3 ms·
> I see it as a one-or-the-other kind of thing. Choose one of the 2 options: Censor absolutely nothing thats not patently unlawful OR censor things to keep your
by majormajor 6y ago
> I see it as a one-or-the-other kind of thing. Choose one of the 2 options: Censor absolutely nothing thats not patently unlawful OR censor things to keep yourself out of legal trouble because you ARE liable for the words distributed by your infrastructure.
> Choose one or have a choice made for you I say.
This is silliness.
There's a ton of legitimate reason to have moderation standards, community guidelines, etc, for user generated content beyond "patently unlawful."
To say that any forum that wants anything stricter as a moderation standard must be liable for any malicious actor's behavior is to doom so many online communities.
You're so focused on your extreme "any censorship is bad" "principle" that you've lost sight of the nuance of the real world. A church, for instance: should they be able to have a discussion forum with standards around profanity without becoming liable for anything anyone in the world might post? It's not illegal to swear at everyone...
- WClayFerguson 6y agoIf people need to be 'controlled', then why can't AT&T use voice recognition to do exactly what Twitter does, and if someone says something offensive in a phone call or text like "There are two sexes" or "All lives matter" then the person's phone can just be disconnected right? This is what Twitter does. Permanent ban for even the slightest offence. No, the solution is to make all censorship illegal on large platforms, because otherwise the unsolvable question of "whose standards" it is that determine "offensive" arises. Right now Twitter employees consider themselves this high court and they will ban you based on their own political leanings, which only 50% of the country agree with.