3 ms·

> All these actions from platforms is to prevent, limit, curb violence. That's it. There's no grand conspiracy. You're either for non-violence and a civil, reas

> All these actions from platforms is to prevent, limit, curb violence. That's it. There's no grand conspiracy. You're either for non-violence and a civil, reasoning-reasonable society - or you are living in ignorance is bliss and you don't care if there's chaos and the world burns. I guess these platforms were on "team: chaos and the world burns" throughout the BLM riots, and were on "team: conspiracy theories" throughout the 2+ years of "Russian collusion" coverage. And if you can't see parallels to this same statement you're making and echos throughout history when someone decides what's OK and not OK to say, I'm not sure what to tell you. Literally every authoritarian could make the case that silencing their opponents is worth it for the greater good. > Also, no one's freedom of speech has been taken away. These are private platforms, they're not the public space - the internet itself is the neutral platform, likewise these people have other means to communicate. They don't get the automatic right to using the most convenient technology provided by private companies though. People said this when it was just Facebook / Twitter. Then it's the App Stores on mobile devices, and now we're down to cloud infrastructure providers and payment processors. That's fine--just be prepared to move your goalposts when people start pressuring ISPs to block the content, because that's what's happening next.

daniellarusso 6y ago
ISPs are already blocking content, notably Facebook and Twitter. This is only possible because of the lack of net neutrality rules via the FCC. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/idaho/articles/2021-01-11/idaho-company-to-block-facebook-and-twitter-for-censorship https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/idaho/articles/2021-... And payment processors? That has been a concern for over a quarter of a century. Plan accordingly.
mcphage 6y ago
> and now we're down to cloud infrastructure providers and payment processors Payment processors have always been heavily restrictive about what they allow. There have been articles talking about the hoops that OnlyFans has to jump through, for instance, because Stripe doesn't like pornography. > just be prepared to move your goalposts when people start pressuring ISPs to block the content Or search engines—like scihub and thepiratebay have had to deal with. So we're already doing all of thee steps. In the end, it comes down to the same thing, though: what content should be blocked?
- moduspol 6y ago
  I think we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater by framing the argument that way. Possession and transmission of child pornography has always been illegal and technically an infringement on freedom of speech, but we carved an exemption for that because the negative effect on political speech is minimal. That does not imply it's always been open season on silencing political opponents.
  - loceng 6y ago
    Inciting violence has been carved out too. Your logic is incongruent.
    - moduspol 6y ago
      It has not previously been the case that using common political rhetoric like "fight like hell" was equivocated with "inciting violence," and we carved it out for law enforcment and courts to adjudicate--not private companies.
loceng 6y ago
Please show me any evidence that BLM were calling for violence against people. I don't know if you're gaslighting here or just not understanding the situation to compare it adequately, but 1) the BLM protests were separate from the relatively few who rioted, and 2) your comparison to think a growing amount of Trump's supporters openly calling for violence - and then attempting a coup to takeover the Capitol - are the same, then you're not a reasonable person; it's an apple to oranges comparison, not the same at all if you're actually critical and differentiating the situations fully. Calls for violence are, what private platforms are determining on their own, not okay. The government is the one who shouldn't have the ability to say what is and isn't okay, and the government isn't preventing people, nor is the government arresting people for calls of violence - they are arresting people for violence or trespassing though - like at the Capitol; you're wanting to give this power to government to say what is and isn't okay to say - which is a mechanism tyrants need to succeed. ISPs et al already are blocking or actively trying to filter for content like child abuse content - or do you feel such content should be freely allowed to be spread? Facebook et al are moderating to remove such content too. Maybe you draw the line at pedophilia and child abuse photos but you're okay with people inciting violence? These platforms have drawn the line at people inciting violence - and not even that, but that moderators of these platforms were allowing it to stay on and not deleting. If Parler for example was actively and adequately removing such comments by their users, then these platforms wouldn't have deplatformed them. Civil society is a thing you work for, you don't get there by letting people do whatever the fuck they want - just like if you're a parent you don't let children do whatever they want.
- moduspol 6y ago
  I feel like there are too many straw-man arguments here for me to meaningfully respond to. I'm sorry--perhaps someone else will defend them.
  - loceng 6y ago
    What a copout. Just respond to the first question then: Please show me any evidence that BLM were calling for violence against people.

daniellarusso 6y ago

ISPs are already blocking content, notably Facebook and Twitter. This is only possible because of the lack of net neutrality rules via the FCC. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/idaho/articles/2021-01-11/idaho-company-to-block-facebook-and-twitter-for-censorship https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/idaho/articles/2021-... And payment processors? That has been a concern for over a quarter of a century. Plan accordingly.

mcphage 6y ago

> and now we're down to cloud infrastructure providers and payment processors Payment processors have always been heavily restrictive about what they allow. There have been articles talking about the hoops that OnlyFans has to jump through, for instance, because Stripe doesn't like pornography. > just be prepared to move your goalposts when people start pressuring ISPs to block the content Or search engines—like scihub and thepiratebay have had to deal with. So we're already doing all of thee steps. In the end, it comes down to the same thing, though: what content should be blocked?

moduspol 6y ago
I think we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater by framing the argument that way. Possession and transmission of child pornography has always been illegal and technically an infringement on freedom of speech, but we carved an exemption for that because the negative effect on political speech is minimal. That does not imply it's always been open season on silencing political opponents.
- loceng 6y ago
  Inciting violence has been carved out too. Your logic is incongruent.
  - moduspol 6y ago
    It has not previously been the case that using common political rhetoric like "fight like hell" was equivocated with "inciting violence," and we carved it out for law enforcment and courts to adjudicate--not private companies.

loceng 6y ago

Please show me any evidence that BLM were calling for violence against people. I don't know if you're gaslighting here or just not understanding the situation to compare it adequately, but 1) the BLM protests were separate from the relatively few who rioted, and 2) your comparison to think a growing amount of Trump's supporters openly calling for violence - and then attempting a coup to takeover the Capitol - are the same, then you're not a reasonable person; it's an apple to oranges comparison, not the same at all if you're actually critical and differentiating the situations fully. Calls for violence are, what private platforms are determining on their own, not okay. The government is the one who shouldn't have the ability to say what is and isn't okay, and the government isn't preventing people, nor is the government arresting people for calls of violence - they are arresting people for violence or trespassing though - like at the Capitol; you're wanting to give this power to government to say what is and isn't okay to say - which is a mechanism tyrants need to succeed. ISPs et al already are blocking or actively trying to filter for content like child abuse content - or do you feel such content should be freely allowed to be spread? Facebook et al are moderating to remove such content too. Maybe you draw the line at pedophilia and child abuse photos but you're okay with people inciting violence? These platforms have drawn the line at people inciting violence - and not even that, but that moderators of these platforms were allowing it to stay on and not deleting. If Parler for example was actively and adequately removing such comments by their users, then these platforms wouldn't have deplatformed them. Civil society is a thing you work for, you don't get there by letting people do whatever the fuck they want - just like if you're a parent you don't let children do whatever they want.

moduspol 6y ago
I feel like there are too many straw-man arguments here for me to meaningfully respond to. I'm sorry--perhaps someone else will defend them.
- loceng 6y ago
  What a copout. Just respond to the first question then: Please show me any evidence that BLM were calling for violence against people.