alt Hacker News> suddenly I'm deplatformed for hosting LLM generated code, then I'm not deplatformed for LLM generated code, I'm deplatformed for saying mean things about people with fragile ego
This is ultimately a matter of framing though. You can equally argue that (a) that person shouldn't be deplatformed because others' LLM use is tolerated or (b) all of them should be deplatformed including that person. In the latter case (b) the person who said mean things still experiences the same outcome, but by your logic this is just. Ultimately whether the others get deplatformed doesn't directly affect them, so what's the real difference here?
> > how is this bad
> they look silly
> bad press
This seems highly subjective & ultimately not really bad by any metric that matters.
Replies
The difference is that without consistent enforcement, the rule becomes just a fig leaf for arbitrary decisions by the moderation team, who then receives an enormous amount of unintended power. Most reasonable people wouldn’t argue that the moderation team should be allowed to ban anyone that they have a personal disagreement with, for example. Yet here we are.
The problem is for the platform as a whole, not the individual who may or may not be punished.
>Ultimately whether the others get deplatformed doesn't directly affect them, so what's the real difference here?
The difference is -- if I know the effective policy, I can plan better and choose a different platform in advance (if the it's option (b)).
>This seems highly subjective & ultimately not really bad by any metric that matters.
Subjective opinions matter because people act on them (more) consistently than on objective facts. I would for example act on a subjective opinion that a platform provider is a bunch of racist assholes or affiliated with r-country.