[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.
-
Show 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 -
Is suing going to reverse the harm? How? Who sues when the lie is about a vaccine? Who would you sue when people use bots? How do you sue when the harm comes from abroad? How to deal with that without moderation?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @poliveiracastro @leviska0
Again, this all seems incredibly myopic to me. "When the harm comes from abroad"? What about when the _help_ comes from abroad? Look at the Great Firewall of China. Is that the world you want? I just don't understand this perspective.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Either you believe that people should have some agency, and that they can decide what to read and what to believe, or you don't. If you do, why do you think you should be able to interfere with them? If you don't, why should they be on-line at all?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
What is the point of letting people communicate with each other if what you really wanted was for them just to believe what you want them to believe? What is the point of the internet if it's curated? Did we even need it, then?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori @poliveiracastro
But the internet is curated by government and seems like you fine with it? I'm talking about removing illegal stuff like drugs and etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
If the government does it, I'm fine with it, because it's constrained, individual rights have protection, courts are available, the democratic process exists. There is simply no comparison between a government action and a unilateral tech monopoly decision.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @leviska0
Gotcha, that makes sense. My point earlier about the harm from abroad wasn't about "the foreign threat to our lifestyle". I was being practical: I use an American platform which most users are Americans. How can I protect me if smone from abroad start spreading lies about me?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
That affects me and my community, but I don't have the same rights do I? That's one of the reasons I feel moderation and rules sometimes can be justified.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
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.