4 ms·
Many seem to have been completely taken in to it, yes. And given it seems to have lead to deadly consequences already, I don't think it's unreasonable for these
by Gabriel_Martin 6y ago
Many seem to have been completely taken in to it, yes. And given it seems to have lead to deadly consequences already, I don't think it's unreasonable for these companies to consider it a huge liability.
- jtbayly 6y agoAre you aware of what other things have led to deadly consequences? Communism, socialism, green terrorism, and self driving cars come to mind.
- bun_at_work 6y agoThis is simply whataboutism.
- jtbayly 6y agoNo it’s not. The post I’m responding to made a case for why censorship is fine in this case. That reason applies very very broadly. If we are ok with that reason, then we are ok with that reason, and we must acknowledge what else is caught in that net.
- bun_at_work 6y ago> If we are ok with that reason, then we are ok with that reason, ... This is a slippery-slope fallacy. Facebook removing content containing speech directly associated with highly illegal activity doesn't mean the country is becoming socialist.
- jtbayly 6y agoI have no idea what you are talking about. I never said it was becoming socialist. I gave a simple warning that the reason is enough to silence vast swaths of public discourse.
- Gabriel_Martin 6y agoTotally, and then you have unfettered capitalism and corporatism, kakistocracies, oligarchies and lawn darts. Unfortunately, unlike all of those things, the FBI, Homeland Security[1] and Congress [2] actually found that white supremacists and other far-right-wing extremists are the most significant domestic terrorism threat facing the United States. So, when social networks' legal/liability or moderation teams take action on the precise content that was used to foment a coup, it's not terribly shocking from a legal perspective. 1: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/white-supremacists-terror-threat-dhs-409236 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/white-supremacists-... 2: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s894/BILLS-116s894is.xml https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s894/BILLS-116s894is.xml
- jtbayly 6y agoStopTheSteal is not a slogan of white supremacists. In fact, it has nothing to do with white supremacism. Are you saying that 60 million or so people in the US are white supremacists?
- Gabriel_Martin 6y agoThat's not a very generous interpretation of what I said.
- jtbayly 6y agoThat’s how many people think there was funny business in this election, IIRC, so what exactly are you saying if it isn’t that 60M people are extremists who need to have their voices silenced?
- Gabriel_Martin 6y agoThe number of people repeating misinformation isn't really relevant. You really seem to leverage many various fallacies, like slippery slope and argument from incredulity. My exact statement was, in context to the facts about white supremacy and far right extremists, both groups having a well documented presence at the attempted coup, that when social networks' legal/liability or moderation teams take action on the precise content that was used to foment a coup, it's not terribly shocking from a legal perspective. You seem to be shocked though, why is that?