4 ms·

> But pretty much no one wants preapproval of every utterance either, so everyone is also “anti-censorship”. I've seen people arguing that the concept of free

> But pretty much no one wants preapproval of every utterance either, so everyone is also “anti-censorship”. I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", just as an example of what I meant in my first comment. > so pretty much everyone is “pro-censorship” to some degree Please, don't. You're arguing against an extreme of my comment instead of what I actually meant[1] (which, of course, you're free to do, but I would also be just as free to dismiss it as a bad faith argument), but also you're extending something you might believe onto others. You're of course free to be "pro-censorship", but you don't know what everyone else thinks, and certainly not what I think. > The use of the term “censorship” is itself a negative signal, as it preempts useful discussion by imposing a false dichotomy. I completely disagree with this. The example I gave is absolutely an argument in favor of censorship. > If you see someone talking about “damping positive disinformation feedback loops” or something like that, rather than “censorship”, that’s one signal there’s a substantive discussion taking place. Excusing it by saying "dampening positive disinformation feedback loops" is excusing censorship. You might refuse to call it such, but I don't have a reason not to. [1]: For starters, I'm aware that there's unprotected speech for a reason, and I never called condemnation of such speech "censorship".

wrs 6y ago
Do you see how by using the word “censorship” as if it were a unitary concept with an agreed-upon meaning, you have made it difficult to continue this conversation? I didn’t present any position at all other than saying that neither extreme is realistic — which I think you actually agree with. But you’re trying to argue with me anyway. I was just trying to answer your question on how to recognize a more nuanced and productive discussion: look for people arguing about specific behaviors; avoid people arguing over the definition of the word “censorship”.
- julianmarq 6y ago
  > Do you see how by using the word “censorship” [...], you have made it difficult to continue this conversation? Not really, no, what makes it difficult for me to continue this conversation is that I had no interest in having this conversation in the first place. My first comment was just asking the other person how he dealt with these threads, as I wasn't sure what he meant exactly or if he had a trick or something. I certainly didn't want to start arguing the merits of free speech again (I already said I found it disheartening to read). > I didn’t present any position at all other than saying that neither extreme is realistic And since I never spoke in favor of any extreme, I argued with you because your point about "everyone being pro-censorship" wasn't apropos... Something you seem to know too. > look for people arguing about specific behaviors; avoid people arguing over the definition of the word “censorship”. I've seen the same people arguing both in favor of the same "specific behavior" you mentioned and against free speech[1]. And no, those discussions were anything but productive or nuanced. With that in mind, I have no interest in looking for that. [1]: Not that differentiating between that and censorship wasn't already a distinction without a difference (as I already implied in my previous comment), but I must say that those discussions did make it evident that they were ultimately arguing for the same thing.

wrs 6y ago

Do you see how by using the word “censorship” as if it were a unitary concept with an agreed-upon meaning, you have made it difficult to continue this conversation? I didn’t present any position at all other than saying that neither extreme is realistic — which I think you actually agree with. But you’re trying to argue with me anyway. I was just trying to answer your question on how to recognize a more nuanced and productive discussion: look for people arguing about specific behaviors; avoid people arguing over the definition of the word “censorship”.

julianmarq 6y ago
> Do you see how by using the word “censorship” [...], you have made it difficult to continue this conversation? Not really, no, what makes it difficult for me to continue this conversation is that I had no interest in having this conversation in the first place. My first comment was just asking the other person how he dealt with these threads, as I wasn't sure what he meant exactly or if he had a trick or something. I certainly didn't want to start arguing the merits of free speech again (I already said I found it disheartening to read). > I didn’t present any position at all other than saying that neither extreme is realistic And since I never spoke in favor of any extreme, I argued with you because your point about "everyone being pro-censorship" wasn't apropos... Something you seem to know too. > look for people arguing about specific behaviors; avoid people arguing over the definition of the word “censorship”. I've seen the same people arguing both in favor of the same "specific behavior" you mentioned and against free speech[1]. And no, those discussions were anything but productive or nuanced. With that in mind, I have no interest in looking for that. [1]: Not that differentiating between that and censorship wasn't already a distinction without a difference (as I already implied in my previous comment), but I must say that those discussions did make it evident that they were ultimately arguing for the same thing.