Oh come on. I enjoyed the early internet, but it was a small audience of academics and techs and there was no money involved. Rules have to be different with a vast audience, organized crime and propaganda, giant corporations etc.
-
-
The internet is not the old usenet. And stopping malevolent political organizations from using platforms for terrorism and dishonest propaganda is not depriving us of any freedom.
3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
as if anyone is able to discern these things without having their own bias
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
You mean thousands of accounts lying about covid vaccines using identical language is some sort of subjective phenomenon that manifests only in the emotional state of the observer? Is that really your argument?
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @vyodaiken @ibcah7 and
Freedom of speech means absolutely nothing if it does not include the freedom to be wrong. Censorship is a slippery slope. The antidote to a bad argument is a better argument, not silencing, cancelling, or labeling them.
5 replies 0 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @AshkanAliabadi @ibcah7 and
Inciting mass murder, engaging in fraud, threatening people, etc. is different from "being wrong". Radio Rwanda was not engaging in freedom of speech and what it said was not refutable by "better arguments".
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @vyodaiken @ibcah7 and
Have you ever lived in dictatorships? Because I can tell you from personal experience that this line of innocuous, well-meaning arguments are exactly the kind authoritarianism hide behind. No one thirsty for power is going to broadcast on a placard "I want to rule your life."
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @AshkanAliabadi @ibcah7 and
I have and the arguments for censorship were not innocuous at all. But here we are not talking about censorship as much as platforming. The 1st amendment does not guarantee you a TV station or use of twitter.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vyodaiken @AshkanAliabadi and
The critical difference is whether you punish the crime before or after a trial. I have no problem with someone going to jail for inciting mass murder if a trial is held in a properly convened court, with a jury of their peers, with a right to appeal, and full due process.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @vyodaiken and
What you advocate is that there should simply be a magistrate of some kind, selected by Twitter, or perhaps it is a "magistrate AI", that simply decides unilaterally that someone has "incited mass murder" and then they are punished. That is not justice, it is simply oppression.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
The difference between a free society and an oppressed society is not whether or not they tolerate mass murderers. It is whether the mass murderer gets a day in court to determine whether they actually were a mass murderer, or merely an innocent person accused thereof.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @AshkanAliabadi and
Tolerating mass murderers is something that makes a society oppressive. If we agree that mass murderers, foreign propagandists, paid corporate liars, scam artists, and rabidly insane people need pushback, then the mechanism for enforcement is the topic that needs attention.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
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.