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...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ZarAlexander @webdevMason and
... 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".
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
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?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The definition of "violence" is not that unclear to me.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
So you don’t believe that nonphysical violence is possible?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Criminal threats are possible, sure.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But surely you agree that there’s such a thing as harmful words, right? You just don’t like the term violence there?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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
-
-
Now we are actually getting somewhere. I think at this point I can recommend myself, although most of my posts are in German, especially the really weird ones. Yes, universal ground rules (and perhaps international courts not dominated by military or financial strength) would...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.