11–20 of 116 posts
I'm confused, I see stories complaining about Twitter's heavy-handed censorship all the time, whether it's banning accounts or simply removing objectionable hashtags from the "Trending" list.
When did they suddenly develop the opposite problem?
Can this be summarized as "Twitter, implement censorship because people are saying things we don't like?" I fully understand that Twitter is a company offering a service and they are intrinsically allowed to police content being posted on their platform. The whole point of democratic society in the United States is to allow people freedom of speech and thought. If we limit the discussion of ideas to only popular/acce…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Tolerance is generally a useful tool for social discourse, but when your "peers" are actively working to recruit and organize a movement to silence/deport/kill your friends it's generally not useful to tolerate that behavior. Tolerance only works when you have at least the smallest and most fundamental amount of social cohesion.
In the end it's still taking political sides.
Can this be summarized as "Twitter, implement censorship because people are saying things we don't like?" I fully understand that Twitter is a company offering a service and they are intrinsically allowed to police content being posted on their platform. The whole point of democratic society in the United States is to allow people freedom of speech and thought. If we limit the discussion of ideas to only popular/acce…
NYT, it's time to end your "editorials are news" dystopia.
Can this be summarized as "Twitter, implement censorship because people are saying things we don't like?" I fully understand that Twitter is a company offering a service and they are intrinsically allowed to police content being posted on their platform. The whole point of democratic society in the United States is to allow people freedom of speech and thought. If we limit the discussion of ideas to only popular/acce…
You can say and think whatever you like. Companies giving platforms to hate is not something that democracy requires. It's less "that idea is popular" and more "these people are inciting hatred against other people". I'm baffled that people still repeat this "free speech is important" thing when we're talking about a private service giving an audience to white supremacists.
Can this be summarized as "Twitter, implement censorship because people are saying things we don't like?" I fully understand that Twitter is a company offering a service and they are intrinsically allowed to police content being posted on their platform. The whole point of democratic society in the United States is to allow people freedom of speech and thought. If we limit the discussion of ideas to only popular/acce…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Tolerance is generally a useful tool for social discourse, but when your "peers" are actively working to recruit and organize a movement to silence/deport/kill your friends it's generally not useful to tolerate that behavior. Tolerance only works when you have at least the smallest and most fundamental amount of social cohesion.
As for illegals, every major country in the world deports illegal immigrants, even good old Canada, to the chagrin of many who thought they'd walk over and be granted immigration status without any further effort.
Can this be summarized as "Twitter, implement censorship because people are saying things we don't like?" I fully understand that Twitter is a company offering a service and they are intrinsically allowed to police content being posted on their platform. The whole point of democratic society in the United States is to allow people freedom of speech and thought. If we limit the discussion of ideas to only popular/acce…
Yes, basically. OP apparently also thinks that what constitutes community is a central authority handing out badges.
the company should issue badges of status or of shame based on signals about how people actually use, or abuse, Twitter. In other words, Twitter should begin to think of itself, and its users, as a community
And believes that Facebook or Linkedin profiles are markers of online reputation.
These people (he's not alone) are watching their authority eroding and believe that it could be stopped with another status symbol. Doubtful.
Aside, which online communities has Anil Dash created?
Can this be summarized as "Twitter, implement censorship because people are saying things we don't like?" I fully understand that Twitter is a company offering a service and they are intrinsically allowed to police content being posted on their platform. The whole point of democratic society in the United States is to allow people freedom of speech and thought. If we limit the discussion of ideas to only popular/acce…
The 1st amendment only applies to the government, not to your peer citizens or to companies. They can censor whatever they want.
The government supports free speech because it's important and a Good Thing. Just because private companies aren't required to do the same doesn't make it any less important and a Good Thing.
> where even the vilest, most hateful and antisocial behavior should be tolerated. I'm confused, I see stories complaining about Twitter's heavy-handed censorship all the time, whether it's banning accounts or simply removing objectionable hashtags from the "Trending" list. When did they suddenly develop the opposite problem?