Re:Our Thoughts on the New Zealand Massacre
by sparky_z on Saturday March 16, 2019 @03:25AM
(#19406778)
What's opaque about the situation you're describing? Everyone understands what happened and why. What other definition of transparent is there?
Re:Our Thoughts on the New Zealand Massacre
by benj111 on Saturday March 16, 2019 @03:42AM
(#19406820)
The rules as described and as implemented don't match. Saying you're doing something, when that something makes no sense and is unreasonable isn't transparency.
Wikipedia's opening paragraph on transparency:
"Transparency, as used in science, engineering, business, the humanities and in other social contexts, is operating in such a way that it is easy for others to see what actions are performed. Transparency implies openness, communication, and accountability. "[1]
There is neither openness or accountability in my example.
Yes in a narrow sense it is transparent, in the wider (I would say, most important) sense, it isn't.
Yes I know why the post was removed, but based on the stated no nudity rule, the post should have been ok.
If we go one stage further and appeal (to the same algorithm). That too will presumably fail.
So what we are left with is a set of rules, and a set of defacto rules, that don't match up. That I wouldn't say is transparency, except in a limited and meaningless sense.