4 ms·

"Twitter gets to have it's say" Free speech is more than just a law... it's an idea and a philosophy. Part of making sure "truth prevails" is having open disco

"Twitter gets to have it's say" Free speech is more than just a law... it's an idea and a philosophy. Part of making sure "truth prevails" is having open discourse about topics. That involves people with "Wrong" ideas the ability to talk. When platforms like Facebook and Twitter become the arbiter of what's "right"? Then people will leave those platforms because lawfully they have the "right" to censor their platform... but people WILL talk about it elsewhere. Facebook/Twitter may win this "battle" by purposefully influencing an election by hiding disinformation they disagree with (while allowing disinformation they are okay with)... but they'll lose the war as other platforms gain momentum and legitimacy. The internet will route itself around the censorship.

berkes 6y ago
What place does someone with the delusion that '2+2=7' have in 'prevailing the Truth'. Such a person only frustrates that search for truth. They don't make the outcome faster, easier or more true, do they?
- wernercd 6y ago
  What place does "russian collusion" have? because "2+2=7" is provably true/false... but Russian collusion? not so much... meanwhile, it's "truth" that's allowed to be spoken of without repercussion... Because life isn't as simple as "2+2=7"... it's opinions and people saying "my opinion is valid and yours is banned from open discussion". Because I can find plenty of examples of stuff that isn't as clear as flat-earthers or pizzagate that's being blocked from public discorse.
  - berkes 6y ago
    Ok, but let's start with stuff that is provably false, yet is debated all along. For example: There is a climate crisis. This is a scientifically proven fact, not an opinion. Yet people deny it, often with the argument "I'm entitled to this opinion." No. You are not, because it is not an opinion; at most it is a delusion, at worst it is a lie (that you might honestly believe in). This is a 2+2=4 situation, or as near as one can get; yet one that even heads of "modern" states keep saying that is anything but 4. Once we start from the basis that "there is a climate crisis", we can move forward, make choices and so on. A choice might be "it's there, but we're not going to do anything against it, because our economy". That is effective. (albeit something I would have a strong opninion about). At least others can still move forward. But stating it does not exist (which is provably untrue) really harms effectiveness a lot.
threeseed 6y ago
Facebook and Twitter have the right to free speech as well. But I am assuming that doesn't count in your utopia.
- humanrebar 6y ago
  Is their competition a medium like mobile calls and text messages? Or is their competition curated content streams like newspapers or cable news networks? Legally, maybe the distinction doesn't need to be made, but I think users of social media deserve to know up front what they're in for.
ardy42 6y ago
> Part of making sure "truth prevails" is having open discourse about topics. That involves people with "Wrong" ideas the ability to talk. Yes, but for that to work, the discourse has to between people who are actually seeking out the truth and who have the ability to recognize it. Dead-enders and nutjobs fighting to spread (often obvious) lies do not qualify.

berkes 6y ago

What place does someone with the delusion that '2+2=7' have in 'prevailing the Truth'. Such a person only frustrates that search for truth. They don't make the outcome faster, easier or more true, do they?

wernercd 6y ago
What place does "russian collusion" have? because "2+2=7" is provably true/false... but Russian collusion? not so much... meanwhile, it's "truth" that's allowed to be spoken of without repercussion... Because life isn't as simple as "2+2=7"... it's opinions and people saying "my opinion is valid and yours is banned from open discussion". Because I can find plenty of examples of stuff that isn't as clear as flat-earthers or pizzagate that's being blocked from public discorse.
- berkes 6y ago
  Ok, but let's start with stuff that is provably false, yet is debated all along. For example: There is a climate crisis. This is a scientifically proven fact, not an opinion. Yet people deny it, often with the argument "I'm entitled to this opinion." No. You are not, because it is not an opinion; at most it is a delusion, at worst it is a lie (that you might honestly believe in). This is a 2+2=4 situation, or as near as one can get; yet one that even heads of "modern" states keep saying that is anything but 4. Once we start from the basis that "there is a climate crisis", we can move forward, make choices and so on. A choice might be "it's there, but we're not going to do anything against it, because our economy". That is effective. (albeit something I would have a strong opninion about). At least others can still move forward. But stating it does not exist (which is provably untrue) really harms effectiveness a lot.

threeseed 6y ago

Facebook and Twitter have the right to free speech as well. But I am assuming that doesn't count in your utopia.

humanrebar 6y ago
Is their competition a medium like mobile calls and text messages? Or is their competition curated content streams like newspapers or cable news networks? Legally, maybe the distinction doesn't need to be made, but I think users of social media deserve to know up front what they're in for.

ardy42 6y ago

> Part of making sure "truth prevails" is having open discourse about topics. That involves people with "Wrong" ideas the ability to talk. Yes, but for that to work, the discourse has to between people who are actually seeking out the truth and who have the ability to recognize it. Dead-enders and nutjobs fighting to spread (often obvious) lies do not qualify.