3 ms·

I think it's naive to say that laissez faire speech is going to solve all issues The arguments for free speech are fundamentally the same arguments for democra

by crusso 6y ago

I think it's naive to say that laissez faire speech is going to solve all issues The arguments for free speech are fundamentally the same arguments for democracy itself. If people can't decide the value of information, why again are we trusting in the decision-making value of each and every voter? If we filter speech, maybe we should just cut to the chase and filter out voters by testing of some sort?

BariumBlue 6y ago
Do you think we should filter out astroturfers and Russian bots? What about human written Russian propaganda crafted to harm our society? What about a US citizen who crafts propaganda to spread intentional misinformation and harm society but benefit themselves? We don't let non-citizens vote. We don't allow free political speech nor the right to assembly at polling places. We have independent election observers. We have to ensure that the voting process is not polluted by actors who would wish to harm it. Similarly, there are actors who want to harm the free and good faith discourse of our public forums, and acting to preserve those open forums is moral, though it will always be fuzzy.
- crusso 6y ago
  Do you think we should filter out astroturfers and Russian bots? I don't think that anyone is complaining about the filtering of deliberate fraud from outside influences. What people are complaining about are the obvious biases exhibited by the large social media companies. Take this new Hunter Biden example. Twitter claims that they don't want to promote hacking and releasing of private information. Hunter Biden's laptop was abandoned, not hacked. Besides, where was that privacy stance a week or two ago when Trump's taxes were leaked? Facebook claimed unreliable sourcing for the story. Where were such concerns when anonymous sources were claiming that Trump had said that our troops were "suckers and losers"? Or when anonymous sources were claiming that Trump had been peed on by Russian hookers? We have independent election observers. Yeah and we balance things out by letting both major parties watch for funny business. Who watches Facebook and Twitter? Those companies are loaded with ex-Democrat operatives in senior positions. They've run out anyone who even smells halfway conservative. Facebook and Twitter have demonstrated time and again that they aren't just getting rid of fake news and bots. They're weighing in on complex political and statistical issues by silencing information sources that they don't like. there are actors who want to harm the free and good faith discourse of our public forums Yeah and evidence shows that some of those people are controlling information from within the social media giants.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  The Russian bot angle has just recently been uses as an election campaign, so it would be difficult to ban people on that suspicion if you think a bit about it. Worse, it has been used by unaccountable intelligence agencies to frame innocents.

by crusso 6y ago

BariumBlue 6y ago

Do you think we should filter out astroturfers and Russian bots? What about human written Russian propaganda crafted to harm our society? What about a US citizen who crafts propaganda to spread intentional misinformation and harm society but benefit themselves? We don't let non-citizens vote. We don't allow free political speech nor the right to assembly at polling places. We have independent election observers. We have to ensure that the voting process is not polluted by actors who would wish to harm it. Similarly, there are actors who want to harm the free and good faith discourse of our public forums, and acting to preserve those open forums is moral, though it will always be fuzzy.

crusso 6y ago
Do you think we should filter out astroturfers and Russian bots? I don't think that anyone is complaining about the filtering of deliberate fraud from outside influences. What people are complaining about are the obvious biases exhibited by the large social media companies. Take this new Hunter Biden example. Twitter claims that they don't want to promote hacking and releasing of private information. Hunter Biden's laptop was abandoned, not hacked. Besides, where was that privacy stance a week or two ago when Trump's taxes were leaked? Facebook claimed unreliable sourcing for the story. Where were such concerns when anonymous sources were claiming that Trump had said that our troops were "suckers and losers"? Or when anonymous sources were claiming that Trump had been peed on by Russian hookers? We have independent election observers. Yeah and we balance things out by letting both major parties watch for funny business. Who watches Facebook and Twitter? Those companies are loaded with ex-Democrat operatives in senior positions. They've run out anyone who even smells halfway conservative. Facebook and Twitter have demonstrated time and again that they aren't just getting rid of fake news and bots. They're weighing in on complex political and statistical issues by silencing information sources that they don't like. there are actors who want to harm the free and good faith discourse of our public forums Yeah and evidence shows that some of those people are controlling information from within the social media giants.
raxxorrax 6y ago
The Russian bot angle has just recently been uses as an election campaign, so it would be difficult to ban people on that suspicion if you think a bit about it. Worse, it has been used by unaccountable intelligence agencies to frame innocents.