81–90 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is inciting violence allowed?
If not, the proper measure punishment for a saying or writing should be determined by a court of law, not a company.
Why Twitter posts if not punishment of children? Are children that unimportant to this society?
My thinking right now is that the status quo is the symptom and not the cause. Were we as the human race simply not ready for this? Could we have been more diligent in educating people on ways of debating and understanding, could we have built a society that is not obsessed with perfection and winning? If it wasn't Twitter, Facebook, Google etc. it would simply be something else in their place who had to perform the…
I'd much rather we all man up and learn to live with the fact that people say things we disagree with on the internet, instead of assuming that we need gatekeeping.
Fortunately, in the US, the constitution prevents the government from forcing private companies or individuals to promote/broadcast/display the messages of government leaders. It’s a little weird he tries to characterize Twitter exercising their ability to choose who has a voice on their platform as a new thing. That’s not new. They’ve been doing this all along. If you only promote free speech in defense of authorita…
Their Dubai office is especially spicy, considering that countries stance regarding woman and LGBT rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd much rather we all man up and learn to live with the fact that people say things we disagree with on the internet, instead of assuming that we need gatekeeping.
Is inciting violence allowed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd much rather we all man up and learn to live with the fact that people say things we disagree with on the internet, instead of assuming that we need gatekeeping.
You have to admit that that would be a lot easier if the people you are disagreeing with were making reasonable level-headed arguments, but somehow we are living in an era where large swaths of the population are convinced that there is no difference between what is true and what they feel is true and, consequently, they reject rationality and with it the concept of objective reality. I know I'm on the record as sayi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm old enough to remember when the government made it illegal to mention homosexuality in schools. And when it was illegal for a particular elected MP to speak on television.
> I'm old enough to remember when the government made it illegal to mention homosexuality in schools. Even today, there are teachers who spout that homosexuality is somehow a bad thing. Controversial topics will take time to reach mainstream agreement, no matter how you shape the spread of information. The question is how to do it in a way such that society is not disrupted by a strong opinion.
Reminder to everyone especially Hancock: the US is not the UK. We don't have "section 230". We don't have US-style free speech. We have, at best, ECHR-style free speech, which comes with slightly more caveats. Here in recent memory is the UK dealing with elected politicians who were silenced by force of law: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4409447.stm (mind you, they were also members of a terrorist organisation, so all t…
For example, they are able to breach legal injunctions against publication, in such a way that a report of the breach can then be legally published.
Reminder to everyone especially Hancock: the US is not the UK. We don't have "section 230". We don't have US-style free speech. We have, at best, ECHR-style free speech, which comes with slightly more caveats. Here in recent memory is the UK dealing with elected politicians who were silenced by force of law: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4409447.stm (mind you, they were also members of a terrorist organisation, so all t…
Curiously, elected politicians have unrestricted speech within the UK parliament. For example, they are able to breach legal injunctions against publication, in such a way that a report of the breach can then be legally published. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-parliaments-46071159
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe that what I'm suggesting is more like how spreading of information worked in the old days (increasingly bigger groups have to approve of the information). The problem is that today we have social media and false information can spread instantly to an entire population. This needs a new approach, because it creates problems like extreme polarization.
I still think this is horribly wrong. Having groups "approve" information means having gatekeepers who wield a lot of power. Censors. Who is to ensure that they exercise that power both fairly and accurately? It opens a huge can of worms. It might seem to make sense for "obviously" black and white issues. But most are not so clear cut, and choosing a "correct" side is impossible. "False information" isn't countered b…
You can choose the moderators at random. This would be somewhat akin to the idea of sortition:
Hancock is a lack-talent idiot. It takes real skill to be a worse secretary of health than both Hunt and Lansley, but he's somehow managed it. He'll say whatever he thinks is popular at the time. Here he is calling for tighter regulation of social media: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/internet-laws... > New laws will be introduced aimed at tackling the internet “wild west” and making Britain the “safe…
Nice to see he’s got some free time. It’s not like the Pandemic is out of control and should keep him busy... oh wait.