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.
-
But surely you agree that there’s such a thing as harmful words, right? You just don’t like the term violence there?
I think virtually any strong opinion that turns out to be wrong has the potential to cause harm. I don't trust the sway of public opinion to identify them.
-
-
what about intentionally bad faith “opinions”, though? At what point is it okay to say “you have lied and hurt people X times, so no, we’re not going to let you have this platform”? We can’t 100% automate detecting them but like. Why pretend to be fooled on principle?
-
I just think — and believe I've observed — that people have a very hard time discerning between "I think you're incredibly wrong" and "I think you're arguing in bad faith."
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
But you do trust algorithms based on profitability to make the call which one should be heard? A selection already exists. It is based on cashflow-potential for the platform corporations.
-
Profitability comes in weighing the desire of an audience to hear their preferred speaker vs. the desire of those opposed to throw their weight against the speech being permitted. I don't think this is a healthy dynamic, which is why I think we need universal ground rules
- 2 more 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.