4 ms·

While I am as concerned about censorship as any other, what would Snowden's response have been if Trump had tweeted, "The time is now. Take no prisoners."

lldbg 6y ago
He didn't, though.
- whytaka 6y ago
  I see you're unfamiliar with hypothetical questions.
r7r6yrhdhh 6y ago
Among other things I imagine he'd point out that this is only a problem if you normalize police not doing their job. Things like this are only a problem when politicians decide they'll be more popular if they treat enforcing the laws of the land as a PR tactic instead of an obligation. The only reason rioters anywhere manage to do as much damage as they have is because every time there's a new BLM or Proud Boys rally every politician decides they'll look better if they yank the leash instead of letting the police enforce local laws.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  Bingo - you’re right. Ted Wheeler is a perfect example of spineless politician run out of his own home by a riot throwing burning debris through the window. Oddly no one thinks this is related at all. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/09/protesters-march-to-portland-mayor-ted-wheelers-residence-monday-throw-birthday-party-demand-resignation-live-updates.html https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/09/protesters-march...
shadowgoat 6y ago
Isn’t a call to violence illegal?
- whytaka 6y ago
  Murder is illegal but its illegality matters nothing to victims after the fact.
  - shadowgoat 6y ago
    I think you missed my point. If there was a call for violence like in your hypothetical scenario, then the tweet should be removed and legal action taken. It is not covered under any free speech protections.
    - whytaka 6y ago
      I think it's rather you who missed my point. Once it's out there, it's out there. They may take it down but it'll be too late.
      - shadowgoat 6y ago
        Then you might as well not let anyone talk about anything, anywhere. What you describe sounds a lot like the movie Minority Report.
grecy 6y ago
It's a valid question, and brings up that whole question of "Where do you draw the line?" We've already allowed the government to define what's legal and what isn't - which obviously differ from country to country. Now it seems private companies also want to weigh in and define their own kinds of "allowed and not allowed". I honestly do think we're damned if we do (allow FB to censor) and we're dammed if we don't (allow FB to censor)
- tcbawo 6y ago
  Mark Cuban had an interesting response. The algorithm is editorializing, even if it's driven by AI. FB either needs to show everything in chronological order, or face the burden and liability of the content it promotes. It might be a bizarre, yet moderating force to online discussion if a cottage industry of civil/personal injury lawyers pops up around FB content.
  - whytaka 6y ago
    That's not really interesting as it's not at all practical. The deluge of spam will render these platforms completely devoid of value.
    - tcbawo 6y ago
      The spam come in from not moderating content? I think his point is to put liability on media companies for their content if they promote content, forcing them to moderate. Or, they can avoid liability by not promoting or hiding anything. Don't let them have it both ways.
  - Dracophoenix 6y ago
    That's a tricky proposition. We all follow an algorithm whether it's computational, biological, or something else entirely. Applying best design practices is an algorithm, reaching in to your memory of certain events is an algorithm. Even writing and typing on a word processor is and relies on an algorithm. By Cuban's standard, every action of every person does would be considered editorial publishing and very likely including the platform on which he has made his statement. From arranging one's sentences, to evaluating a certain font, to choice in markup language. Where does one draw the line between presentation of information and publication? And, more importantly, what wouldn't be considered editorializing? Should all websites just turn out like the Library of Babel?
Proven 6y ago
You obviously aren't concerned about it at all because you fantasize about something which didn't happen while ignoring censorship that did. I don't like what Titter has been doing, but I am not concerned about either discrimination or censorship on private platforms. 100 million people will move to Parlor and Gab, so markets will fix that and Twitter will be punished for their behavior. The hard problem is Deep State and American socialism. That cannot be fixed by using another online service - certain states should simply secede.

lldbg 6y ago

He didn't, though.

whytaka 6y ago
I see you're unfamiliar with hypothetical questions.

r7r6yrhdhh 6y ago

Among other things I imagine he'd point out that this is only a problem if you normalize police not doing their job. Things like this are only a problem when politicians decide they'll be more popular if they treat enforcing the laws of the land as a PR tactic instead of an obligation. The only reason rioters anywhere manage to do as much damage as they have is because every time there's a new BLM or Proud Boys rally every politician decides they'll look better if they yank the leash instead of letting the police enforce local laws.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
Bingo - you’re right. Ted Wheeler is a perfect example of spineless politician run out of his own home by a riot throwing burning debris through the window. Oddly no one thinks this is related at all. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/09/protesters-march-to-portland-mayor-ted-wheelers-residence-monday-throw-birthday-party-demand-resignation-live-updates.html https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/09/protesters-march...

shadowgoat 6y ago

Isn’t a call to violence illegal?

whytaka 6y ago
Murder is illegal but its illegality matters nothing to victims after the fact.
- shadowgoat 6y ago
  I think you missed my point. If there was a call for violence like in your hypothetical scenario, then the tweet should be removed and legal action taken. It is not covered under any free speech protections.
  - whytaka 6y ago
    I think it's rather you who missed my point. Once it's out there, it's out there. They may take it down but it'll be too late.
    - shadowgoat 6y ago
      Then you might as well not let anyone talk about anything, anywhere. What you describe sounds a lot like the movie Minority Report.

grecy 6y ago

It's a valid question, and brings up that whole question of "Where do you draw the line?" We've already allowed the government to define what's legal and what isn't - which obviously differ from country to country. Now it seems private companies also want to weigh in and define their own kinds of "allowed and not allowed". I honestly do think we're damned if we do (allow FB to censor) and we're dammed if we don't (allow FB to censor)

tcbawo 6y ago
Mark Cuban had an interesting response. The algorithm is editorializing, even if it's driven by AI. FB either needs to show everything in chronological order, or face the burden and liability of the content it promotes. It might be a bizarre, yet moderating force to online discussion if a cottage industry of civil/personal injury lawyers pops up around FB content.
- whytaka 6y ago
  That's not really interesting as it's not at all practical. The deluge of spam will render these platforms completely devoid of value.
  - tcbawo 6y ago
    The spam come in from not moderating content? I think his point is to put liability on media companies for their content if they promote content, forcing them to moderate. Or, they can avoid liability by not promoting or hiding anything. Don't let them have it both ways.
- Dracophoenix 6y ago
  That's a tricky proposition. We all follow an algorithm whether it's computational, biological, or something else entirely. Applying best design practices is an algorithm, reaching in to your memory of certain events is an algorithm. Even writing and typing on a word processor is and relies on an algorithm. By Cuban's standard, every action of every person does would be considered editorial publishing and very likely including the platform on which he has made his statement. From arranging one's sentences, to evaluating a certain font, to choice in markup language. Where does one draw the line between presentation of information and publication? And, more importantly, what wouldn't be considered editorializing? Should all websites just turn out like the Library of Babel?

Proven 6y ago

You obviously aren't concerned about it at all because you fantasize about something which didn't happen while ignoring censorship that did. I don't like what Titter has been doing, but I am not concerned about either discrimination or censorship on private platforms. 100 million people will move to Parlor and Gab, so markets will fix that and Twitter will be punished for their behavior. The hard problem is Deep State and American socialism. That cannot be fixed by using another online service - certain states should simply secede.