I don't disagree with you. I am coming from a not theoretical, not abstract perspective. Propaganda spreads right now in social media because money is used to push it. 1A doesn't mean anything if it can be bought.
-
-
Replying to @maxmare @cmuratori and
Engaging in constant dialogue is also practical albeit time consuming and labor intensive. Take global warming for instance. Fossil fuel industry did whatever it could to advance its agenda, but through activism and not censorship, society is slowly moving towards green energy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AshkanAliabadi @cmuratori and
Yes, and that is a big problem; how slowly may determine how much suffering will happen. Final outcomes can be more important than principles. What good does allowing legal constructs to have more speech than individuals do?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @maxmare @cmuratori and
The concern I have here is that democracy is a skill that must be practiced like one lets a child fall and learn from mistakes. It is efficient to make decisions for a populous under the pretense of efficiency and emergency, but you wind up with an increasingly immature society.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AshkanAliabadi @cmuratori and
Ok, what lessons did we learn after all the propaganda(mistake) poured onto citizens of a democracy(child) in Germany in the 19-20,30s?(fall)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @maxmare @cmuratori and
Why assume those atrocities would have had not happened in an alternate history where a big brother figure had controlled thought flow? More people died under Stalin, Lenin, and Mao than both world wars combined. Wouldn't say that at least a free society (Germans) had a higher
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AshkanAliabadi @maxmare and
chance of preventing those events? What alternative do you suggest they should have tried?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AshkanAliabadi @cmuratori and
Easy. That big brother figure you use as a negative should be all of us. All of us as a society can decide to not let legal entities in the debate. No bots, no ads, no money. Lying, and deceiving need to be counter acted. Throwing your hand in the air is not a good option.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @maxmare @cmuratori and
I never said we should throw our hands in the air!! I explicitly said a few tweets above that it is on us all to put in the hard work to engage in dialogue to sway the consensus! Having said that, I did, and still do, maintain that censorship is not the way.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AshkanAliabadi @cmuratori and
Nothing learned. You already have what you mis-call censorship. Try inciting violence in any public forum, public or private and see what happens. We need regulations, because dialogue is not enough. It has been that way only since humans have been human.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The key thing though is that censorship is pre-punishment. Merely saying "spreading disinformation" or "inciting violence" presumes the fact that you've already proved the person was doing that. But censorship forgoes the proof, the impartial judiciary, the appeals.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @maxmare and
The point is not to get rid of punishment - that's anarchy. The point is to respect the past several thousand years of human legal development instead of throwing it all away in favor of "the monarch decides what can and can't be said", which is what we've regressed to.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @maxmare and
A simple question to ask is, if you are OK with censorship on Twitter, are you OK with it everywhere else? Can the government simply ban you from speaking anywhere? Ban you from handing out pamphlets? Ban you from protesting? If not, why not?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 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.