4 ms·
>If service providers want to deplatform centers of radicalization, I think that's ok. The fact that there is widespread support, let alone demand, for subject
by StanislavPetrov 6y ago
>If service providers want to deplatform centers of radicalization, I think that's ok.
The fact that there is widespread support, let alone demand, for subjective, unaccountable censorship is frightening. You don't understand this, "war on domestic terror" will include legislative attacks on encryption? That bad actors always use, create and amplify perceived crisis to expand their power and permanently erode our rights? You can be certain that when the center of radicalization in Washington DC decides to whip up another war that will kill a million people, they won't be "deplatformed" (as opposed to those "radicals" who will oppose that war, who most certainly will).
- lldbg 6y agoThere was this blogpost a while back which I can't seem to find, suggesting that the division is between: * people who view democracy as a set of values, and if you do not share those values then you are against democracy. * people who view democracy as the democratic principles (voting, representation, freedom of assembly, and so on)... In my world (I belong to the second group) democracy is freedom of speech, the exchange of ideas, and coming face to face with values and opinions that you do not agree with (in fact you may find them abhorrent), and thinking that that's the whole point. I found it an enlightening take on the situation, and thought that I'd share it here.
- StanislavPetrov 6y agoI agree with your position with one caveat. The people in the former category view democracy not merely as a set of values, but as a set of -their- values. If you do not share their values, then you are against democracy. Ironically this is diametrically opposed to the core concept of democracy - its much more like theology. Adopt their dogma, conform to their orthodoxy, or you are an infidel.