Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

I take it you don't consider stochastic terrorism an actual thing then?

I do, I just don't think the concern there justifies authoritarian top-down control over information, or that the potential harms of the former outweigh the potential harms of the latter

The existance of fox news (or NBC or the BBC or whatever) is already a form of top-down control over information. How is for example getting someone fired from there worse than someone never having a voice there to begin with? Also: there is a place in between the extremes.

And to be completely honest, I do not believe that access to "information" about George Soros supposedly controlling the world and being the root of all evil for example is more valuable than the right not to be bombed just because you're working for him.

FYI people who bomb anything or anyone should go to jail, as should their co-conspirators. But I don't think nutcases should get to drive the bus re: acceptable speech just so we can convince ourselves we're safe from them

The tricky part is, someone claiming such things is neither directly calling for murder, nor technically conspirating with anyone. So they get away. Deplatforming them is essentially the only possible way to at least slow their impact down, although I cannot really say it...

... works all that well. Actual application of libel/slander laws on the internet would be a good thing though, from my perspective. Like I said, there is a middle ground - I just don't think it is "let every nutjob have the microphone if the algorythms like them".

Out of curiosity, @webdevMason, do you believe that there is such a thing as a speech act that can only cause harm to those who hear it? I’m thinking about stuff like targeted bad-faith propaganda, for instance - the expression of which is an act of violence to the listener?