71–80 of 97 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People could be understanding the sarcasm, but instead down-voting as that's not what this site is meant for.
literature and history be damned, we should all stand in obedient awe of some lisp nerd's rules for meaningful conversation
State-sponsored misinformation should be protected by freedom of speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see anything in the snippet you reference that makes it clear that these are bots being banned.
FTA: > Saudi Arabia’s state-run media apparatus were found to be “engaged in coordinated efforts to amplify messaging that was beneficial to the Saudi government.” The person you're responding to didn't say anything about bots. These are state-funded efforts to manipulate the platform.
If they are bots which get paid or are under control of a government, sure, suspend. If these are individuals voicing opinions and not inciting violence, I think they are wrong. People should be able to have disagreeable opinions, even illegal opinions (“pot should be legal”), “the minister in an asshole”. People should not be guilty of wrongthink.
On the one hand, speech is a fundamental of any kind of improvement. Without speech that challenges the status quo, the status quo is all you get. Sure, you avoid lies and discomfort, but you are stuck with the discomfort you have. (and, importantly, the discomfort others suffer out of proportion with yourself). Heck, how can one even speak out against free speech without relying on it? It seems like the ultimate winning argument.
On the other hand, the idea that we are all active, rational beings that are well positioned to understand when we are being deceived is actively false. Not only is this NOT true for most everyone, it is also basically impossible - there is far too much to learn if we try to verify even "simple" assertions. We must end up trusting other parties to do some evaluation (and we can only do cursory evaluations of trustworthiness for the exact same reasons). Any effort to be well informed and rational must be built on a foundation of trusting the well informed and rational behavior of others, and that's before even considering whether any behavior is HONEST.
The concept of the First Amendment in the US constitution is about barring govt interference in speech. I dont believe that is the same as supporting uninhibited speech - the system breaks down if all speech is treated equally. We rely on social pressures to silence (Or reduce the volume of) bad voices. "Fine", the observer says "being considered an asshole unworthy of listening to is a perfectly fine result. Free speech doesnt mean freedom from consequences".
Yet we have propped up the idea that speech should NOT be silenced. The above comment is talking about the actions of a private company, not the govt. It is saying "people should support the voices of others at at least a minimum level (refusing to silence), and if they do not do so our voices should speak up against THEM".
Where is our ability, be that as individuals that might be part of companies, or as members theoretically responsible for the govt and definitely living in the society that the govt supports, to silence poisonous voices? How can we recognize that speech, even uncomfortable speech, is a vital need for progress, without giving power to those elements that will happily and dishonestly abuse the system we create in ways that harm that system (and a lot of people?) Must we continue to empower the sociopaths and those utterly without empathy because we fear anything less is harmful?
I don't know the answer, but I'm a lot less confident that pegging the gauge at "all speech without limit" is truly the best answer. A test I like to give to any theoretical solution is "would this have been used against what I consider GOOD dislikes speech?" (abolitionism, womens suffrage, civil rights, marriage equality, etc). A lot fails this test...yet I find that historically those efforts faced a lot of problems. Hell, we dont have gender or racial equality today despite all the time we've talked about it, and a lot of people have suffered, at varying levels of misfortune, trauma, mutilation, and death. To point at this "progress" and say "yes, this is the best way to achieve improvement" seems short-sighted. We should be wary of inducing an oppressive society, but not every slope HAS to be a slippery slope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
literature and history be damned, we should all stand in obedient awe of some lisp nerd's rules for meaningful conversation
You know, on that lisp nerd's site, yes, you kind of do have to follow their rules.
You can be punished for breaking the rules after the fact, but that isn't the same as being obligated to obey them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Insofar as "hold them accountable" means organizing a boycott or something, sure (although I don't know why you'd be against them not allowing state-sponsored misinformation). Parent said "protected by freedom of speech", though, which in this context sounds like they're suggesting that Twitter should be compelled by law to host it.
Governments have chosen to use Twitter as a medium for communication. It’s an open form platform to post by anyone but government officials do communicate via Twitter in an official capacity. Some agencies post things to Twitter (and Facebook) but nowhere else — not even on their own government websites. I’ve had government officials ignore emails but respond to tweets (as someone who no longer uses Twitter, this is…
That’s fair, and I’m up for that ideological debate (although my position would still be that Twitter shouldn’t feel obligated to disseminate speech it doesn’t want to). But the parent was arguing that the legal standing should be created.
> Certainly a decade ago much of the idealism sold to us around social media was that it was an equalizing force for free speech and communication.
There are actors with the resources of nation-states wielding hundreds of thousands of fake accounts to run massive propaganda campaigns… and your position is that allowing that is the way to make social media an equalizing force?
If you really cared about preserving your right to freedom of speech, you'd have your own website. You check your rights at the door the second you log in to a platform you don't own or control. Twitter isn't a government agency, but a private corporation protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. They have the right to reject any content you contribute without being liable for any user-generated con…
I am 100% sure that if youtube started to reject all content from Muslims then they would get hit by a discrimination law suit and end up in court over it. The argument would be that google, youtube server, or the user is located in a physical place with anti-discrimination laws, and based on that users has rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Insofar as "hold them accountable" means organizing a boycott or something, sure (although I don't know why you'd be against them not allowing state-sponsored misinformation). Parent said "protected by freedom of speech", though, which in this context sounds like they're suggesting that Twitter should be compelled by law to host it.
The distinction between corporate and government censorship is a legalistic workaround. It would be reasonable to ban companies who act as "platforms" from any sort of editorial discretion. NYT should be able to decide what to publish, but not Twitter.
If they are bots which get paid or are under control of a government, sure, suspend. If these are individuals voicing opinions and not inciting violence, I think they are wrong. People should be able to have disagreeable opinions, even illegal opinions (“pot should be legal”), “the minister in an asshole”. People should not be guilty of wrongthink.
The current divisive political comment in the US has caused me to rethink my previous position on free speech, (Re-think as in think over, not just decide I was wrong) and I have ed found a lot less certainty. On the one hand, speech is a fundamental of any kind of improvement. Without speech that challenges the status quo, the status quo is all you get. Sure, you avoid lies and discomfort, but you are stuck with the…
The fact that we currently live in an age in which access to well formed, well researched arguments to the contrary of any viewpoint are abundant and freely available, yet extremism is on the rise, demonstrates that letting bad ideas spread and simply expecting rational counter-arguments to kill them does not work. The extremists are well aware of views to the contrary, and couldn't care less. Checkmate atheists, as it were.
I'm personally starting to be sold on the Paradox of Tolerance[0], and the premise that for free speech to be protected, some speech must be limited:
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always
suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter
them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion,
suppression would certainly be unwise.
But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force;
for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level
of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their
followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them
to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim,
in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
In other words, the marketplace of ideas doesn't work unless there are consequences for selling snake-oil and poison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter blocked my account for a nearly 10 year old post. I'll admit, I'm not prod of the post. It was immature and something I wouldn't write today. But looking at our past is how we grow, and erasing it doesn't seem right: https://fightthefuture.org/article/twitter-is-trying-to-eras...
I don't see how anyone is going to grow from being exposed to your misogynistic tweets. Getting banned is better than nothing, even if 10 years too late.