3 ms·

It seems to me that using a few isolated incidents to push for widespread censorship and financial excommunication is exactly missing the forest for the trees.

It seems to me that using a few isolated incidents to push for widespread censorship and financial excommunication is exactly missing the forest for the trees. Furthermore, even if you think this is a principled stand, how does that justify censoring the discussion itself? Appealing to an axiomatic consensus that this is a "bad post" and a "bad look" is just populism in disguise. There is no doubt that freedom necessarily increases suffering too, as it provides more opportunity for abuse, but we generally accept this, the same way we accept that having a Justice system opens the door to malicious prosecution or perps walking free. It takes a special kind of arrogance to think you can judge adequately what the second and third order effects of a policy will be, and even more arrogance that you know better than centuries of enlightenment values.

sagichmal 8y ago
> It seems to me that using a few isolated incidents to push for widespread censorship Nobody is pushing for widespread censorship. We are de-platforming specific sites that breed hate, which is our ethical responsibility as a moral species.
- wild_preference 8y ago
  Which social media platforms don't breed hate?
- DuskStar 8y ago
  > Nobody is pushing for widespread censorship. We are de-platforming specific sites that breed hate Excuse me, but what kind of Orwellian doublespeak is this? How is de-platforming sites NOT censorship? And since you seem to want every registrar to join in the de-platforming, how is it not widespread? "Nobody is pushing for genocide. We are removing specific populations that harm society." Or "Nobody is pushing for widespread censorship of birth control methods. We are restricting the distribution of specific material that is harmful to the fabric of society."
  - sagichmal 8y ago
    > How is de-platforming sites NOT censorship? And since you seem to want every registrar to join in the de-platforming, how is it not widespread? I'm strongly advocating for the de-platforming (removal of soap boxes and megaphones) for antisemitic hate speech in all possible circumstances. This is censorship in the narrowest possible sense only, neither general nor widespread.

sagichmal 8y ago

> It seems to me that using a few isolated incidents to push for widespread censorship Nobody is pushing for widespread censorship. We are de-platforming specific sites that breed hate, which is our ethical responsibility as a moral species.

wild_preference 8y ago
Which social media platforms don't breed hate?
DuskStar 8y ago
> Nobody is pushing for widespread censorship. We are de-platforming specific sites that breed hate Excuse me, but what kind of Orwellian doublespeak is this? How is de-platforming sites NOT censorship? And since you seem to want every registrar to join in the de-platforming, how is it not widespread? "Nobody is pushing for genocide. We are removing specific populations that harm society." Or "Nobody is pushing for widespread censorship of birth control methods. We are restricting the distribution of specific material that is harmful to the fabric of society."
- sagichmal 8y ago
  > How is de-platforming sites NOT censorship? And since you seem to want every registrar to join in the de-platforming, how is it not widespread? I'm strongly advocating for the de-platforming (removal of soap boxes and megaphones) for antisemitic hate speech in all possible circumstances. This is censorship in the narrowest possible sense only, neither general nor widespread.