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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @leviska0 @poliveiracastro
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
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 -
Replying to @poliveiracastro @leviska0
Well, let me flip the question around on you. If you're saying you _don't_ want a court involved in that process (as it would be currently), what do I as an American do when someone starts spreading _true_ things about you, and you silence them?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
The point of having to go to court is not because there's something magical about going to court. It's because neutral arbiters where evidence is presented are crucial to determining _your motive_ for wanting the information suppressed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That is now, and always has been, the problem with censorship. If you do not have a neutral arbiter where both sides are heard and must present evidence, then we have no way of knowing if that person really was spreading lies about you, or whether they were just spreading truth.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @poliveiracastro
Let me clarify my point. I disagree with removing all moderation, because then there will be a lot of bots, ads, illegal posts (let's be honest, without moderation "government" will not clear all of it), and just spam. Do you use spam filters on your email, btw? :)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The point is not that there's no moderation. The point is _who chooses the moderation_. The user needs to choose the moderation, individually, and customize it for their needs. I love spam filters - if _I_ am in control of which one I use and it's settings.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @poliveiracastro
Ok, then I agree, that's actually a good idea. Basically like a nsfw option, but for other stuff too.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.