5 ms·

Facebook, Twitter,Reddit and the classic media where the key enabling factor to Trump. They reward the most brash, most outspoken statements - which quickly bec

Facebook, Twitter,Reddit and the classic media where the key enabling factor to Trump. They reward the most brash, most outspoken statements - which quickly became the most hateful and partisan. They need to do a lot more then this. (And that cuts both ways, daily there is anti-religious hatred on reddit's front page, or covid quacks on twitter). Falsehoods get more clicks then the truth, and they have been ridding that.

starkd 6y ago
The answer to that is more free speech. Not less of it. Restricting speech only leads to a narrowing set of viewpoints. there are always risks free speech, but the alternative is worse.
- InTheArena 6y ago
  Which is why anonymous speech sites like 4Chan and 8Chan and semi anonymous speech like Twitter are the most enlightening and edifying of our media devices./s You’re allowed to say whatever you want. The government won’t stop you. Facebook and Twitter shouldn’t be amplifying it. The fact that they only do so when you express a message of hatred Turns this from a free speech to debate to a hateful incitement debate
  - starkd 6y ago
    I can remember chatting on irc having some of the most interesting conversations. Downside is that there is a lot of crap you have to filter through. The intense censoring of its users creates an atmosphere of mistrust. Users are treated like children so they behave like children.
- triceratops 6y ago
  > The answer to that is more free speech. This is just an article of faith. Prove it. > Restricting speech only leads to a narrowing set of viewpoints Go share those viewpoints on the street. You are entitled to a voice. You aren't entitled to the means to make others hear it.
  - closeparen 6y ago
    The next demagogue will be happy to tell his critics the same when he takes power. Either that, or you've already decided to use it to keep yourself in power. And God help you if you fail, nothing is going to arm these people like the dignity of being officially persecuted.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      > The next demagogue will be happy to tell his critics the same when he takes power. So...you're agreeing with me that demagogues in the government should not have the power to silence criticism? Last time I checked, TwitFace is not the government. The government has no right to tell them who they can censor. That is also an infringement on free speech. > the dignity of being officially persecuted. What persecution? This is just the free market at work. Forcing a private company to carry their views would be tantamount to communism. I thought "these people" (your words) abhorred communism. > Either that, or you've already decided to use it to keep yourself in power. Get out of your bubble. Not everyone thinks like that.
      - starkd 6y ago
        True, it is the a private business. But the idea of freedom of speech is so ingrained in our collective conscious as a priority, It is a principle of fairness. Social media is akin to the public square. Sure, they've got the right to do it, but still comes off as unfair.
      - closeparen 6y ago
        Ok, we are in violent agreement then. The usual thrust of “TwitFace did this” arguments is a call for regulation.
        triceratops 6y ago
        Any regulation is going to be a tricky needle to thread. On the one hand you have the Section 230 "truthers" who seem intent on peddling their publisher/platform horseshit. They don't seem to understand that if TwitFace were liable for the crap their users posted, they'd start moderating way harder. No more anonymity, ability to serve libel lawsuits to any user, hours-long moderation queues to control the crap. It could mean the end of honest online reviews (whatever's left of them). And if they try to condition Section 230 liability protections on "neutrality", it'll get shot down in court really fast because forcing any point of view even "neutrality" (whatever that means) is an infringement on free speech. And if viewpoint "neutrality" does become enshrined in the law, every single message board, social media site, or other discussion platform will either shut down (because it's not profitable or worth the hassle) or turn into a hellscape of spam, porn, and trolls. Any legal content, no matter how off-topic, disruptive, flame-baity, troll-y, insulting or whatever, will have to be allowed. Otherwise you aren't "neutral" anymore, right? Of course, IANAL or a fortune teller, so I may be completely wrong about this.

starkd 6y ago

The answer to that is more free speech. Not less of it. Restricting speech only leads to a narrowing set of viewpoints. there are always risks free speech, but the alternative is worse.

InTheArena 6y ago
Which is why anonymous speech sites like 4Chan and 8Chan and semi anonymous speech like Twitter are the most enlightening and edifying of our media devices./s You’re allowed to say whatever you want. The government won’t stop you. Facebook and Twitter shouldn’t be amplifying it. The fact that they only do so when you express a message of hatred Turns this from a free speech to debate to a hateful incitement debate
- starkd 6y ago
  I can remember chatting on irc having some of the most interesting conversations. Downside is that there is a lot of crap you have to filter through. The intense censoring of its users creates an atmosphere of mistrust. Users are treated like children so they behave like children.
triceratops 6y ago
> The answer to that is more free speech. This is just an article of faith. Prove it. > Restricting speech only leads to a narrowing set of viewpoints Go share those viewpoints on the street. You are entitled to a voice. You aren't entitled to the means to make others hear it.
- closeparen 6y ago
  The next demagogue will be happy to tell his critics the same when he takes power. Either that, or you've already decided to use it to keep yourself in power. And God help you if you fail, nothing is going to arm these people like the dignity of being officially persecuted.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    > The next demagogue will be happy to tell his critics the same when he takes power. So...you're agreeing with me that demagogues in the government should not have the power to silence criticism? Last time I checked, TwitFace is not the government. The government has no right to tell them who they can censor. That is also an infringement on free speech. > the dignity of being officially persecuted. What persecution? This is just the free market at work. Forcing a private company to carry their views would be tantamount to communism. I thought "these people" (your words) abhorred communism. > Either that, or you've already decided to use it to keep yourself in power. Get out of your bubble. Not everyone thinks like that.
    - starkd 6y ago
      True, it is the a private business. But the idea of freedom of speech is so ingrained in our collective conscious as a priority, It is a principle of fairness. Social media is akin to the public square. Sure, they've got the right to do it, but still comes off as unfair.
    - closeparen 6y ago
      Ok, we are in violent agreement then. The usual thrust of “TwitFace did this” arguments is a call for regulation.
      - triceratops 6y ago
        Any regulation is going to be a tricky needle to thread. On the one hand you have the Section 230 "truthers" who seem intent on peddling their publisher/platform horseshit. They don't seem to understand that if TwitFace were liable for the crap their users posted, they'd start moderating way harder. No more anonymity, ability to serve libel lawsuits to any user, hours-long moderation queues to control the crap. It could mean the end of honest online reviews (whatever's left of them). And if they try to condition Section 230 liability protections on "neutrality", it'll get shot down in court really fast because forcing any point of view even "neutrality" (whatever that means) is an infringement on free speech. And if viewpoint "neutrality" does become enshrined in the law, every single message board, social media site, or other discussion platform will either shut down (because it's not profitable or worth the hassle) or turn into a hellscape of spam, porn, and trolls. Any legal content, no matter how off-topic, disruptive, flame-baity, troll-y, insulting or whatever, will have to be allowed. Otherwise you aren't "neutral" anymore, right? Of course, IANAL or a fortune teller, so I may be completely wrong about this.