Twitter, It’s Time to End Your Anything-Goes Paradise

Post by staticassertion » Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 5:39 PM UTC

rimliu wrote: post #24

staticassertion wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because free speech is important. That includes speech you do not like.

Post by creaghpatr » Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 5:44 PM UTC

croon wrote: post #66

daxorid wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Is the user saying they are a nazi" This would only be a fair standard if also applied to Communists. In terms of sheer historical body count, there is no rival. And then, if you did draw ideological lines in the sand, who sets that line? Whom does it emcompass? Does it apply to religions? Do we exclude Christians and Muslims? Do we exclude anybody who ever said anything nice about Genghis Khan or the Achaemenid I…

> This would only be a fair standard if also applied to Communists. In terms of sheer historical body count, there is no rival. Depending on how I was born, nazis want to get rid of me. Who exactly are these "communists" wanting to get rid of? And how can I spot those people? A lot of people has died in the name of Christianity. Would you call Christianity violent in terms of ideals? I don't disagree that communist r…

Post by jff » Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 6:12 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #63

nxsynonym wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. The only thing that censorship brings in this particular case is a safe space for advertisers. I see exactly 0 harm in sharing a platform with people with alternate views than me. If you don't like the way a social platform is heading, then leave it. You are not entitled to a safe space. At the end of the day twitter is going to cater to its biggest and most influential users. It costs you nothing t…

> I see exactly 0 harm in sharing a platform with people with alternate views than me. Spoken like someone who's never been the victim of a targeted harassment campaign. It's a little hard to take that view when people are posting pictures of your children's school along with their death threats.

Post by changchuming » Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 6:43 PM UTC

croon wrote: post #68

nileshtrivedi wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very soon that leads to any speech criticizing, say, the capitalists or the politicians in power.

> Very soon that leads to any speech criticizing, say, the capitalists or the politicians in power. No, because that's not an intrinsic property. Hating people who take too long at the register isn't the same as viewing all redheads as inferior.

Post by mozumder » Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 6:59 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #70

mozumder wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. A respected editorial standard allows for even more trust. Example: Do you trust Washington Post or Twitter more?

Twitter and it’s not even close. A journalists synthesis of what he thinks the evidence is carries no weight. Twitter is like a mini trial. You hear the testimony from the horse’s mouth, people cite documentary evidence, and you weigh credibility to reach a conclusion.