as far as authoritarian goes, I guess it depends on what you think is accepable or necessary. We have to have some laws.
-
-
Replying to @DerekGT
Yes, I am talking specifically abt deciding who private companies can & can't host on their shows/stages/social media etc.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I think somehow companies have more responsibility than people, because of their potential impact
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DerekGT
But they might not think so. And if we claim to respect diversity of ideas, we cannot insist they do it our way.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
at the end of the day, it's a decision as to how many rights we give companies. They already don't have same rights
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DerekGT
But we're talking abt freedom of expression now. I will advocate it consistently.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
and hate speech is still hate speech. I would argue we should be even stricter on that. Certain people should be banned for that
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DerekGT
You either uphold freedom of expression or not. Can't say everyone except universities & ppl who use what I think of as hate speech
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
why are you imposing a binary? You don't support people's right to speak if inciting. There is a gray area.We should decide best
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It is only for ideas. It doesn't include plotting violence or breaking confidentiality or causing a stampede. Just ideas.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
ok then, I think we were saying the same thing on that point.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.