3 ms·

You don't have to let fascists and Nazis on if you don't want to. I don't want to see the social media landscape dominated by a few giant organizations and I wo

You don't have to let fascists and Nazis on if you don't want to. I don't want to see the social media landscape dominated by a few giant organizations and I worry that things might slide from deplatforming the above groups to deplatforming anyone whose views go against the sort of dogmas which appeal to progressive activists and/or the sort of dogmas which appeal to giant corporations.

jude- 6y ago
> You don't have to let fascists and Nazis on if you don't want to. Which is exactly what all these companies did. They decided they didn't want them as users or customers. I'm saying that platforms should not, on general, want Nazis, fascists, terrorists, and conspiracy theorists as users and customers. Giving them a platform helps them organize, recruit, and coordinate to achieve violent ends. Why would anyone want to be a party to that, unless they were okay with their intentions? > I worry that things might slide from deplatforming the above groups to deplatforming anyone [..] "Might" slide? We're well past this. It happened to sex workers en masse not too long ago. It happens to NGOs and human rights activists who expose uncomfortable truths. But unlike the terrorists, these folks were not trying to achieve violent ends. I'm much more upset about the negative impacts on these innocent folks versus the insurrectionists. But let's be clear on one thing -- mass-moderation is not a new concept, and flows directly from private property rights. Freedom of speech does not entitle you to use someone else's audience, servers, and distribution network. Also, the fact that you own the servers also makes you at least partially responsible for the things that happen with them, just like in the physical world. Banning violent insurrectionists from your servers is a way of hindering violence.

jude- 6y ago

> You don't have to let fascists and Nazis on if you don't want to. Which is exactly what all these companies did. They decided they didn't want them as users or customers. I'm saying that platforms should not, on general, want Nazis, fascists, terrorists, and conspiracy theorists as users and customers. Giving them a platform helps them organize, recruit, and coordinate to achieve violent ends. Why would anyone want to be a party to that, unless they were okay with their intentions? > I worry that things might slide from deplatforming the above groups to deplatforming anyone [..] "Might" slide? We're well past this. It happened to sex workers en masse not too long ago. It happens to NGOs and human rights activists who expose uncomfortable truths. But unlike the terrorists, these folks were not trying to achieve violent ends. I'm much more upset about the negative impacts on these innocent folks versus the insurrectionists. But let's be clear on one thing -- mass-moderation is not a new concept, and flows directly from private property rights. Freedom of speech does not entitle you to use someone else's audience, servers, and distribution network. Also, the fact that you own the servers also makes you at least partially responsible for the things that happen with them, just like in the physical world. Banning violent insurrectionists from your servers is a way of hindering violence.