3 ms·

Why is it that whenever someone posts a variation of "platforms shouldn't ban users for simply saying naughty words / having naughty opinions"; the first thing

Why is it that whenever someone posts a variation of "platforms shouldn't ban users for simply saying naughty words / having naughty opinions"; the first thing that comes to proponents minds is CP?

CarelessExpert 6y ago
So you're just going to ignore the point, then, huh? Well, in case it wasn't clear, I'll try more words and hope this helps: Parler has knowingly allowed content to exist on their site that violates both the Google ToS and the law. This content isn't "naughty". It is very much illegal, and includes direct threats and incitement to violence among many other things. This includes, for example, calls to murder politicians, the police, etc. Parler has further affirmatively stated they will not remove that material despite having the ability to do so. In this way Parler distinguishes itself from Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and so forth. That is, of course, their choice. However, a failure to moderate this kind of material violates Google's ToS. It is therefore also Google's and Apple's choice to enforce their ToS and remove the Parler app from their store. In no way does this represent censorship (neither Google nor Apple are in any way obligated to distribute third party software), nor does the offending content represent legal speech.
anigbrowl 6y ago
Because sad to say CP exists and is almost universally agreed to be enormously harmful, but free speech absolutists don't want to engage with reasonable questions of where of where and how limits on speech should be set. I'm in very of verybroad free speech permissions, but I'm also in favor of banning and prosecuting CP.
- convery 6y ago
  Indeed, but such things are covered by other laws. Just curious as to why peoples mind doesn't go to removing copyrighted content, instructions for how to manufacture weaponry, animal-related issues etc. but seemingly always equate "posting naughty opinions" to "posting CP".
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    'Other laws' is just a duck to avoid discussing the question, because those laws do limit absolute free speech. People's minds don't go to those other things first because they are all more debatable than CP and not necessarily limit cases. No equation is taking place outside of your own mind.

Why is it that whenever someone posts a variation of "platforms shouldn't ban users for simply saying naughty words / having naughty opinions"; the first thing that comes to proponents minds is CP?

CarelessExpert 6y ago

So you're just going to ignore the point, then, huh? Well, in case it wasn't clear, I'll try more words and hope this helps: Parler has knowingly allowed content to exist on their site that violates both the Google ToS and the law. This content isn't "naughty". It is very much illegal, and includes direct threats and incitement to violence among many other things. This includes, for example, calls to murder politicians, the police, etc. Parler has further affirmatively stated they will not remove that material despite having the ability to do so. In this way Parler distinguishes itself from Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and so forth. That is, of course, their choice. However, a failure to moderate this kind of material violates Google's ToS. It is therefore also Google's and Apple's choice to enforce their ToS and remove the Parler app from their store. In no way does this represent censorship (neither Google nor Apple are in any way obligated to distribute third party software), nor does the offending content represent legal speech.

anigbrowl 6y ago

Because sad to say CP exists and is almost universally agreed to be enormously harmful, but free speech absolutists don't want to engage with reasonable questions of where of where and how limits on speech should be set. I'm in very of verybroad free speech permissions, but I'm also in favor of banning and prosecuting CP.

convery 6y ago
Indeed, but such things are covered by other laws. Just curious as to why peoples mind doesn't go to removing copyrighted content, instructions for how to manufacture weaponry, animal-related issues etc. but seemingly always equate "posting naughty opinions" to "posting CP".
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  'Other laws' is just a duck to avoid discussing the question, because those laws do limit absolute free speech. People's minds don't go to those other things first because they are all more debatable than CP and not necessarily limit cases. No equation is taking place outside of your own mind.