Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

... 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?

The definition of "violence" is not that unclear to me.

So you don’t believe that nonphysical violence is possible?

Criminal threats are possible, sure.

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?