[11/*] So computers didn't really offer anything different. The only thing they were was _new_. And something new has a brief period when the majority of people aren't using it, so their desire to force people to conform isn't applied.
-
Show this thread
-
[12/*] I'm not sure if that makes me more or less depressed. It's a depressing thought, but maybe also one that is slightly motivating: it means we can always make a new - albeit shortly lived - place free from the demands of social conformity.
1 reply 2 retweets 51 likesShow this thread -
[13/*] We just make a new medium for communication, and for a brief time, before it becomes popular, people will be able to be themselves there. The depressing part is, of course, that it will only last for a short while.
19 replies 2 retweets 71 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @cmuratori
Well, you kinda have such internet. 4chan and darknet are mostly unmoderated, and, well, there is a lot of illegal, unethical or just gross stuff. And it's clear, why people want this stuff to be removed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @leviska0
If it's illegal, it's a matter for the FBI. If it's "unethical" - well, who decided that? You? And if it's "just gross", then, don't look at it? Why would it matter if someone else is posting gross stuff on a Twitter feed? Just don't subscribe to that feed?
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @leviska0
I have been thinking about this, and I would like to share it with you and hear your take. Our society decided what is illegal (well, yours did, but you get my point). How? Isn't that just a collective imagine line on what we call "too unethical" or "too gross"?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Also, if moderation is not the answer, how do you deal with lies spreading on chat platforms and social media? I'm talking about accusing someone of a hideous crime and spreading false scientific information that could do collective harm (vaccines, environmental issues, etc).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @poliveiracastro @leviska0
First, I would start by asking, why has this never been a concern before? Why are people only _now_ concerned with mass dissemination of blatantly false information, when it has been going on for hundreds of years?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Do you think The Bible is accurate? Should it be banned? Should it come with a warning label on the front that says, "WARNING: PEOPLE CANNOT ACTUALLY WALK ON WATER"?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
When considered in context, the false things being spread today are exactly the same as the false things that have always propagated. People tend to believe things that are less than rational.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
When you submit to a central arbiter, what you get is _not_ false things being removed. Instead, you get a specific selection of false things that fall in line with that arbiter's (also false) view of reality. That is not an improvement.
-
-
If you were standing here making the same argument 500 years ago, you would be arguing that the Pope should be the one who says what religion is, and that all these other splinter groups with their "crazy ideas and blatant lies" about God have to be silenced.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Were some of those beliefs crazy? Sure. Were some of them demonstrably crazier than Catholicism? Sure. Would the world be better if Protestantism had not arisen? Almost certainly _not_.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 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.