4 ms·

Right, so the hypothesis is that we can’t have unfettered access to information.

by jacksnipe 7y ago

vorpalhex 7y ago
So who do you propose gets to spoonfeed the masses with their okayed content? That is a terrifying argument.
- damontal 7y ago
  pre internet weren't the masses spoonfed okayed information by network tv and newspapers?
- prepend 7y ago
  Obviously the natural answer is the companies who started first and developed these products that are now super widely used. I’ve only heard two arguments- let Twitter do what they want (viva Capitalism!) or have government regulate (viva Socialism!). I wish there was more thought given by Twitter, and others, to just self apply free speech rights and stick to using the current legal system to restricting speech. There’s a ton of law to protect people from damaging speech (harassment, slander/libel, dangerous threats, etc). It’s quite possible that Twitter can just use a more rational standard for their process.
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    It's not a binary switch. The government frequently regulates entities and restricts them, especially large monopolistic ones - "Hey Spectrum, you can't impose bandwidth caps because you swallowed all the competition". There's no reason the Government can't allow Twitter to still operate as a private, for profit platform (Capitalism) and restrict their limiting or banning of accounts (recognizing that they're used widely for disseminating official policy positions and governmental information among other things and there's no competition). What the Government can't do is tell Twitter what statements it is or is not allowed to publish (authoritarianism).
- zuminator 7y ago
  Even if one were in favor of unfettered access to information generally, it doesn't logically follow that an individual publisher such as Twitter is obliged to offer or facilitate unfettered access. The WSJ isn't obliged to offer access to fake stock listings alongside the real ones. And unless you are okay with your bank providing unfettered access to your ID, account number and PIN, I'd imagine that you are not in favor of general unfettered access either. Democracy may require access to information but civilization requires that information not be universally shared.
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    That's a straw man to suggest anyone is arguing for divulging all passwords or pins. Likewise no one is arguing twitter should facilitate access to PHI, etc. There's a clear and obvious difference between political statements and passwords and its bad faith to argue otherwise. The difference between WSJ and Twitter is that the WSJ has competitors (NYT, Politico, even Fox News and crazies like Infowars) whereas Twitter does not. We live in a world (unfortunately) where the President of the United States and his administration heavily relies on Twitter - it's no longer someones backyard social group. For Twitter to play the censor is no longer acceptable, although we still expect twitter to keep its users safe from harassment and mobs. So yes, it's unacceptable for Twitter to play the censor or ban people from public service announcements or policy statements by their elected officials. If Twitter is going to facilitate administration statements and my local government agencies letting me know critical information, they are no longer an entirely private platform.
- nsxwolf 7y ago
  Who? People who believe as I do politically, of course.
- jacksnipe 7y ago
  I’m not sure what the solution is — it’s possible to identify a problem (that humans don’t seem to be able to properly process the amount of information we currently have access to) without knowing the solution. I agree that having restrictions on information access and communication is a slippery slope in the non-fallacious sense, at least with the solutions we usually discuss. But I’m optimistic that the failure conditions might be more specific than they seem to the current state of affairs — self curated social graphs of unlimited size and bandwidth. Perhaps dramatically limiting scope, connectedness, or agency over whose views you have access to (think true random, not AI) would lead to less or different issues. I don’t know, because these experiments would take a lot of investment, but the point is that it may not be as black and white as you make it out to be.
andy_ppp 7y ago
Is it okay to put plans for building nuclear centrifuges on the internet? No.
- nradov 7y ago
  There are hundreds of scientific journal articles and patent applications available for nuclear centrifuges. The US government even publishes some of them. Plans alone are useless without the raw materials, parts, and tools.

Right, so the hypothesis is that we can’t have unfettered access to information.

vorpalhex 7y ago

So who do you propose gets to spoonfeed the masses with their okayed content? That is a terrifying argument.

damontal 7y ago
pre internet weren't the masses spoonfed okayed information by network tv and newspapers?
prepend 7y ago
Obviously the natural answer is the companies who started first and developed these products that are now super widely used. I’ve only heard two arguments- let Twitter do what they want (viva Capitalism!) or have government regulate (viva Socialism!). I wish there was more thought given by Twitter, and others, to just self apply free speech rights and stick to using the current legal system to restricting speech. There’s a ton of law to protect people from damaging speech (harassment, slander/libel, dangerous threats, etc). It’s quite possible that Twitter can just use a more rational standard for their process.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  It's not a binary switch. The government frequently regulates entities and restricts them, especially large monopolistic ones - "Hey Spectrum, you can't impose bandwidth caps because you swallowed all the competition". There's no reason the Government can't allow Twitter to still operate as a private, for profit platform (Capitalism) and restrict their limiting or banning of accounts (recognizing that they're used widely for disseminating official policy positions and governmental information among other things and there's no competition). What the Government can't do is tell Twitter what statements it is or is not allowed to publish (authoritarianism).
zuminator 7y ago
Even if one were in favor of unfettered access to information generally, it doesn't logically follow that an individual publisher such as Twitter is obliged to offer or facilitate unfettered access. The WSJ isn't obliged to offer access to fake stock listings alongside the real ones. And unless you are okay with your bank providing unfettered access to your ID, account number and PIN, I'd imagine that you are not in favor of general unfettered access either. Democracy may require access to information but civilization requires that information not be universally shared.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  That's a straw man to suggest anyone is arguing for divulging all passwords or pins. Likewise no one is arguing twitter should facilitate access to PHI, etc. There's a clear and obvious difference between political statements and passwords and its bad faith to argue otherwise. The difference between WSJ and Twitter is that the WSJ has competitors (NYT, Politico, even Fox News and crazies like Infowars) whereas Twitter does not. We live in a world (unfortunately) where the President of the United States and his administration heavily relies on Twitter - it's no longer someones backyard social group. For Twitter to play the censor is no longer acceptable, although we still expect twitter to keep its users safe from harassment and mobs. So yes, it's unacceptable for Twitter to play the censor or ban people from public service announcements or policy statements by their elected officials. If Twitter is going to facilitate administration statements and my local government agencies letting me know critical information, they are no longer an entirely private platform.
nsxwolf 7y ago
Who? People who believe as I do politically, of course.
jacksnipe 7y ago
I’m not sure what the solution is — it’s possible to identify a problem (that humans don’t seem to be able to properly process the amount of information we currently have access to) without knowing the solution. I agree that having restrictions on information access and communication is a slippery slope in the non-fallacious sense, at least with the solutions we usually discuss. But I’m optimistic that the failure conditions might be more specific than they seem to the current state of affairs — self curated social graphs of unlimited size and bandwidth. Perhaps dramatically limiting scope, connectedness, or agency over whose views you have access to (think true random, not AI) would lead to less or different issues. I don’t know, because these experiments would take a lot of investment, but the point is that it may not be as black and white as you make it out to be.

andy_ppp 7y ago

Is it okay to put plans for building nuclear centrifuges on the internet? No.

nradov 7y ago
There are hundreds of scientific journal articles and patent applications available for nuclear centrifuges. The US government even publishes some of them. Plans alone are useless without the raw materials, parts, and tools.