7 ms·

It’s incredibly disheartening to see how quickly people are warming to the practice of coordinated top-down gagging of certain individuals and groups. You won’

It’s incredibly disheartening to see how quickly people are warming to the practice of coordinated top-down gagging of certain individuals and groups. You won’t be so happy to cheer on such behavior and policies when in the future the one silenced turns out to be you. The power to censor should be given solely to the individual to curate their own information diet; it should never belong to the medium itself (whether government, private company, autonomous network, etc).

deegles 6y ago
I used to think that way until I learned about the illusory truth effect, which basically states that being exposed to information multiple times makes you more likely to believe it to be true. The consequence of this is that attempting to curate information might "infect" you with ideas that you never wanted in your brain in the first place.
- nx20593 6y ago
  If you started in the wrong way," I said in answer to the investigator's questions, "everything that happened would be a proof of the conspiracy against you. It would all be self−validating. You couldn't draw a breath without knowing it was part of the plot." "So you think you know where madness lies?" My answer was a convinced and heartfelt, "Yes." "And you couldn't control it?" "No I couldn't control it. If one began with fear and hate as the major premise, one would have to go on the conclusion." "Would you be able," my wife asked, " to fix your attention on what The Tibetan Book of the Dead calls the Clear Light?" I was doubtful. "Would it keep the evil away, if you could hold it? Or would you not be able to hold it?" I considered the question for some time. "Perhaps," I answered at last, "perhaps I could − but only if there were somebody there to tell me about the Clear Light. One couldn't do it by oneself. That's the point, I suppose, of the Tibetan ritual − somebody sitting there all the time and telling you what's what." [Doors of Perception, 57−58]
- lez 6y ago
  The problem that you mention was largely amplified by Big Tech, the same companies who are now offering their "solutions".
loceng 6y ago
This is fear speaking, stand up for free speech that isn't inciting violence, racism, etc - like everyone else - and we'll all be safe, and we can all fight against tyranny when it shows itself. There's a nuance to understand as well that these people deplatformed aren't victims: they still have their freedom of speech, just not on these private platforms. It's inconvenient for them, yes, that they depended on them, but their TOS were always clear from the beginning if they actually read or cared about their contents. This scenario isn't akin to the Nazis going after one group, then another, then another - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... - violence isn't a group even if a mob forms a group, and understandably they're an angry mob who believe to some degree that the election was fraudulent (but hypocritically it wouldn't have been fraudulent if their pick one) - which all signs point to that it wasn't - but because they're not accessible to talk to and their media channels are perpetuating the lies and lack of critical thinking, it's manifesting how expected, and why Trump et al have been inciting violence. January 6th could have ended with many more dead, could have been much more tragic had they been better organized. If your child started saying racist things, would you just let them? I assume not. I assume you would escalate punishment until they understood and behaved with what's appropriate, and if they didn't, you'd probably kick them out of your house once you're legally allowed to if for some reason they've become a terrible person; people won't change until they're ready to or there's an impetus - sometimes, if not most of the time, all it takes is a parent saying you won't get dessert if you don't behave.
- tick_tock_tick 6y ago
  Sounds like you're fundamentally opposed to free speech. Maybe we can coin a new term something like "non-dangerous speech" or "mostly free speech". I'm glad we'll get Apple and Amazon to figure out what dangerous is too.
  - loceng 6y ago
    Not at all. Free speech but with consequences. And there is free speech in America and free speech on the internet in America - however the moment you're on private property of a technology company's property (website or app or other) - it's their rules you follow. People easily, and they are doing it, post to thedonald.win to say whatever the fuck they want there because the moderators are allowing it. So I don't accept your premise that these people playing victim role, behaving as if they're being persecuted and claiming they're blocked from free speech - because they're not. I presume you don't just let anyone into your house whenever they want to, and to say whatever they want anytime?
lez 6y ago
I agree the problem is two-fold: One being the Big Tech overreaching in the name of "our safety". The other being the overly vocal minority who clap hands for them and come up with excuses defending them, as if they were propagandists.

deegles 6y ago

I used to think that way until I learned about the illusory truth effect, which basically states that being exposed to information multiple times makes you more likely to believe it to be true. The consequence of this is that attempting to curate information might "infect" you with ideas that you never wanted in your brain in the first place.

nx20593 6y ago
If you started in the wrong way," I said in answer to the investigator's questions, "everything that happened would be a proof of the conspiracy against you. It would all be self−validating. You couldn't draw a breath without knowing it was part of the plot." "So you think you know where madness lies?" My answer was a convinced and heartfelt, "Yes." "And you couldn't control it?" "No I couldn't control it. If one began with fear and hate as the major premise, one would have to go on the conclusion." "Would you be able," my wife asked, " to fix your attention on what The Tibetan Book of the Dead calls the Clear Light?" I was doubtful. "Would it keep the evil away, if you could hold it? Or would you not be able to hold it?" I considered the question for some time. "Perhaps," I answered at last, "perhaps I could − but only if there were somebody there to tell me about the Clear Light. One couldn't do it by oneself. That's the point, I suppose, of the Tibetan ritual − somebody sitting there all the time and telling you what's what." [Doors of Perception, 57−58]
lez 6y ago
The problem that you mention was largely amplified by Big Tech, the same companies who are now offering their "solutions".

loceng 6y ago

This is fear speaking, stand up for free speech that isn't inciting violence, racism, etc - like everyone else - and we'll all be safe, and we can all fight against tyranny when it shows itself. There's a nuance to understand as well that these people deplatformed aren't victims: they still have their freedom of speech, just not on these private platforms. It's inconvenient for them, yes, that they depended on them, but their TOS were always clear from the beginning if they actually read or cared about their contents. This scenario isn't akin to the Nazis going after one group, then another, then another - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... - violence isn't a group even if a mob forms a group, and understandably they're an angry mob who believe to some degree that the election was fraudulent (but hypocritically it wouldn't have been fraudulent if their pick one) - which all signs point to that it wasn't - but because they're not accessible to talk to and their media channels are perpetuating the lies and lack of critical thinking, it's manifesting how expected, and why Trump et al have been inciting violence. January 6th could have ended with many more dead, could have been much more tragic had they been better organized. If your child started saying racist things, would you just let them? I assume not. I assume you would escalate punishment until they understood and behaved with what's appropriate, and if they didn't, you'd probably kick them out of your house once you're legally allowed to if for some reason they've become a terrible person; people won't change until they're ready to or there's an impetus - sometimes, if not most of the time, all it takes is a parent saying you won't get dessert if you don't behave.

tick_tock_tick 6y ago
Sounds like you're fundamentally opposed to free speech. Maybe we can coin a new term something like "non-dangerous speech" or "mostly free speech". I'm glad we'll get Apple and Amazon to figure out what dangerous is too.
- loceng 6y ago
  Not at all. Free speech but with consequences. And there is free speech in America and free speech on the internet in America - however the moment you're on private property of a technology company's property (website or app or other) - it's their rules you follow. People easily, and they are doing it, post to thedonald.win to say whatever the fuck they want there because the moderators are allowing it. So I don't accept your premise that these people playing victim role, behaving as if they're being persecuted and claiming they're blocked from free speech - because they're not. I presume you don't just let anyone into your house whenever they want to, and to say whatever they want anytime?

lez 6y ago

I agree the problem is two-fold: One being the Big Tech overreaching in the name of "our safety". The other being the overly vocal minority who clap hands for them and come up with excuses defending them, as if they were propagandists.