4 ms·

One interesting thing is that this perspective - displeasure that decorum is being enforced instead of underlying issues being addressed - is loudly shared by b

One interesting thing is that this perspective - displeasure that decorum is being enforced instead of underlying issues being addressed - is loudly shared by both left and right on the internet these days. After a few decades of insincerity and bad faith argument it seems like everyone is getting fed up, and most people running platforms have no idea what to do about it. Look no further than Gab, a no-censorship right wing Twitter alternative that is now in crisis due to fights between users and corporate leadership over a mix of death threats and - you guessed it - decorum.

panarky 8y ago
> a no-censorship right wing Twitter alternative that is now in crisis ... Without strict rules and strong moderation, most online communities devolve into a cesspool of trolls, sock puppets, spam, shills and ignorance. The noise swamps the signal. Twitter has come a long way in the last year by clarifying the rules, enforcing the rules, and suppressing the troublemakers that turned Twitter into a cesspool. Twitter's signal-to-noise ratio has improved quite a lot recently. Gab claimed to be the alt-Twitter for those banned from Twitter. But without strict rules and strong moderation, it's no surprise that Gab has become a stinking pit.
drivingmenuts 8y ago
I can't help but think that a lot of the people making free-speech (online) arguments are being deliberately obtuse. The Constitution and general body of law doesn't really address interactions on privately owned forums. It doesn't even really cover publicly (shareholder) owned forums, either, because they are, in effect, private as well. Government-owned/controlled forums are a different matter entirely and they can't be censored in the same way. Any online site has the right to say: this far and no further. How simple is that? State what you're not going to allow, admit that some things are judgement calls and call it done and dusted. I will fight for your right to say any damn stupid thing you want (barring yelling fire in a theater), just don't try it in the middle of my f---ing living room.
- cosmiccartel 8y ago
  You're confusing the First Amendment with the principle of Free Speech. When it comes to privately owned forums, they may have absolute control over what is acceptable to say, but those who disagree with their policies are perfectly justified in criticizing them for violating the principle of free speech. But it isn't even as black and white as you say from a legal standpoint. There is precedent (Marsh v. Alabama) for the owners of a publicly-used, privately-owned space to have their rights limited in order to protect the constitutional rights of persons using the space. The same principle could apply to sites as large as Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.

panarky 8y ago

> a no-censorship right wing Twitter alternative that is now in crisis ... Without strict rules and strong moderation, most online communities devolve into a cesspool of trolls, sock puppets, spam, shills and ignorance. The noise swamps the signal. Twitter has come a long way in the last year by clarifying the rules, enforcing the rules, and suppressing the troublemakers that turned Twitter into a cesspool. Twitter's signal-to-noise ratio has improved quite a lot recently. Gab claimed to be the alt-Twitter for those banned from Twitter. But without strict rules and strong moderation, it's no surprise that Gab has become a stinking pit.

drivingmenuts 8y ago

I can't help but think that a lot of the people making free-speech (online) arguments are being deliberately obtuse. The Constitution and general body of law doesn't really address interactions on privately owned forums. It doesn't even really cover publicly (shareholder) owned forums, either, because they are, in effect, private as well. Government-owned/controlled forums are a different matter entirely and they can't be censored in the same way. Any online site has the right to say: this far and no further. How simple is that? State what you're not going to allow, admit that some things are judgement calls and call it done and dusted. I will fight for your right to say any damn stupid thing you want (barring yelling fire in a theater), just don't try it in the middle of my f---ing living room.

cosmiccartel 8y ago
You're confusing the First Amendment with the principle of Free Speech. When it comes to privately owned forums, they may have absolute control over what is acceptable to say, but those who disagree with their policies are perfectly justified in criticizing them for violating the principle of free speech. But it isn't even as black and white as you say from a legal standpoint. There is precedent (Marsh v. Alabama) for the owners of a publicly-used, privately-owned space to have their rights limited in order to protect the constitutional rights of persons using the space. The same principle could apply to sites as large as Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.