3 ms·

Assuming all the best intentions in the world, this will most certainly be abused. Where do they think all of the people they want to silence will go? They will

by bArray 8y ago

Assuming all the best intentions in the world, this will most certainly be abused. Where do they think all of the people they want to silence will go? They will no doubt go to the darker web and concentrate there.

timomax 8y ago
It's a ballance. Town planning is also abused, but we do need it.
gnode 8y ago
I find this argument similar to: regulating the construction of buildings will just lead to seasteading. The issue isn't really about silencing people, but removing their access to a mainstream audience.
- DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
  > The issue isn't really about silencing people, but removing their access to a mainstream audience. Those sound approximately like the same thing to me. What about the difference do you see as relevant?
  - gnode 8y ago
    In the scenario of forcing speakers underground, those speakers have not been silenced (they may still speak to a large audience) but they will not speak to an audience which has not elected to listen to them. Conversely, if you're popular on Youtube, you will be suggested to people who are not looking for your speech. The difference is subtle, and that was my original point. Such acts of government will indeed not silence speakers, but it may as well do, because it stifles their ability to reach a greater audience.
- odessacubbage 8y ago
  and more importantly, removal of the ability to facilitate dissent in the public sphere. it's far easier to brand your opponents as reactionaries and pedophiles when they can only voice counter opinions in free speech ghettos that are already deemed unsavory.
- bArray 8y ago
  > I find this argument similar to: regulating the > construction of buildings will just lead to seasteading. You're calling it out as a slippery slope argument [1], which is fair enough - except there is already evidence to suggest that users kicked off of these platforms migrate to Minds (Twitter alternative), Gab (Facebook alternative) and BitChute (Youtube alternative). The BBC article for example has almost 70 comments on Dissenter [2]. Removing a persons ability to comment only hides the problem, you can't stop them thinking a given way and you're less likely to change their mind if you cut off dialogue with them entirely. > The issue isn't really about silencing people, but > removing their access to a mainstream audience. You're removing their access to a mainstream audience by silencing them. In this case they are the same. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope [2] https://dissenter.com/discussion/begin-extension?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Ftechnology-47826946 https://dissenter.com/discussion/begin-extension?url=https%3...

by bArray 8y ago

timomax 8y ago

It's a ballance. Town planning is also abused, but we do need it.

gnode 8y ago

I find this argument similar to: regulating the construction of buildings will just lead to seasteading. The issue isn't really about silencing people, but removing their access to a mainstream audience.

DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
> The issue isn't really about silencing people, but removing their access to a mainstream audience. Those sound approximately like the same thing to me. What about the difference do you see as relevant?
- gnode 8y ago
  In the scenario of forcing speakers underground, those speakers have not been silenced (they may still speak to a large audience) but they will not speak to an audience which has not elected to listen to them. Conversely, if you're popular on Youtube, you will be suggested to people who are not looking for your speech. The difference is subtle, and that was my original point. Such acts of government will indeed not silence speakers, but it may as well do, because it stifles their ability to reach a greater audience.
odessacubbage 8y ago
and more importantly, removal of the ability to facilitate dissent in the public sphere. it's far easier to brand your opponents as reactionaries and pedophiles when they can only voice counter opinions in free speech ghettos that are already deemed unsavory.
bArray 8y ago
> I find this argument similar to: regulating the > construction of buildings will just lead to seasteading. You're calling it out as a slippery slope argument [1], which is fair enough - except there is already evidence to suggest that users kicked off of these platforms migrate to Minds (Twitter alternative), Gab (Facebook alternative) and BitChute (Youtube alternative). The BBC article for example has almost 70 comments on Dissenter [2]. Removing a persons ability to comment only hides the problem, you can't stop them thinking a given way and you're less likely to change their mind if you cut off dialogue with them entirely. > The issue isn't really about silencing people, but > removing their access to a mainstream audience. You're removing their access to a mainstream audience by silencing them. In this case they are the same. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope [2] https://dissenter.com/discussion/begin-extension?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Ftechnology-47826946 https://dissenter.com/discussion/begin-extension?url=https%3...