The core Enlightenment principle supporting free speech is that the best counter to a bad idea is a good idea, with both openly expressible and debatable. This stabilizes society by making everyone think and engage. To censor is to divide and polarize.
-
-
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic
Not every belief needs a debate: Does this mean you are going to let the creators of "Hatred" use the UE4 logo in their mass-shooting game and post on the UE4 forums again? I mean, we did just outright ban them for "expressing bad ideas" without any attempt at debate after all.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @UnrealAlexander
They’re free to use Unreal Engine as a tool for expressing their ideas. They’re not free to use the Epic logo as an implication of company support for their ideas. This is my understanding of the proper coexistence of freedom and commerce.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic @UnrealAlexander
In my view Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are on the wrong side of history in their decisions to censor content they disagree with. Authors must be free to express their ideas. They platform is free to repudiate its support or endorsement of their ideas.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic @UnrealAlexander
If Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, or Google leadership want to influence politics, they should do as respectable publishers and editors have done for centuries, and write editorials persuading readers of their views.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic @UnrealAlexander
I feel their policy of censoring ideas they disagree with is fundamentally cowardly, revealing their belief that their readers are incompetent to evaluate the merit of ideas freely presented to them. This belief is incompatible with democracy itself.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic
That assumes the users of social media are competent in fact checking and also that information/debates are being put out in good faith. Banning people for disagreeing with you is a bit different then trying to reign in floods of abuse and deliberate misinformation. 1/2
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @UnrealAlexander @TimSweeneyEpic
But I guess this is the issue: how do you eliminate abuse while allowing expression without looking biased? Doing nothing is just being complicit with trolling, botting and abuse. Don't get me wrong, they're all failing miserably at it, but there are few options for them 2/2
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Let users combat abuse by making block lists, sharing block lists, providing transparency on blocking, and giving users 100% control over who can participate in discussions under their top-level posts. Let everyone be the admin of their own little forum.
-
-
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic
As a user, I would ask "why is this my job? I could just make my own website and personal forum if this is the goal" which is why Mastodon has yet to take off. Social media users want a simple "create and go" experience, not to be bogged down in fighting auto-generated bot spam.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @UnrealAlexander @TimSweeneyEpic
For example, my mom has no idea what "blacklist" or "shared whitelist" means. It would be overwhelming for her to try to do it herself.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 1 more reply
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.