4 ms·

If the 'outsider' does nothing but lie, threaten, and harass opponents then I think Twitter will continue to do it job and suppress the assholes. If you happen

by evgen 6y ago

If the 'outsider' does nothing but lie, threaten, and harass opponents then I think Twitter will continue to do it job and suppress the assholes. If you happen to be a political ally of the asshole then I guess it sucks to be you.

guscost 6y ago
This kind of bullying (from either side) leads directly to war. “The First Amendment is first for a reason. Second Amendment is just in case the First one doesn't work out.” - Chappelle
- skywal_l 6y ago
  Reminder: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I don't see twitter mentioned.
  - guscost 6y ago
    Shall we convene a panel with myself, Dave Chappelle, and you, and debate the meaning of “First one not working out”? You’re completely ignoring my and his intended meaning, which is that restricting speech pushes people toward violence.
    - skywal_l 6y ago
      In Germany, a while ago, absolute free speech in the form of hate and blatant lies unleashed an amount of violence that, for the history of humanity, has never been seen. You can choose to ignore that and see the world in black and white.
      - guscost 6y ago
        This is one of the worst reductio-ad-Hitlers I’ve ever seen. The Nazi party was a minority party throughout, they used violence to seize power, and they certainly did not allow free speech at any time during their rule.
        skywal_l 6y ago
        Hitler used blatant lies, hate, stoke fear and division and used the weapons of liberal democracy and turn them against it to destroy it from within. Contrary to what you say, he didn't took power through violent means. His party was elected to the Reishstag and he was then nominated chancelor. Of course, I don't compare Trumpism to Nazism. We are not there yet. But your argument that giving context to Trumps blalant lies (I hope we agree on the lying part) like twitter do is leading to violence is an absolutist position that is very far from the liberal ideals of the founders.
        evgen 6y ago
        The Nazi party was the second largest in the 1930 elections and became the largest party in parliament in 1932. They didn't need to use violence to size power when they could cut a deal with the Centre (Catholic) party and the Conservative party. The ones who went to violence first was the KPD (communist party) who were losing votes and members of parliament for years; of course when Moscow told them that the Social Democrats were the enemy they spurned an offer to work together against the Nazis at a time when the two of them together had more members of parliament than the Nazis. No need to use violence to sieze power when your opponents are either stupid or greedy. You need to at least learn the history of the period if you are going to try to play this game.
        guscost 6y ago
        Gee, where is an easy place to learn about the history of this period? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party > Hitler saw the party as a revolutionary organisation, whose aim was the overthrow of the Weimar Republic, which he saw as controlled by the socialists, Jews and the "November criminals" who had betrayed the German soldiers in 1918. The SA ("storm troopers", also known as "Brownshirts") were founded as a party militia in 1921 and began violent attacks on other parties. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch > Approximately two thousand Nazis were marching to the Feldherrnhalle, in the city centre, when they were confronted by a police cordon, which resulted in the deaths of 16 Nazi party members and four police officers.
    - jlokier 6y ago
      Based on what I'm seeing, unrestricted real-time social media (with "likes" and "retweets" and easy commenting) appears to have led to serious violence in some parts of the world. Perhaps based on the tendency to amplify rumours, or even bad jokes, until they are widely believed regardless of truth. In places where it hasn't resulted in obvious violence, it appears to be pushing people towards polarisation and distress, with violence looking plausible if that continues. We have a real dilemma around this one. It may be that certain forms of "speech" that have emerged in modern society also push people towards violence.
      - guscost 6y ago
        Our risk models are irreconcilable, and I can’t see us coming to agreement on this. Hopefully we can coexist in peace, but if not I’ll be fighting for the other side.
  - cinquemb 6y ago
    With the slow "CCP"-ifciation of US tech platforms… the distinction between entities that incorporate under the jurisdiction of a government and the government that outsources lots of work to said companies is kind of a philosophical one. War has already started… and it's not as simple as pretty lines drawn on maps to demarcate sides… or ballots dropped off for whose favorite candidate.
  - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
    The first amendment protects a natural right, a right we all have, one we are NOT supposed to trample on each other. The 1st comes out of the framers ensuring that the government respects an already-existing right - it does not create one. That right, then, cannot be upheld if half the country believes it's ok to silence the other half. There's a huge value disconnect here and that's the fundamental problem. What one CAN do and what one SHOULD do are very different things and I think people's pragmatism is blinding them to how this will work out for people 100 years from now.
    - skywal_l 6y ago
      > That right, then, cannot be upheld if half the country believes it's ok to silence the other half. I don't understand this. Donald Trump can say whatever he wants. Alex Jones can say whatever he wants. Why are you saying that their rights are being trampled? Why paint them as victims? As it happen, the right to speak is not a right to be heard and Trump's supporters can hear him as much as they want. Twitter decided that it would not be through their product. If I invite a bunch of friends at my place and one of them start spewing hatred and lies, I'll kick him out. He can continue in the street as far as I am concerned. Just not in my house... What right were denied here? I never heard those arguments a few years back when Fox news used to invite liberals on their show just to cut them in the middle of a sentence because they didn't like what they were saying. It infuriated me alright. But I never went as far as to think it was illegal. Do you propose that Twitter should be forced by the government not to give context to tweets? It seems that the supreme court disagreed with that idea when they decided that a company cannot be forced to sell a cake to a gay couple. > What one CAN do and what one SHOULD do are very different things and I think people's pragmatism is blinding them to how this will work out for people 100 years from now. I completely agree with you. The President of the United States CAN instill doubt into the very heart of democracy using all the cynicism and lies he can muster. But SHOULD he do it? What I am saying is that between the theoretical threats of having a private company exercising its right to manage its products in its own way and the president of a country going for a power grab, the urgency, to me, seems pretty clear. Let's agree to disagree.
      - 6y ago

