4 ms·

Hypothetically, if that (ie: maximizing free speech on the social networks) created a world of superstition, poverty, violent social unrest, unchecked pollution

Hypothetically, if that (ie: maximizing free speech on the social networks) created a world of superstition, poverty, violent social unrest, unchecked pollution, and war, would you reconsider your position?

mcntsh 6y ago
If free speech in the real world created a world of "superstition, poverty, social unrest, and war" would I consider removing free speech there too? Well, no. As history shows things are always great until they aren't, and then you're at the mercy of whoever is in charge. I'd rather have the freedom to read what I want and say what I want, than to have it controlled by someone who says they know what's best for me.
- beLessSocial99 6y ago
  I would suggest be less social then. The more people invited in the more rules. I don’t use social media, and stick to purpose focused socializing; play music, technical work, etc. If I don’t have something scheduled I spend the time with myself. You want more of a sense of freedom? Stay away from people.
- uniqueid 6y ago
  If free speech in the real world created a world of "superstition, poverty, social unrest, and war" would I consider removing free speech there too? Well, no. If we except social networks, I don't believe free-speech causes such a world either. But if I did, unlike you, I would support limitations. I sympathize to some degree with your preference: as an abstract idea, I find censorship distasteful. The thing is, I believe social media is doing enough harm to the world, that the pragmatic thing to do is, to put it bluntly, to shut people up.
  - mcntsh 6y ago
    So you believe that the advertising companies which run these companies should be the ones to decide what discourse is allowed online. At the end of the day Facebook isn't deplatforming people out of the kindness of their hearts. They take action because it benefits them.
    - uniqueid 6y ago
      Allowing FB to decide whom to censor isn't ideal, but better than what we have at the moment. At least, if the public kicks up enough fuss over the egregious cases, FB might respond. I think, left to FB's own devices, in a decade or two, it will transform the world into a dystopia of horrors beyond imagination. My first choice isn't for FB to censor users, but to put it out of business, and investigate the fraud and negligence of its management.
Fjolsvith 6y ago
Why hasn't FB banned BLM and Antifa, considering the riots they've committed?
- anemoiac 6y ago
  Hmm, so you’re suggesting that a variety of heterogeneous movements together protesting an authoritarian justice system that continually refuses to stop dehumanizing its subjects can be equated to a bizarre conspiracy group built on the premise that an elderly businessman-cum-president, known primarily for his sleazy business practices and reality TV personality, is single-handedly protecting the world from a secret cabal of satanist pedophiles?

mcntsh 6y ago

If free speech in the real world created a world of "superstition, poverty, social unrest, and war" would I consider removing free speech there too? Well, no. As history shows things are always great until they aren't, and then you're at the mercy of whoever is in charge. I'd rather have the freedom to read what I want and say what I want, than to have it controlled by someone who says they know what's best for me.

beLessSocial99 6y ago
I would suggest be less social then. The more people invited in the more rules. I don’t use social media, and stick to purpose focused socializing; play music, technical work, etc. If I don’t have something scheduled I spend the time with myself. You want more of a sense of freedom? Stay away from people.
uniqueid 6y ago
If free speech in the real world created a world of "superstition, poverty, social unrest, and war" would I consider removing free speech there too? Well, no. If we except social networks, I don't believe free-speech causes such a world either. But if I did, unlike you, I would support limitations. I sympathize to some degree with your preference: as an abstract idea, I find censorship distasteful. The thing is, I believe social media is doing enough harm to the world, that the pragmatic thing to do is, to put it bluntly, to shut people up.
- mcntsh 6y ago
  So you believe that the advertising companies which run these companies should be the ones to decide what discourse is allowed online. At the end of the day Facebook isn't deplatforming people out of the kindness of their hearts. They take action because it benefits them.
  - uniqueid 6y ago
    Allowing FB to decide whom to censor isn't ideal, but better than what we have at the moment. At least, if the public kicks up enough fuss over the egregious cases, FB might respond. I think, left to FB's own devices, in a decade or two, it will transform the world into a dystopia of horrors beyond imagination. My first choice isn't for FB to censor users, but to put it out of business, and investigate the fraud and negligence of its management.

Fjolsvith 6y ago

Why hasn't FB banned BLM and Antifa, considering the riots they've committed?

anemoiac 6y ago
Hmm, so you’re suggesting that a variety of heterogeneous movements together protesting an authoritarian justice system that continually refuses to stop dehumanizing its subjects can be equated to a bizarre conspiracy group built on the premise that an elderly businessman-cum-president, known primarily for his sleazy business practices and reality TV personality, is single-handedly protecting the world from a secret cabal of satanist pedophiles?