to be constantly patronized, often behind your back by throngs offended on your behalf?"

This is a false trade-off. The whole conversation started because someone used a harmful word, knowing full well it was harmful. If they refrained from using the offensive word they knew was offensive neither condition would have happened (casual insult or patronization).

"The origins of the latest epithet in vogue are harmless." The origin of the word is irrelevant. Words mean things and can be harmful, regardless of the origin of the word. The meaning and context of words can change over time, regardless of the origin of the word.

Bringing Charles Darwin into the conversation does not help your point.

"Is it worse to have some condition of your birth used as a casual insult -- a reminder of your misfortune? Or is it worse to be constantly patronized, often behind your back by throngs offended on your behalf?"

This is a false trade-off. The whole conversation started because someone used a harmful word, knowing full well it was harmful. If they refrained from using the offensive word they knew was offensive neither condition would have happened (casual insult or patronization).

The thread started with "real name." The only way to verify that is government identity.

If you want to verify some other, "online" identity, that's fine, but I don't see how that would meaningfully affect anyones behavior. To be clear, I don't think verifying someone's real name will meaningfully improve online behavior either -- plenty of other threads explain why. In which case, what's the point of either?

How do you verify someone's IRL identity without a government issued ID card in a scalable way?

I don't mean some idea that could work at some arbitrary point in the future (decentralized whatever...). If a social media platform were to do this, right now, how would they do it without verifying a government issued ID?

Sorry if this is off-topic but does anyone know if "tineye" is a reference to Brandon Sanderson novels? Specifically the Mistborn series?

I couldn't find any reference on tineye.com but it seems like it has to be.

Perhaps, but it IS a good example of a system that protects the end user from monetary loss in the event of fraud due to leaked credentials (in this case the card number + CVV + exp date). In my opinion, any system that seeks to replace credit cards needs to have a similar ability to recover user funds in the case of inevitable security leaks, which is something many crypto systems struggle with.

Asking the author to provide more context on what domain(s) their blog post is meant to apply to is a reasonable critique.

However, consider whether your original post made that critique clear, or if it got lost amidst the other ... stuff. The first two lines, in particular, will immediately put some readers (myself included) on the defensive. Describing somebody's work as "some web service bs" is a bad start. And if your point had nothing to do with the "hardness" of the problems, only that those particular problems are most relevant to building web services, why not just say that? Instead of the "...somebody who works on some web service bs assumes that that's as hard as the world gets," bit.

The tone of your post is unnecessary and not helpful to your point. I don't agree with the authors point but I can say that without being insulting or snarky.

In spite of that, when did "making a database product" count as not "hard?" Building a database isn't "real software engineering™?" Since when was building "authorization microservices" easy? In the simplest case, sure. But authorization in general is a huge problem space and I don't understand calling that "bs." Active Directory would like a word...

If I reword my reply to:

"There has never been a reasonable expectation that private businesses are or should be required to allow all speech. Doing so prevents the business from exercising their own freedom of speech protections."

it still holds. Freedom of speech does not mean that a company should be compelled or required to host speech it disagrees with.

"Protect your right to say it..." from _the government_. There has never been a reasonable expectation that private businesses are or should be required to allow all speech. Doing so prevents the business from exercising their own first amendment protections.

"Corporate censorship" is "fine" because preventing corporations from moderating content is inconsistent with the 1st amendment.

I do not agree that those 2 articles support your point.

"“We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation,” she [Psaki] said." It's still up to Facebook to determine wether or not to take down a post. There is a BIG difference between a government official reporting a post to Facebook and the government passing a law preventing a citizen from posting in the first place (which would obviously violate the 1st amendment).

The second article describes people who used to work in government now working for Social Media companies. It is, in my opinion, a stretch to call that government censorship. "The problem is that having so many former CIA employees running the world’s most important information and news platform is only one small step removed from the agency itself deciding what you see and what we do not see online –" Disagree. It is a BIG step to leap from "former government employees, including members of the CIA, work in trust, security and moderation" to "the CIA is controlling what is on social media."