by evgen 6y ago

guscost 6y ago

This kind of bullying (from either side) leads directly to war. “The First Amendment is first for a reason. Second Amendment is just in case the First one doesn't work out.” - Chappelle

skywal_l 6y ago
Reminder: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I don't see twitter mentioned.
- guscost 6y ago
  Shall we convene a panel with myself, Dave Chappelle, and you, and debate the meaning of “First one not working out”? You’re completely ignoring my and his intended meaning, which is that restricting speech pushes people toward violence.
  - skywal_l 6y ago
    In Germany, a while ago, absolute free speech in the form of hate and blatant lies unleashed an amount of violence that, for the history of humanity, has never been seen. You can choose to ignore that and see the world in black and white.
    - guscost 6y ago
      This is one of the worst reductio-ad-Hitlers I’ve ever seen. The Nazi party was a minority party throughout, they used violence to seize power, and they certainly did not allow free speech at any time during their rule.
      - skywal_l 6y ago
        Hitler used blatant lies, hate, stoke fear and division and used the weapons of liberal democracy and turn them against it to destroy it from within. Contrary to what you say, he didn't took power through violent means. His party was elected to the Reishstag and he was then nominated chancelor. Of course, I don't compare Trumpism to Nazism. We are not there yet. But your argument that giving context to Trumps blalant lies (I hope we agree on the lying part) like twitter do is leading to violence is an absolutist position that is very far from the liberal ideals of the founders.
      - evgen 6y ago
        The Nazi party was the second largest in the 1930 elections and became the largest party in parliament in 1932. They didn't need to use violence to size power when they could cut a deal with the Centre (Catholic) party and the Conservative party. The ones who went to violence first was the KPD (communist party) who were losing votes and members of parliament for years; of course when Moscow told them that the Social Democrats were the enemy they spurned an offer to work together against the Nazis at a time when the two of them together had more members of parliament than the Nazis. No need to use violence to sieze power when your opponents are either stupid or greedy. You need to at least learn the history of the period if you are going to try to play this game.
        guscost 6y ago
        Gee, where is an easy place to learn about the history of this period? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party > Hitler saw the party as a revolutionary organisation, whose aim was the overthrow of the Weimar Republic, which he saw as controlled by the socialists, Jews and the "November criminals" who had betrayed the German soldiers in 1918. The SA ("storm troopers", also known as "Brownshirts") were founded as a party militia in 1921 and began violent attacks on other parties. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch > Approximately two thousand Nazis were marching to the Feldherrnhalle, in the city centre, when they were confronted by a police cordon, which resulted in the deaths of 16 Nazi party members and four police officers.
  - jlokier 6y ago
    Based on what I'm seeing, unrestricted real-time social media (with "likes" and "retweets" and easy commenting) appears to have led to serious violence in some parts of the world. Perhaps based on the tendency to amplify rumours, or even bad jokes, until they are widely believed regardless of truth. In places where it hasn't resulted in obvious violence, it appears to be pushing people towards polarisation and distress, with violence looking plausible if that continues. We have a real dilemma around this one. It may be that certain forms of "speech" that have emerged in modern society also push people towards violence.
    - guscost 6y ago
      Our risk models are irreconcilable, and I can’t see us coming to agreement on this. Hopefully we can coexist in peace, but if not I’ll be fighting for the other side.
- cinquemb 6y ago
  With the slow "CCP"-ifciation of US tech platforms… the distinction between entities that incorporate under the jurisdiction of a government and the government that outsources lots of work to said companies is kind of a philosophical one. War has already started… and it's not as simple as pretty lines drawn on maps to demarcate sides… or ballots dropped off for whose favorite candidate.
- RonanTheGrey 6y ago
  The first amendment protects a natural right, a right we all have, one we are NOT supposed to trample on each other. The 1st comes out of the framers ensuring that the government respects an already-existing right - it does not create one. That right, then, cannot be upheld if half the country believes it's ok to silence the other half. There's a huge value disconnect here and that's the fundamental problem. What one CAN do and what one SHOULD do are very different things and I think people's pragmatism is blinding them to how this will work out for people 100 years from now.
  - skywal_l 6y ago
    > That right, then, cannot be upheld if half the country believes it's ok to silence the other half. I don't understand this. Donald Trump can say whatever he wants. Alex Jones can say whatever he wants. Why are you saying that their rights are being trampled? Why paint them as victims? As it happen, the right to speak is not a right to be heard and Trump's supporters can hear him as much as they want. Twitter decided that it would not be through their product. If I invite a bunch of friends at my place and one of them start spewing hatred and lies, I'll kick him out. He can continue in the street as far as I am concerned. Just not in my house... What right were denied here? I never heard those arguments a few years back when Fox news used to invite liberals on their show just to cut them in the middle of a sentence because they didn't like what they were saying. It infuriated me alright. But I never went as far as to think it was illegal. Do you propose that Twitter should be forced by the government not to give context to tweets? It seems that the supreme court disagreed with that idea when they decided that a company cannot be forced to sell a cake to a gay couple. > What one CAN do and what one SHOULD do are very different things and I think people's pragmatism is blinding them to how this will work out for people 100 years from now. I completely agree with you. The President of the United States CAN instill doubt into the very heart of democracy using all the cynicism and lies he can muster. But SHOULD he do it? What I am saying is that between the theoretical threats of having a private company exercising its right to manage its products in its own way and the president of a country going for a power grab, the urgency, to me, seems pretty clear. Let's agree to disagree.
    - 6y ago