3 ms·

I believe the issue is overblown and we're underestimating how well platforms are succeeding in curating their content. The controversy evolves around opiniona

I believe the issue is overblown and we're underestimating how well platforms are succeeding in curating their content. The controversy evolves around opinionated content where group A sees a problem with group B having a certain opinion heard. We need to think about extreme cases. Take for example a political party for pedophiles. You can rest assured any free market player will be laser focused as soon as such content shows up on their platform. Reputations are at stake. Many will execute their freedom to have such content removed. They don't need to provide a reason. Now with a regulatory system it becomes a different story. There is no way to define a set of rules that prevents people from advocating pedophilia without sacrificing freedom of speech.

close04 8y ago
> There is no way to define a set of rules that prevents people from advocating pedophilia without sacrificing freedom of speech. I disagree. The problem is just that people interpret "freedom of speech" as "I'm free to say whatever I want [period]". There are some limits however, that most fail to recognize. One of them which is both the letter and the spirit of freedom of speech ever since its first proclamation: the speaker shall be responsible for any abuse as defined by law. Being allowed to speak freely doesn't absolve you of supporting the consequences. This is why you can speak state secrets or instigate violence against refugees but will be prosecuted (there are corner cases as in every other legal area). In your example you are perfectly free to support that case. There's no actual "censorship office" to physically close your mouth while you do it. You may even escape any kind of legal prosecution. But in the court of public opinion you will not fare well.
- skummetmaelk 8y ago
  Free speech is taken too far by so many people. It is freedom under responsibility. You can say what you want, but you can also be prosecuted for going up to people and screaming your opinions at them because that's harassment.
- bartimus 8y ago
  I'm not sure we are in disagreement. > In your example you are perfectly free to support that case. There's no actual "censorship office". So without regulation the content platforms are free to make up their own rules and remove any content they consider unsuitable for their audience. In the article a regulatory framework is proposed for ad supported platforms. The responsibility is taken away from the platform. You now have a situation where the regulatory entity will either need to allow people advocating for things like pedophilia or other "uncomfortable things" or otherwise introduces censorship for it. It's a double edged sword.
  - close04 8y ago
    There’s regulation applying to YT or FB and then there’s regulation for everyone. So the fact that ads now support a certain model and in theory you could start promoting terrorism doesn’t mean the general laws don’t apply. So the hypothetical pro-terrorism or pro child abuse article would go up because it’s not censored, it would catch traction because it enjoys the support of some, it would then be taken down because the laws prohibit such speech in general, and finally the original poster suffers the consequences of breaking the law. Censorship is done before the fact. Like banning a song before launch because it’s insulting the supreme leader. Doing it after the fact because it violates a law (TBH I presume there’s a law prohibiting the promotion of pedophilia or terrorism...) is not censorship.

close04 8y ago

> There is no way to define a set of rules that prevents people from advocating pedophilia without sacrificing freedom of speech. I disagree. The problem is just that people interpret "freedom of speech" as "I'm free to say whatever I want [period]". There are some limits however, that most fail to recognize. One of them which is both the letter and the spirit of freedom of speech ever since its first proclamation: the speaker shall be responsible for any abuse as defined by law. Being allowed to speak freely doesn't absolve you of supporting the consequences. This is why you can speak state secrets or instigate violence against refugees but will be prosecuted (there are corner cases as in every other legal area). In your example you are perfectly free to support that case. There's no actual "censorship office" to physically close your mouth while you do it. You may even escape any kind of legal prosecution. But in the court of public opinion you will not fare well.

skummetmaelk 8y ago
Free speech is taken too far by so many people. It is freedom under responsibility. You can say what you want, but you can also be prosecuted for going up to people and screaming your opinions at them because that's harassment.
bartimus 8y ago
I'm not sure we are in disagreement. > In your example you are perfectly free to support that case. There's no actual "censorship office". So without regulation the content platforms are free to make up their own rules and remove any content they consider unsuitable for their audience. In the article a regulatory framework is proposed for ad supported platforms. The responsibility is taken away from the platform. You now have a situation where the regulatory entity will either need to allow people advocating for things like pedophilia or other "uncomfortable things" or otherwise introduces censorship for it. It's a double edged sword.
- close04 8y ago
  There’s regulation applying to YT or FB and then there’s regulation for everyone. So the fact that ads now support a certain model and in theory you could start promoting terrorism doesn’t mean the general laws don’t apply. So the hypothetical pro-terrorism or pro child abuse article would go up because it’s not censored, it would catch traction because it enjoys the support of some, it would then be taken down because the laws prohibit such speech in general, and finally the original poster suffers the consequences of breaking the law. Censorship is done before the fact. Like banning a song before launch because it’s insulting the supreme leader. Doing it after the fact because it violates a law (TBH I presume there’s a law prohibiting the promotion of pedophilia or terrorism...) is not censorship.