4 ms·

Trump wants the oppsite actually - platforms not to moderate it. Not that it is any of his business this way or the other.

krapp 6y ago
More to the point - when the only options for a platform hosting any user provided content are to shut down to avoid liability or not moderate anything, platforms choosing the latter will become overwhelmed with extremist and right-wing speech, pushing the Overton window towards the cultural normalization of alt-right and white supremacist ideology. Which is the actual goal.
- llcoolv 6y ago
  Apologies, but this sounds like it came straight from underneath a tin-foil hat. And to be honest, racism and <insert-color> supermacy are the most primitive & superficial form of collectivism and thus disgusting, but... If the idiots on left are going for affirmative action, which is basically discrimination based on superficial qualities such as gender, race & religion, why the idiots on the right should not be allowed to do the same?
  - krapp 6y ago
    It may not be the goal of Donald Trump specifically - I think he's just having a bit of a hissy fit TBH. But I absolutely do think it's the goal of many self-described "free speech" advocates on the internet, and Trump's worldview seems to be informed by their zeitgeist, so he's serving their purposes.
    - pnako 6y ago
      It's pretty obvious that people who have their own speech being suppressed would be advocating for freedom of speech. That's almost tautological, and not a particularly interesting argument.
      - krapp 6y ago
        They're not advocating for freedom of speech, they're advocating for the tolerance of racist speech under a politically correct banner. Most of them wouldn't bat an eye at the suppression of speech they disagree with, which is evident in how often their attempts at general argument devolve into rants against "the left", SJWs, feminists, etc.
        pnako 6y ago
        As I said, it doesn't really matter, if they defend a good argument for the wrong reasons. It's quite possible that some people who want free speech now might be against free speech for others, but that's hardly an argument against having free speech in the first place. It's an interesting thought experiment: under free speech you should be free to advocate for a restriction of free speech.
- pnako 6y ago
  Why do you think they would become overwhelmed with this type of content in particular?
  - krapp 6y ago
    Show me an unmoderated forum, or any "free speech" alternative forum where that hasn't become the case.
    - pnako 6y ago
      If most places ban a certain type of content, it's likely that you will find more of that content in the few places where it's allowed. I'm questioning the idea that if all platforms were to be less restrictive, that particular type of content would become "overwhelming". Some communities are more active online than others but generally I would expect the distribution of opinions expressed online to reflect the actual distribution of opinions actually held by the population.
      - krapp 6y ago
        >I would expect the distribution of opinions expressed online to reflect the actual distribution of opinions actually held by the population. You're assuming most people are tolerant of racist and bigoted content and don't mind seeing a constant stream of it, but when the Nazis show up, their discourse tends to drive everyone else away if they aren't banned. That's why they tend to take over communities where, in theory all sorts of opinions are welcome.
        pnako 6y ago
        It might be true on some platforms like Facebook, where your network tends to be made up of family and colleagues (so you can't really avoid what your uncle might have to say), but I don't think it's true on social media websites like reddit or twitter, where you can choose which content you follow (subreddit, following certain users, etc.)

krapp 6y ago

More to the point - when the only options for a platform hosting any user provided content are to shut down to avoid liability or not moderate anything, platforms choosing the latter will become overwhelmed with extremist and right-wing speech, pushing the Overton window towards the cultural normalization of alt-right and white supremacist ideology. Which is the actual goal.

llcoolv 6y ago
Apologies, but this sounds like it came straight from underneath a tin-foil hat. And to be honest, racism and <insert-color> supermacy are the most primitive & superficial form of collectivism and thus disgusting, but... If the idiots on left are going for affirmative action, which is basically discrimination based on superficial qualities such as gender, race & religion, why the idiots on the right should not be allowed to do the same?
- krapp 6y ago
  It may not be the goal of Donald Trump specifically - I think he's just having a bit of a hissy fit TBH. But I absolutely do think it's the goal of many self-described "free speech" advocates on the internet, and Trump's worldview seems to be informed by their zeitgeist, so he's serving their purposes.
  - pnako 6y ago
    It's pretty obvious that people who have their own speech being suppressed would be advocating for freedom of speech. That's almost tautological, and not a particularly interesting argument.
    - krapp 6y ago
      They're not advocating for freedom of speech, they're advocating for the tolerance of racist speech under a politically correct banner. Most of them wouldn't bat an eye at the suppression of speech they disagree with, which is evident in how often their attempts at general argument devolve into rants against "the left", SJWs, feminists, etc.
      - pnako 6y ago
        As I said, it doesn't really matter, if they defend a good argument for the wrong reasons. It's quite possible that some people who want free speech now might be against free speech for others, but that's hardly an argument against having free speech in the first place. It's an interesting thought experiment: under free speech you should be free to advocate for a restriction of free speech.
pnako 6y ago
Why do you think they would become overwhelmed with this type of content in particular?
- krapp 6y ago
  Show me an unmoderated forum, or any "free speech" alternative forum where that hasn't become the case.
  - pnako 6y ago
    If most places ban a certain type of content, it's likely that you will find more of that content in the few places where it's allowed. I'm questioning the idea that if all platforms were to be less restrictive, that particular type of content would become "overwhelming". Some communities are more active online than others but generally I would expect the distribution of opinions expressed online to reflect the actual distribution of opinions actually held by the population.
    - krapp 6y ago
      >I would expect the distribution of opinions expressed online to reflect the actual distribution of opinions actually held by the population. You're assuming most people are tolerant of racist and bigoted content and don't mind seeing a constant stream of it, but when the Nazis show up, their discourse tends to drive everyone else away if they aren't banned. That's why they tend to take over communities where, in theory all sorts of opinions are welcome.
      - pnako 6y ago
        It might be true on some platforms like Facebook, where your network tends to be made up of family and colleagues (so you can't really avoid what your uncle might have to say), but I don't think it's true on social media websites like reddit or twitter, where you can choose which content you follow (subreddit, following certain users, etc.)