4 ms·

>I would say I'd like to live in a world where private corporations didn't censor digital mass communication. Why on earth would you want that? We already have

>I would say I'd like to live in a world where private corporations didn't censor digital mass communication. Why on earth would you want that? We already have a tonne of mechanisms by which anybody can say anything they like, within the confines of the law, and ignoring that arguably infowars breaks that, why does _everything_ need to be like that? If you go to, say, a forum about cooking, and start talking about cars, then ten years ago getting your posts deleted for being off topic was simply considered good moderation. Now it's a political statement that causes controversy! Sets of rules and codes of conduct have been a mainstay of almost every serious digital community since day one. Everything from 4chan to mailing lists to twitter to niche forums to basically anything else has _always_ "censored" content which is against the rules. A world where nobody gets to set any rules is a world in which good communities cannot grow. We've seen this over and over again, with every mature community having enforced rules, and every attempt to create "rules free" or "uncensorable" communities ending up collapsing in on themselves. I think we need to frame this discussion in the reality of the situation: This "censorship" is nothing different to what has always been done, and the people who are now claiming that it is wrong are the ones pushing for a massive change in how we operate. Reasons and justifications for this must be provided.

ng12 8y ago
I disagree with your assumption that a lack of censorship means total anarchy. Consider that Twitter has cultivated an environment conducive to politics and journalism. It's not that Alex Jones is off-topic it's that he's saying disagreeable things. > We already have a tonne of mechanisms by which anybody can say anything they like, within the confines of the law, and ignoring that arguably infowars breaks that, why does _everything_ need to be like that? Because digital communication is important, and I think it should follow the same mechanisms as analog communication.
- annabellish 8y ago
  >It's not that Alex Jones is off-topic it's that he's saying disagreeable things. I think this is the central disagreement. He _is_ breaking the rules of twitter, by any interpretation, but even were he not, I don't think you can just wipe away concerns with that the things he's saying are "disagreeable". We're having a lot of problems currently around the fact that we have people who have gotten very good at propagandising and communicating in malicious, duplicitous ways. Alex Jones and friends aren't coming to the table in good faith, and asking to be treated as if they are is one of the tools they're using to twist polite discourse for their own profit. While it's incredibly important that anybody who has something to say in good faith be allowed to say it, we still need to be able to protect ourselves against people like Alex Jones, who is simply trying to extract profit from a gullible audience.

ng12 8y ago

I disagree with your assumption that a lack of censorship means total anarchy. Consider that Twitter has cultivated an environment conducive to politics and journalism. It's not that Alex Jones is off-topic it's that he's saying disagreeable things. > We already have a tonne of mechanisms by which anybody can say anything they like, within the confines of the law, and ignoring that arguably infowars breaks that, why does _everything_ need to be like that? Because digital communication is important, and I think it should follow the same mechanisms as analog communication.

annabellish 8y ago
>It's not that Alex Jones is off-topic it's that he's saying disagreeable things. I think this is the central disagreement. He _is_ breaking the rules of twitter, by any interpretation, but even were he not, I don't think you can just wipe away concerns with that the things he's saying are "disagreeable". We're having a lot of problems currently around the fact that we have people who have gotten very good at propagandising and communicating in malicious, duplicitous ways. Alex Jones and friends aren't coming to the table in good faith, and asking to be treated as if they are is one of the tools they're using to twist polite discourse for their own profit. While it's incredibly important that anybody who has something to say in good faith be allowed to say it, we still need to be able to protect ourselves against people like Alex Jones, who is simply trying to extract profit from a gullible audience.