We censor all the time for fairly draconian copyright laws, and we barely remark on it. Remember this while discussing free speech globally.
-
-
-
Things that appear obvious to us ("we censor for copyright") are not obvious to others, and vice versa (" we don't censor hate speech").
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
@GrantGambling *You* think that. Most of rest of the planet would say gov't should protect ethnic peace or reputation, and meh to property. -
@GrantGambling What seems "obvious" to you is not at all obvious or common sense to people living in different contexts. That's my point.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@GrantGambling They believe gov't has duty to keep ethnic hatreds from flaring up, yes. They care about that much more than Microsoft's IP. -
@GrantGambling That it's hard for you to understand this works the same way in reverse. Our IP laws make no sense to most people globally.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@GrantGambling US censored political speech dramatically till about the 1960s too. Modern jurisprudence on 1st amendment is recent. -
@GrantGambling I don't have an easy answer; hate speech and defamation are both complex. Just that our assumptions aren't some natural law.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@lex_is@GrantGambling Yes, there is a lot of political censorship via IP. Disney criticism in US is a major example. Disney sues on IP. -
@lex_is@GrantGambling What's interesting is that censorious MENA regimes have learned to claim IP (say, to Youtube) to censor. It works.
End of conversation
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.