5 ms·
Sounds Orwellian
by skindoe 6y ago
Sounds Orwellian
- flutterdude420 6y agoDoes it? There are other privately owned platforms you can use to accuse Hilary Clinton of pedophaelic blood rituals and satanic mind control. When Ingsoc comes in to ban reporters from asking unflattering questions at presidential news conferences then maybe we can talk.
- exogeny 6y agoGood thing many alternatives exist!
- skindoe 6y agoWhat if Google and Twitter deside that those "alternatives" are hateful for disagreeing politically and stop linking them on their platforms making it extremely difficult/impossible to find them?
- Apocryphon 6y agoWhat does Google have to do with this discussion about Twitter?
- thephyber 6y agoI think your parent is talking about Twitter, Google and the other internet platforms and infrastructure.
- shadowgovt 6y agoThen people can type in domain names directly. This isn't a hard problem to solve.
- bluedispatcher 6y agoThis is a disingenuous argument. When all mainstream platforms decide that your opinion is not welcome, your only real alternative becomes either silence or small echo chambers where you're more likely to enter into radical feedback loops. This is not healthy for our societies. Historically, public spaces have been used to confront ideas. Free speech isn't a luxury, it's a necessity that ensures our societies don't devolve into radicalized micro bubbles that are more likely to resort to violence. The issue that we're facing is that the public space is being replaced by the virtual private space, which doesn't have such guarantees. We're already seeing the effect of such divisiveness already, and it's only going to get worse. So should we just accept that free speech is dead? I don't think that's the right direction.
- msbarnett 6y agoSounds like a private enterprise deciding what they want on their property, to me.
- andrenth 6y agoSo like, say, a cake shop?
- msbarnett 6y agoSure, exactly like that. People who believe there’s a vast conspiracy of celebrities to drain “adrenochrome” from children to gain eternal life or whatever aren’t a protected class, after all.
- andrenth 6y agoYou’re saying a private company is allowed to decide who they want on their property. This must hold for all private companies, no?
- msbarnett 6y agoYes, provided they are not deciding on the basis of someone belonging to a protected class. Hence a cake maker can cheerfully refuse your business on the basis of you wanting a cake that says “Jennifer Garner Eats Babies” but not on the basis of you, say, being homosexual, or Black.
- andrenth 6y agoThat means I can refuse servicing you based on, for example, the clothes you’re wearing, right? Or maybe because I don’t like your hair? As far as I know people with bad hair is not a protected class. I’m trying to figure out how do you know the basis on which some private enterprise decided to refuse to provide their service to someone. Is it based on their stated reason?
- shadowgovt 6y agoIt's not because there are alternatives. People keep forgetting that 1984 assumes a singular authoritarian control, not multiple authorities and the freedom to choose one, several, or none of them.
- pix64 6y agoIf you're interested in hateful content stormfront is the next door down