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).
-
-
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
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 -
Redress of injury is fine. If you want to have a court system that can deal with issues arising from speech after the fact, that's fine. But that is not "moderation". Moderation is a pre-crime unit - people who decide what can be said _before_ the results are seen.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori @poliveiracastro
What's the basic difference between laws and rules on twitter? Both are written by some 'high authority person", which is chosen by people (via elections or by using one platform over another), both saying what cannot be done.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @leviska0 @poliveiracastro
Is that a serious question? I'm honestly not sure. If it's a serious question: representative democracy, individual rights guaranteed by the constitution, right to due process, right to appeal through a complete Article III court system?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
I mean, what is the difference between a dictatorship and a constitutional republic? If you think there's no difference, then, I guess there's not much I can say. Twitter is a dictatorship. I would prefer a constitutional republic.
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.