I understand people are upset & worried about crazy insurrectionists right now, but I'll keep repeating that you will absolutely regret passing laws that say "social media cannot allow or amplify" such speech. Because such a law WILL be applied to BLM protesters too...
-
-
Replying to @mmasnick
This is an argument against all laws, though. You may wanna make an argument against this particular idea, but the structure of your argument applies to every single thing we regulate—without exception.
7 replies 1 retweet 100 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
I don't think that's necessarily true. In fact, it's not true.
3 replies 0 retweets 30 likes -
Replying to @mmasnick
The argument: If we pass a law saying "[some powerful entity] cannot do Y" it will be applied to X. That applies to every single thing we regulate. In fact, people in power *do* try to use laws (too) broadly for almost any law we do pass.
5 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
Again, I believe you are misrepresenting what I am saying, and there are plenty of laws to which that does not apply. But my point stands that such laws that are directed at speech will be misused.
2 replies 0 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @mmasnick
You can make that argument, but not because any law one makes to regulate X will be applied to something broader or something someone doesn't like. That particular broad argument applies to all regulation (and actually occurs, too, but we don't stop because of that).
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Write a legal provision that can only be used against your definition of hate speech, and that a qanon prosecutor / judge can't use against you.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Almost no regulation that I cannot make argument against, though. It's not even all false. Every other country on the planet, including almost every other democracy, regulates speech in ways we don't. Don't have to like it, but "slippery slope" isn't a strong argument here.
5 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Yeah and its been used in a lot of ways that make people uncomfortable and we wrestle with it. And we have 0 laws about social media companies and what they can or can't moderate.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Hes not making a slippery slope argument, he's making the argument that the exact laws you are arguing for will be used to suppress the most critical speech, not the worst speech.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes
And what I'm saying is that it's the US that's the exception in the democratic world, so the argument that this is "inevitably" going to lead to suppressing most critical speech is either not very strong, or, in its strong form, applies to almost all regulation.
-
-
But I'm not getting a better answer, so I assume that's the form of this argument... It will "inevitably" lead to suppressing critical speech.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Ok, no one has a law you are describing that has major social media companies except for like Russia and China. So yeah, laws that literally direct private companies to suppress speech will lead to suppressing speech the lawmakers dont like.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show 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.