3 ms·
> That's not a strong argument at all. I don't think it's a strong argument either, I just think it's slightly stronger than the one people are trying to use f
by Jochim 6y ago
> That's not a strong argument at all.
I don't think it's a strong argument either, I just think it's slightly stronger than the one people are trying to use for why AWS should be forced to host Parler.
> Spouting death threats gets you arrested if you do it in public (and someone records it or calls the cops), so it should also lead to a time-limited or permanent ban from social networks.
The argument from people coming out against the moderation of these threats seems to be that FB/Twitter etc. should only remove this content after receiving some sort of court order/government mandate to do so, that they shouldn't "play cop" as it were. Personally this seems like a pretty stupid take.
> Social networks are not a free-for-all zone.
Some people are arguing that the should be, that they should be treated as the equivalent of a modern town square. I don't necessarily agree with this take, but I can see why people might think that way.
- mschuster91 6y ago> Some people are arguing that the should be, that they should be treated as the equivalent of a modern town square A modern town square isn't a free-for-all zone either. Try to go and shout "fuck <n-word>" or raise the arm to the Nazi salute in an area where people of color live and you'll be lucky to escape with a minor beating. Town squares are a form of societal self-preservation too - unruly elements get dealt with, either by the people themselves or by the police.