43 ms·

> Some of us want to stop easily predictable violence before it gets to the point of actual violence. Are you being serious? I honestly can't tell. This has pl

> Some of us want to stop easily predictable violence before it gets to the point of actual violence. Are you being serious? I honestly can't tell. This has played out in countless movies and books, and the result is never good. It has also played out in real life, and the result is even worse. > What matters is the actual practice... Bingo! Sounds like maybe you're beginning to see the error in trying to police thoughtcrime. It's the actions that matter, not the beliefs alone.

slg 6y ago
Yes, I am serious. The problem is there is no clear delineated line between "thoughtcrime" and plain old crime prevention. Where is the line for you when a threat of violence is equivalent to violence? When does a thought become a plan? Threats are just words, so I imagine I can threaten to kill you. What about if those threats are through deliberate and premeditated actions like mailing you a death threat? Is it any different if I tell other people to attack you? Those are just words, right? Is it different if I pay them? Can I brandish a knife if I am 20 feet away from you? I don't pose an immediate threat in that instance. Can I pull a gun on you without any fear of reprisal? That isn't a direct act of violence either yet. Do I need to pull the trigger before you respond?
- curiousgeorgio 6y ago
  > Where is the line for you when a threat of violence is equivalent to violence? The line is "imminent lawless action" [1], with case law clarifying that "advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time" is not considered "imminent" (and therefore protected free speech). It's a pretty clear line, and one that most of the censored material being discussed objectively does not cross. Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are within their rights as private companies to enforce content rules as they wish, but these recent censorship actions have strong implications as to their protections under Section 230, and are alarming insofar as they represent a trend that crosses the line of free speech protections normally recognized by the government and content platforms. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
  - slg 6y ago
    I wasn't asking you a legal question. We all know that QAnon isn't literally illegal. I was asking you a series of moral questions, many of which can't be answered with "imminent lawless action". For example, is it considered a "thoughtcrime" if the danger isn't imminent? If someone is working on detailed plans to kill the president, but the plan would take multiple years, should this person be stopped or should they be allowed to continue their plans until the danger is imminent?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are within their rights as private companies to enforce content rules as they wish, but these recent censorship actions have strong implications as to their protections under Section 230, No, they don't; 230 exists to promote censorship, it does not involve a bar to it. > and are alarming insofar as they represent a trend that crosses the line of free speech protections normally recognized by the government and content platforms. They aren't the government, and there has never been a set of free speech protections “normally recognized by content platforms”, especially since 230 was adopted specifically to remove legal disincentives to active moderation.
    - curiousgeorgio 6y ago
      I never stated or implied that Section 230 barred censorship. It does, however, protect service providers from the liability that a publisher would take on for publishing content that otherwise should be censored. As these companies voluntarily embrace more censorship, they are calling into question their status as "service providers" since they are effectively operating as publishers; i.e., not protected under 230. > there has never been a set of free speech protections “normally recognized by content platforms” I agree; legally there hasn't been anything like that, but in the past, those platforms were demonstrably more reluctant to censor political content (e.g., views that didn't align with the company's political views) because they knew that more active involvement might jeopardize their classification as neutral platforms (along with their protections under 230 as described above). In effect, they stayed out of politics not by law, but out of fear of being forced to censor all content if they became "publishers". Now that machine learning has made the censoring part easier, they're less concerned about that happening. However, at the moment they want to have their cake and eat it too – controlling content as they wish while also enjoying the protections of 230.

slg 6y ago

Yes, I am serious. The problem is there is no clear delineated line between "thoughtcrime" and plain old crime prevention. Where is the line for you when a threat of violence is equivalent to violence? When does a thought become a plan? Threats are just words, so I imagine I can threaten to kill you. What about if those threats are through deliberate and premeditated actions like mailing you a death threat? Is it any different if I tell other people to attack you? Those are just words, right? Is it different if I pay them? Can I brandish a knife if I am 20 feet away from you? I don't pose an immediate threat in that instance. Can I pull a gun on you without any fear of reprisal? That isn't a direct act of violence either yet. Do I need to pull the trigger before you respond?

curiousgeorgio 6y ago
> Where is the line for you when a threat of violence is equivalent to violence? The line is "imminent lawless action" [1], with case law clarifying that "advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time" is not considered "imminent" (and therefore protected free speech). It's a pretty clear line, and one that most of the censored material being discussed objectively does not cross. Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are within their rights as private companies to enforce content rules as they wish, but these recent censorship actions have strong implications as to their protections under Section 230, and are alarming insofar as they represent a trend that crosses the line of free speech protections normally recognized by the government and content platforms. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
- slg 6y ago
  I wasn't asking you a legal question. We all know that QAnon isn't literally illegal. I was asking you a series of moral questions, many of which can't be answered with "imminent lawless action". For example, is it considered a "thoughtcrime" if the danger isn't imminent? If someone is working on detailed plans to kill the president, but the plan would take multiple years, should this person be stopped or should they be allowed to continue their plans until the danger is imminent?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are within their rights as private companies to enforce content rules as they wish, but these recent censorship actions have strong implications as to their protections under Section 230, No, they don't; 230 exists to promote censorship, it does not involve a bar to it. > and are alarming insofar as they represent a trend that crosses the line of free speech protections normally recognized by the government and content platforms. They aren't the government, and there has never been a set of free speech protections “normally recognized by content platforms”, especially since 230 was adopted specifically to remove legal disincentives to active moderation.
  - curiousgeorgio 6y ago
    I never stated or implied that Section 230 barred censorship. It does, however, protect service providers from the liability that a publisher would take on for publishing content that otherwise should be censored. As these companies voluntarily embrace more censorship, they are calling into question their status as "service providers" since they are effectively operating as publishers; i.e., not protected under 230. > there has never been a set of free speech protections “normally recognized by content platforms” I agree; legally there hasn't been anything like that, but in the past, those platforms were demonstrably more reluctant to censor political content (e.g., views that didn't align with the company's political views) because they knew that more active involvement might jeopardize their classification as neutral platforms (along with their protections under 230 as described above). In effect, they stayed out of politics not by law, but out of fear of being forced to censor all content if they became "publishers". Now that machine learning has made the censoring part easier, they're less concerned about that happening. However, at the moment they want to have their cake and eat it too – controlling content as they wish while also enjoying the protections of 230.