5 ms·

I'd much rather we all man up and learn to live with the fact that people say things we disagree with on the internet, instead of assuming that we need gatekeep

I'd much rather we all man up and learn to live with the fact that people say things we disagree with on the internet, instead of assuming that we need gatekeeping.

andy_ppp 6y ago
Is inciting violence allowed?
- galbar 6y ago
  Let the government regulate it, not a private company.
  - andy_ppp 6y ago
    The government are the ones inciting violence though, seems like they have made the right decision to me, he’s done things that would get any other user banned for years! Incidentally I absolutely love it when conservatives advocate for more government, whatever happened to the market is perfect let it decide the winners and losers.
    - galbar 6y ago
      As I see it, a company can either offer a public platform for everyone to voice their oppinion, not moderate and not be responsible for what is published on its platform but let the authorities handle illegal/harmful behaviour. Or they can choose to moderate and/or editorialize the content they host and the conversations that happen on their platform AND be held responsible for it. I'm not saying it is bad that a company moderates their platform, please do it! But don't pretend everyone can voice their view on their platform and be clear and forward about what you are doing. The government is one small part of the State (as an organization). I should have probably said "Let the legislative and judiciary powers of the State handle it". >whatever happened to the market is perfect let it decide the winners and losers This is already happening: some people, disillusioned by the service Twitter provides, are moving to Parlor, for example.
      - andy_ppp 6y ago
        You’re stating your opinions as if they are natural laws. It would be best for everyone if Twitter stopped policing things themselves and moved to a community driven model, nothing should be deleted but if the “incites violence” (or certain others) tag is added by enough people those tweets get broadcast to nobody and you’d have to look on Trump’s or whoever’s page to see it. Yes the gaming of this system would itself have to be policed, however I think on average it would be better than what we have now. In the end Twitter have the power to ban Trump from their platform the same way a bar owner can ban people who they don’t like. Just because everyone thinks and feels Twitter is a public forum does not make it one; it is private property like virtually everything on the Internet.
- tomjen3 6y ago
  If not, the proper measure punishment for a saying or writing should be determined by a court of law, not a company.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    If only this was true in school when I was a child. :-/ Why Twitter posts if not punishment of children? Are children that unimportant to this society?
- AniseAbyss 6y ago
  I would really like to know where the free speech activists think all of this will end if we just let the Qanon and Trump movement do whatever they want.
sanp 6y ago
Or, man up and recognize that Twitter can ban whomever they want. They are not bound by the 1st amendment (at least in the American context).
- RamRodification 6y ago
  Without weighing in on the actual alternatives... Your comment comes off a bit weird to me because that's what bondarchuck is saying he would rather not have. Yet you present it as a new (to the discussion) option. It makes the conversation kind of go like this: Him: I would much rather we have A so that we didn't need B You: Or, we could have this thing B
- nilkn 6y ago
  I think it’s pretty unlikely social media companies will continue to have total control over public discourse. There’s already some legal precedent that the Supreme Court views Twitter and Facebook as public squares. See Packingham v. North Carolina from 2017, for example. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see an escalation of this viewpoint soon.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
You have to admit that that would be a lot easier if the people you are disagreeing with were making reasonable level-headed arguments, but somehow we are living in an era where large swaths of the population are convinced that there is no difference between what is true and what they feel is true and, consequently, they reject rationality and with it the concept of objective reality. I know I'm on the record as saying that rationality, which is to say empirical philosophy, is incomplete. Let me clarify that by saying that it isn't the same thing as rejecting it outright anymore than rejecting Newtonian mechanics outright is the same thing as admitting it is incomplete.
- bondarchuk 6y ago
  Yes, large swaths of the population are wrong (from your viewpoint) and not open to rational argument and there's nothing you can do to change it, except totalitarian control of public discourse. My point is that it's vastly preferable to just let them be wrong on the internet and deal with it like an adult.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    That has lead us to a point where people who, in spite of failed court cases, lack of evidence, expert opinion, and even disagreement among people who align with their political ideology, have insisted that a democratic election was stolen and believe it strongly enough to attempt to invade a government building with the expressed intent of executing politicians. That anyone can believe that simply "letting them be wrong on the internet" is a viable course of action at this point is utterly baffling. I sincerely hope there is an alternative to totalitarian control of public discourse, but I am becoming increasingly worried that there is not.
AniseAbyss 6y ago
So when you see a political movement that wants to take your country into a dark alley you're supposed to man up and turn your cheek? No, people will push back.

