4 ms·

The thing is, imo, we need to stand up for our values. Segregation ended because people raised up. Sexual Harassment laws the same. But seems now, if it is a T

The thing is, imo, we need to stand up for our values. Segregation ended because people raised up. Sexual Harassment laws the same. But seems now, if it is a Tech company, people judge them differently. Wether Facebook or Twitter or Zoom, 'oh I can vote with my feet'. But if that was the case 30-40-60 years ago, we wouldn't have the 'progress' we see now. And while I am opposed to child porn, if it is legal, I am not in favour of having private companies doing the censorship, but I would ask for people to be active on changing that law. Since that is opening a door I am not comfortable opening. We had YouTube/Twitter banning/blocking content that went against WHO guidelines, but we also had WHO guidelines being retracted one day after they were published. We had for days/weeks recommendations from the WHO that were just flat wrong, and we shouldn't let private companies censor information based on 3rd parties that are not 'innocent'. And as your point stands, you are ok with shutting and account based on child porn (Assuming in this context it was legal), but would you be also for someone being banned documenting Police brutality in the BLM protests? Both are(in hypothetical) sense legal, so the only thing we have here is your own morality doing that judgement. And different cultures/religions will have different views on all that, thus I believe as long as it is legal, private companies should never have the right to censor 3rd party speech if they provide a platform for that speech.

kelnos 6y ago
> And as your point stands, you are ok with shutting and account based on child porn (Assuming in this context it was legal), but would you be also for someone being banned documenting Police brutality in the BLM protests? No, and that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Perhaps I'm doing a bad job of it. > Both are(in hypothetical) sense legal, so the only thing we have here is your own morality doing that judgement. And different cultures/religions will have different views on all that, thus I believe as long as it is legal, private companies should never have the right to censor 3rd party speech if they provide a platform for that speech. And that's where I think you and I fundamentally differ in our beliefs. I think, absent a law either way, companies may -- and perhaps should -- feel free to exercise their own judgment about what they're comfortable broadcasting from their platform. And again, why is "the law" so revered here? The law (at least in the US) is filled with racist and racist-enabling garbage. Why do we hold it as some final word on morality? I don't think we should. Changing the law takes time, effort, and money. Companies refusing to broadcast certain types of speech can be a part of activism and lobbying in order to change laws. And if ultimately the will of society is that this refusal is wrong, there are remedies (legal and economic) for that, too. I believe I do understand your point of view; I just don't agree with it.

kelnos 6y ago

> And as your point stands, you are ok with shutting and account based on child porn (Assuming in this context it was legal), but would you be also for someone being banned documenting Police brutality in the BLM protests? No, and that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Perhaps I'm doing a bad job of it. > Both are(in hypothetical) sense legal, so the only thing we have here is your own morality doing that judgement. And different cultures/religions will have different views on all that, thus I believe as long as it is legal, private companies should never have the right to censor 3rd party speech if they provide a platform for that speech. And that's where I think you and I fundamentally differ in our beliefs. I think, absent a law either way, companies may -- and perhaps should -- feel free to exercise their own judgment about what they're comfortable broadcasting from their platform. And again, why is "the law" so revered here? The law (at least in the US) is filled with racist and racist-enabling garbage. Why do we hold it as some final word on morality? I don't think we should. Changing the law takes time, effort, and money. Companies refusing to broadcast certain types of speech can be a part of activism and lobbying in order to change laws. And if ultimately the will of society is that this refusal is wrong, there are remedies (legal and economic) for that, too. I believe I do understand your point of view; I just don't agree with it.