4 ms·
Certainly you don't believe that. What about child porn? Well you could say that's illegal so then it would be ok to censor it. But what about anti-vaxxers, QAn
by dudus 6y ago
Certainly you don't believe that. What about child porn? Well you could say that's illegal so then it would be ok to censor it. But what about anti-vaxxers, QAnon or other blatant misinformation or lies? What if it's proven that the misinformation, is posted by foreign agents trying to stir controversy and hate in the country?
You clearly need to draw the line somewhere. But it's impossible to draw it to comply with the expectations of everyone. It's just an impossible task.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoThe focus is on 'information', as in factual information. 'Apple takes 30% of your transaction' is clearly factual information that is different from general political speech. Clearly misinformation does not qualify. I am trying to outline it as distinct from general freedom of speech, but I am not sure how to draw the line. However, the edge-cases are quite clear.
- azangru 6y agoI strongly feel that it should be up to the consumer of information to decide whether to treat it as true or false. Otherwise, what's stopping you from banning all religious texts? Spiritual texts? Ads for homeopathic pills? And so on, and so forth. If people are manipulable enough to fall for "foreign agents" stirring up controversy and hate — well, they'll just need to learn and get smarter.
- Talanes 6y agoWhat's stopping anyone from banning all of that right now?
- azangru 6y agoPeople finding it useful, for whatever purposes.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoArguably "Ads for homeopathic pills" might fall under fraud, with enough fud, smoke and mirrors to escape charges.
- 9HZZRfNlpR 6y agoWould you be willing to censor BLM just because Russians are using it for their disinformation campaigns? Afterall Muellers report revealed they have big hand in it, but it doesn't mean we have to censor it.