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.
-
-
Replying to @maxmare @AshkanAliabadi and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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 -
Replying to @cmuratori @maxmare and
The same logic needs to apply at some point. If we believe that the government should not be able to silence its citizens until a court determines they have broken the law, then why do we want Twitter et al not to have similar rules?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @maxmare and
Personally, I don't know that the solution would really be all that difficult. People need an impartial judiciary. If it's too complicated to use the existing one, then there's an on-line one, where people have to be tried according to national law in their region.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori @maxmare and
They get representation, they are judged by a jury, they can appeal. The process is open, the records are kept. This would allow actual decisions to censor people or ban them to be done in a way that was not arbitrary or capricious, as it is done currently.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori @AshkanAliabadi and
I have to say, I do agree with everything you say in this thread, starting with the opening message. I am not being sarcastic or ficticious. Censorship is a terrible thing and it has been used in every single oppresive regime that has existed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @maxmare @cmuratori and
There is such a thing where speech is used to violate people's rights. It happens as; inciting violence or self-harm, defrauding, planning insurrections or terrorist attacks. These are things that can be used to _impose_ oppressive regimes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @maxmare @cmuratori and
So even as I agree with the sentiments of your thoughts, you still have to answer how do we limit harmful speech in the current world that exists as it is now. (and I would not call it censorship)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I'm not sure what you mean. I thought I did answer that, (if you want to limit harmful speech, you must go through a standard political process, with voting to make laws, and a judiciary to impartially adjudicate them).
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.