4 ms·

> censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to secu

> censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security There's no sane way to interpret twitter's actions as anything except censorship. The fact that they're legally entitled to commit this censorship doesn't make it something else.

hackyhacky 6y ago
To have a sensible conversation, we have to acknowledge what the alleged Biden emails are: at best, stolen information; and at worst, intentionally manipulated or fabricated information. In either case, the information is being released now for the explicit goal of altering the outcome of the election in favor of those who are releasing it. We haven't had this issue in history before: it's never been so easy to reach so many people with such bad information. This places intermediaries, including Twitter, in an awkward situation: they can "censor" by restricting access to intentionally misleading information; or they can release it, and thereby become pawns of the bad actors who propagate it. As has been pointed out, this is a moral issue. We should step pretending that all censorship is bad, and that compelling intermediaries to publish literally everything is a moral good.
- centimeter 6y ago
  > stolen information Who the hell cares if the information was stolen? Jeffrey Epstein's little black book was "stolen information" - do you object to using that information to make an indictment? > intentionally misleading information Crazy how a credible leak is "intentionally misleading" when it's politically inconvenient.
- j8hn 6y ago
  I don't think either of your opinions have to be acknowledged or assumed in order to have a sensible conversation about this issue. "We haven't had this issue in history before: it's never been so easy to reach so many people with such bad information." Is this a literal statement? Is it bad information?

hackyhacky 6y ago

To have a sensible conversation, we have to acknowledge what the alleged Biden emails are: at best, stolen information; and at worst, intentionally manipulated or fabricated information. In either case, the information is being released now for the explicit goal of altering the outcome of the election in favor of those who are releasing it. We haven't had this issue in history before: it's never been so easy to reach so many people with such bad information. This places intermediaries, including Twitter, in an awkward situation: they can "censor" by restricting access to intentionally misleading information; or they can release it, and thereby become pawns of the bad actors who propagate it. As has been pointed out, this is a moral issue. We should step pretending that all censorship is bad, and that compelling intermediaries to publish literally everything is a moral good.

centimeter 6y ago
> stolen information Who the hell cares if the information was stolen? Jeffrey Epstein's little black book was "stolen information" - do you object to using that information to make an indictment? > intentionally misleading information Crazy how a credible leak is "intentionally misleading" when it's politically inconvenient.
j8hn 6y ago
I don't think either of your opinions have to be acknowledged or assumed in order to have a sensible conversation about this issue. "We haven't had this issue in history before: it's never been so easy to reach so many people with such bad information." Is this a literal statement? Is it bad information?