[1/*] Thanks to Twitter's continuing "we really want the future to look just like the past" social conformity changes, I realized something depressing about computing that I had not considered before. I thought I might share it with you so you can be depressed, too.https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1427706890113495046 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @cmuratori @Jonathan_Blow
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
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 @vyodaiken and
Are you all right with someone yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? (there is no fire)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @maxmare @AshkanAliabadi and
That analogy comes from an authoritarian Supreme Court ruling where they held it was constitutional for the government to prevent people from handing out anti-draft pamphlets. Then, as now, people use irrelevant analogies as this in their attempts to silence legitimate speech.
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @maxmare and
That ruling was later overturned, because it was clearly not in keeping with the ideals of the First Amendment.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes
It has been a long, difficult road of court cases trying to find the right balance. We do not need Twitter et al to come on the scene for ten years and then decide they know better than the entire history of American jurisprudence.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @maxmare and
Twitter is not a government agency. They are not making speech illegal. They are not bound by the 1st Amendment. They are attempting, poorly, to enforce their terms of service and act responsibly.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @vyodaiken @cmuratori and
If you don't know that the 1st Amendment is about GOVERNMENT prohibition of speech and that is different from a private company policing terms of service, then maybe you should sit this one out.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 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.