I'd much rather we all man up and learn to live with the fact that people say things we disagree with on the internet, instead of assuming that we need gatekeeping.

andy_ppp 6y ago

Is inciting violence allowed?

galbar 6y ago
Let the government regulate it, not a private company.
- andy_ppp 6y ago
  The government are the ones inciting violence though, seems like they have made the right decision to me, he’s done things that would get any other user banned for years! Incidentally I absolutely love it when conservatives advocate for more government, whatever happened to the market is perfect let it decide the winners and losers.
  - galbar 6y ago
    As I see it, a company can either offer a public platform for everyone to voice their oppinion, not moderate and not be responsible for what is published on its platform but let the authorities handle illegal/harmful behaviour. Or they can choose to moderate and/or editorialize the content they host and the conversations that happen on their platform AND be held responsible for it. I'm not saying it is bad that a company moderates their platform, please do it! But don't pretend everyone can voice their view on their platform and be clear and forward about what you are doing. The government is one small part of the State (as an organization). I should have probably said "Let the legislative and judiciary powers of the State handle it". >whatever happened to the market is perfect let it decide the winners and losers This is already happening: some people, disillusioned by the service Twitter provides, are moving to Parlor, for example.
    - andy_ppp 6y ago
      You’re stating your opinions as if they are natural laws. It would be best for everyone if Twitter stopped policing things themselves and moved to a community driven model, nothing should be deleted but if the “incites violence” (or certain others) tag is added by enough people those tweets get broadcast to nobody and you’d have to look on Trump’s or whoever’s page to see it. Yes the gaming of this system would itself have to be policed, however I think on average it would be better than what we have now. In the end Twitter have the power to ban Trump from their platform the same way a bar owner can ban people who they don’t like. Just because everyone thinks and feels Twitter is a public forum does not make it one; it is private property like virtually everything on the Internet.
tomjen3 6y ago
If not, the proper measure punishment for a saying or writing should be determined by a court of law, not a company.
- emteycz 6y ago
  If only this was true in school when I was a child. :-/ Why Twitter posts if not punishment of children? Are children that unimportant to this society?
AniseAbyss 6y ago
I would really like to know where the free speech activists think all of this will end if we just let the Qanon and Trump movement do whatever they want.

sanp 6y ago

Or, man up and recognize that Twitter can ban whomever they want. They are not bound by the 1st amendment (at least in the American context).

RamRodification 6y ago
Without weighing in on the actual alternatives... Your comment comes off a bit weird to me because that's what bondarchuck is saying he would rather not have. Yet you present it as a new (to the discussion) option. It makes the conversation kind of go like this: Him: I would much rather we have A so that we didn't need B You: Or, we could have this thing B
nilkn 6y ago
I think it’s pretty unlikely social media companies will continue to have total control over public discourse. There’s already some legal precedent that the Supreme Court views Twitter and Facebook as public squares. See Packingham v. North Carolina from 2017, for example. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see an escalation of this viewpoint soon.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

You have to admit that that would be a lot easier if the people you are disagreeing with were making reasonable level-headed arguments, but somehow we are living in an era where large swaths of the population are convinced that there is no difference between what is true and what they feel is true and, consequently, they reject rationality and with it the concept of objective reality. I know I'm on the record as saying that rationality, which is to say empirical philosophy, is incomplete. Let me clarify that by saying that it isn't the same thing as rejecting it outright anymore than rejecting Newtonian mechanics outright is the same thing as admitting it is incomplete.

bondarchuk 6y ago
Yes, large swaths of the population are wrong (from your viewpoint) and not open to rational argument and there's nothing you can do to change it, except totalitarian control of public discourse. My point is that it's vastly preferable to just let them be wrong on the internet and deal with it like an adult.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  That has lead us to a point where people who, in spite of failed court cases, lack of evidence, expert opinion, and even disagreement among people who align with their political ideology, have insisted that a democratic election was stolen and believe it strongly enough to attempt to invade a government building with the expressed intent of executing politicians. That anyone can believe that simply "letting them be wrong on the internet" is a viable course of action at this point is utterly baffling. I sincerely hope there is an alternative to totalitarian control of public discourse, but I am becoming increasingly worried that there is not.

AniseAbyss 6y ago

So when you see a political movement that wants to take your country into a dark alley you're supposed to man up and turn your cheek? No, people will push back.