161–170 of 428 posts
Freedom of association captures the idea of freedom of speech better than freedom of speech itself, I think. Private parties are (with some number of government constraints) free to pick who to work with, who to play with, and who to talk with, and who they don't want to do anything with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's fair to assume he cut moderation teams because they were intimately involved with suppression of speech at the behest of the government and political interests. Determining those moderators which have been witting participants in the chilling of free speech is more difficult than axing a great many of them that underperformed and keeping the few with real tangible contribution.
Why do you think that is “fair to assume?” To me, it sounds like wild conjecture.
And what of freedom of association as a right and cultural value?
Exactly! I should be able to join or leave groups discussing any sort of topic or view point I like on social media platforms without having my options limited or my views censored. If I don't want to associate with someone I can unfollow them, unsubscribe from their subreddit, block them etc. What matters is that it's my choice to do that. We shouldn't have that choice made for us by the people running online platfo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly! I should be able to join or leave groups discussing any sort of topic or view point I like on social media platforms without having my options limited or my views censored. If I don't want to associate with someone I can unfollow them, unsubscribe from their subreddit, block them etc. What matters is that it's my choice to do that. We shouldn't have that choice made for us by the people running online platfo…
Um what? So me and my buddy Tim are going to come to your house and talk about how much you suck. Autoexec: But this is MY private property. So yes, So are online platforms. They can kick you out at any time they want and you can pound sand. If you don't like it set up own server online to freely associate. You don't get to demand their resources. You don't get access to their network.
Freedom of association captures the idea of freedom of speech better than freedom of speech itself, I think. Private parties are (with some number of government constraints) free to pick who to work with, who to play with, and who to talk with, and who they don't want to do anything with.
It’s weird to repeatedly see the argument that a corporation’s moderation of human individual’s speech is itself a form of protected speech, from a group of people who until recently mostly thought corporate speech wasn’t even broad enough to cover a corporation’s production and distribution of its own message in a political movie. Like I think “corporations are people too, my friend” but corporate moderation as a fo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When everyone’s shouting disinformation, fact checking often falls on deaf ears. There’s no evidence that sunlight is actually the best disinfectant; if anything, making it easier for conspiracy theorists to find each other has just expanded their echo chamber.
> There’s no evidence that sunlight is actually the best disinfectant; We've never found anything that works better. For any given idea discussing and examining the positions for and against it is still the best way to get to the truth. The more transparent that process is, the better. Conspiracy theorists don't care about facts or truth. They will act as they do regardless, but free speech ideals make it very diffic…
If you are reading a piece about free speech and content moderation on platforms like Twitter, look to see if it meaningfully engages with the concepts of spam and porn, which are both fully legal speech, and both heavily moderated with little controversy. (This piece does not.) Why does this matter? Because free speech, free expression in general, is a means to express values and beliefs. Our values and beliefs are…
Might have a better argument with gore instead of porn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's really creepy that you don't see anything wrong with a child in BDSM gear. And alcohol. That's actually sadism. I dunno, maybe you just don't get it. Do you know what sadism is? On the other hand, I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it shouldn't bother me other than "oh just get over it it's not that bad", which isn't working with me, since I have no petty bourgeois sensibilities, and I know…
The child was next to some glasses of wine. Why does that make you clutch pearls exactly? Have you seen Big Daddy? The Adam Sandler film? Is that also on this level? Feels like the same thing. Child actors in an adult piece of media with sexual and violent and otherwise adult themes.
I want to know if you think it's ok if the kid wears BDSM gear. Yes? No?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All online platforms need to have moderators to prevent things like spam and illegal content. That doesn't mean that they can't also uphold the idea of free speech principles though. Musk really went crazy with cutting staff, but I'm not sure if it was because he wrongly thought he needed to cut the moderation teams in order to support free speech or if he just did it because moderation is expensive.
Why is spam always glossed over in these "principled defenses" of free speech? It's legal speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the ad was creepy and weird, but you're lying here. There was no " child in BDSM gear" in the photo. Why lie to make a point? That's creepy and weird, too
I made a mistake but everyone knows what picture I'm talking about. It's not a lie. So it was a child carrying a doll that had BDSM gear. But that's funny cus if the girl was the one in BDSM gear, that would make it wrong? Is that the line?
I personally am not familiar with this photo and don't really want to see it, so yes, your comment could have mislead me.