this is a well thought through response. i’m repulsed by Jones, but if legal bounds were overstepped, it has to be a courts decision since platforms are without a doubt, monopolized. Quarantined on timeout while litigating is one solution, since broadcaster could be held liable.
-
-
Right, but what does the regulation even look like? How is it enforced? We've seen how heated immigration laws get.
-
We already have a court system that handles language disputes. Anyone willing to verify themselves should have same protections.
-
Right but then consider the fact that most laws apply to a specific country. You have a global platform where voices echo from all over. How do you deal with that?
-
US based company arbitration is done in the same jurisdiction. Giving those a voice who otherwise wouldn't be allowed to speak is a win. Human right. Individuals can use mute/block or subscribe to a block-list. Twitter can even offer curated block-lists.
-
Right. So here’s what I try to reconcile. Whenever you create art and the public consumes it, it’s no longer just yours. When you create a platform for everyone, new rules should be considered instead applying old regulations. Thoughts?
-
I am an absolutist when it comes to speech because its a cliff rather than slippery slope. Pragmatic prospective. Crypto will inevitably consume social media. We might as well learn to deal with ourselves now.
-
On the free speech issue, we stand on the same hill of ancient Athens Areopagitica that Milton quotes for his call, when he says by the known rules of ancient liberty. Sadly, it’s not necessarily shared by all with the same passion.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.