I’m asking the opposite. Who actually argues that merely more robust moderation and deplatforrming would “solve” the problems?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
I don't think anyone argues that it will *solve* the problem. But I do think many, many writers argue that failure to moderate [pick a random anecdote] is proof that a company does nothing or doesn't care about societal problem x. And that implies moderation would somehow help.
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Yes. The assumptions baked into “news” articles about company moderation decisions are steeped in the assumption that censorship is ipso facto good, and by extension don’t even acknowledge the possibility that preserving free expression is a driving consideration.
1 reply 1 retweet 17 likes -
Replying to @benthompson @mmasnick and
I'm going to say that the critics have been way, way beyond that kind of simplistic argument for a long time. For clarity, I doubt either of you are against any and all moderation?
4 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @benthompson and
I think "against any & all moderation" is also a strawman. The issue is scale. If I moderate 100K people, I'm a moderator. If I moderate 1B people, I'm a censor.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jonst0kes @benthompson and
I agree! I was saying I don't think it's anyone's serious position. Therefore everyone is for some degree of moderation, and even deplatforming, as it were, with real differences in how and where, and different levels of concern about the downsides that are widely acknowledged.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @jonst0kes and
But that said, I don't think the issue is that simple, between moderation and censorship. Many moderation decisions on the 2B people platforms (well, FB) often impact small numbers of people.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @jonst0kes and
Summary: there's a lot of nuance here, and trying to frame/discuss it all in a tweet is probably not helpful.
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
I believe I saw this line or argument on a Kara Swisher argument about Sri Lanka's Facebook ban. Our counterargument was to point out decades of civil war and ask what arrogance it was to presume these conflicts will vanish with digital Potemkin villages.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yeah. I heard a lot of anger about that column when I was there doing research. The debate within Sri Lanka is really sophisticated but frustratingly, also without much influence because they aren't a big market or have prominent spokespeople.
-
-
0 replies 0 retweets 2 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.