The idea that messaging apps are a problem (or for that matter the suggestion that QAnon believers shouldn't be allowed to talk to one another) is a poisonous direction for this debate to take. The problem is one of a major political party embracing extremism and irrealityhttps://twitter.com/donie/status/1400231752963088386 …
-
Show this thread
-
Censorship (or content moderation, or whatever you want to call it) is no substitute for the Republican party policing the crazy within its own ranks, and attempts to impose "moderation" that way will only backfire. There is no technical fix to what is a political crisis.
4 replies 4 retweets 63 likesShow this thread -
We also need to call out the moral panic for what it is. There is no organized insurrectionary movement in the US, the extremists involved are inept and derpy, and the threat of this has been overblown to serve political ends just like the "war on terror" was back in its day.
3 replies 3 retweets 33 likesShow this thread -
How to bring back a shared public sphere, when a third of the electorate has floated off into la-la-land ,is the most pressing question in American civics. But making up our own scary fantasies, or forbidding our ideological opponents from speaking, is no solution to that.
1 reply 2 retweets 28 likesShow this thread -
Pinboard Retweeted jude.btc -- Democracy Extremist
I'm really glad someone made this point. Why do I rail against cryptocurrency and defend encrypted messaging, when both can be used for bad or for good? Because the nature of money means nefarious activity swamps laudable use. That's not true with speechhttps://twitter.com/JudeCNelson/status/1400301439101120514 …
Pinboard added,
5 replies 6 retweets 44 likesShow this thread -
Evil people don't have millions of times more need to talk to one another securely than regular people. But they do need to send enormously more money than regular people. So the tradeoff is different for these two technologies. Moreover, encrypted messaging at least works.
3 replies 6 retweets 47 likesShow this thread -
The same basic tradeoff—use cryptographic tools to move some areas of human interaction out of the reach of government—has divergent implications depending on whether you're talking about money or speech. Where I land on this is "talk all you want, but hold on to your wallet."
3 replies 1 retweet 21 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Pinboard
I'm not sure I follow. Terrorists and child pornographers -- evil people -- probably do have "millions of times more need to talk to each other securely than regular people."
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JudeCNelson @Pinboard
I definitely agree that money and speech are not the same thing, though -- the former can and should be regulated by the people for obvious reasons. But that's a question of regulating exchanges, not the underlying mechanisms.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
That's exactly how I feel—regulate the exchanges and the points of contact with the real financial system. I have no regulatory bone to pick with blockchain people directly.
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.