Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

Post by amanaplanacanal » Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 8:13 AM UTC

dude187 wrote: post #162

short_sells_poo wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this line of reasoning, but then we have to ask the question: are platforms obligated to host all speech that is not illegal (in whatever jurisdiction they reside in)? Should they be obligated? If I as a private citizen decide to create a platform to host discourse, do I have the freedom to decide what is permitted there? If the answers to the followup questions are "yes", then we arrive to the status qu…

I believe that common carrier applies to platforms, not just the infrastructure of wires. These platforms could not exist without the large privilege given to them I'm immunity to the illegal content they serve up. The problem is that these platforms have it both ways. They can censor entire political parties, yet play dumb and cry immunity "we're just a platform" when there's literal illegal content that makes it's…

Post by PoignardAzur » Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 10:17 AM UTC

_qbjt wrote: post #225

Some of the comments in this thread seem intentionally bad-faith or ignorant to how much hate and abuse actually exists on these platforms. The Internet fucking sucks. I stopped using social media because I'm trans and I don't feel like there's a place for me online anymore. No matter where I go, including large platforms like Reddit and Twitter, I'm inevitably subjected to someone expressing their grievances about t…

Post by hoseja » Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 11:50 AM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #137

BobbyJo wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define 'works'. This subject is an easy one in which to conflate goals. The goals of the platform are different than the goals of the public, lawmakers, etc. which is what the article is about. The goal of the platform is to pull in more users. Having less abusive language and users is a means to that end, as is appeasing general public outcries for more moderation. The goal of the public and lawmakers is, hopefully,…

"More effective discourse" is probably far too aspirational a goal for lawmakers/government. It's also probably too subjective. Less violence, on the other hand, is a clearer goal that aligns with existing laws against violence, so it has a firmer basis, in line with existing restrictions on speech. It also gives you a non-partisan measuring stick. Private platforms, on the other hand, will have more flexibility in t…

Post by raxxorrax » Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 11:55 AM UTC

b215826 wrote: post #212

Ironic that this is from the EFF, who were happy to dogpile on RMS when he said some things that some people took offense to [1]. Just like private censorship, trying to cancel someone is not the best to fight hate. [1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-...

Post by raxxorrax » Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 12:02 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #173

idiotsecant wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a decent idea until someone in power decides that you are hateful, angry, or irrational.

You could use the same reasoning like > Making bad things illegal seems like a decent idea until they make something you like doing illegal Therefore just have no laws, I guess? Sometimes an imperfect, abusable system is better than no system. In fact, I'd wager that's usually the case.