Look, as much as we hate Meta... doesn't Hanlon's razor apply here - "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"? Could it be that the account triggered some automated system?

▲

tomrod 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe if this was Dickson's party in 2008. A massive political event in 2026 is the hottest midterm to date? You can discount Hanlon's razor. It's not an infinite excuse any more than the book Infinite Jest was either unending or funny.

	▲	nfw2 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah and nothing convinces the undecided independents, who now are mostly paranoid schizophrenics, to vote for you like appearing to shut down free assembly

▲

biophysboy 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I am 99% sure it was an automated system false positive, but it is annoying that we all have to rely on these capricious systems. That is in itself a problem with massive scale platforms. It confirms my silly hot take that all online communities should not be bigger than 10k people. That keeps the number of bad eggs legible to an actual human moderator, and keeps the discussion less mob like

▲

Veserv 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No. Hanlon’s razor explains that stupidity can cause the same amount of harm as intentional evil and is thus just as bad.

If harms are excused because they were not made with evil intentions then the Nazis who just liked making the numbers go up in a orderly fashion should be considered blameless.

▲

nfw2 an hour ago | parent [-]

that's absolutely not what hanlon's razor says. it's an epistemological rule of thumb, not a moral argument.

▲

Veserv an hour ago | parent [-]

They literally trotted out Hanlon’s razor as a moral argument that we should not blame Meta since it was probably just a whoopsie-doodle. This is a very common moral argument that people implicitly make or explicitly advance when using it.

I am pointing out how that is a absurd moral argument deriving from the rule of thumb. If anything, the corollary is the literal opposite.

Any stupidity indistinguishable from malice should be treated the same.

The usage as a epistemological rule of thumb just points out how great harm is usually caused by stupidity, intentional or otherwise, rather than intentional desire to cause the specific harm. If you aim to reduce great harms targeting just malice is not merely inadequate, it is likely missing the overwhelming majority.

	▲	nfw2 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		One should try their best to make sense of reality before making moral arguments. That's what epistemological tools are for, like Hanlon's razor. Whether moral implications are downstream is unrelated to what the razor is, which you claimed to know but don't. You seem to be claiming that intent is not related to justice or blame, which would result in an inhumanely cruel justice system where punishments don't fit crimes. But don't worry, I attribute your proposal to stupidity not malice

▲

runarberg 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Marx’ counter-Razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by class interest.

	▲	nfw2 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		marx's ideas famously have never missed