4 ms·

Put a hundred people in a row. Punch them all in the face. Most of them will be fine, at least eventually. A couple might develop permanent cognitive issues, o

by jusssi 6y ago

Put a hundred people in a row. Punch them all in the face. Most of them will be fine, at least eventually. A couple might develop permanent cognitive issues, or even die. But most of them will be fine. Yet it is not a reason for us to give people the permission (let's face it, you can't take away the freedom, they'll do it if they want to) to punch others in the face. Maybe some day people will acknowledge that publishing things has consequences. Just like punching people in the face has consequences.

cbozeman 6y ago
Maybe some day people will acknowledge that the Universe isn't a pleasant place and that sometimes you're going to be exposed to unpleasant shit, and you need to cultivate some fortitude to deal with it.
- jusssi 6y ago
  I think there's quite a difference between being exposed to unpleasantness, and someone deliberately taking the unpleasantness, handing it over to a publisher and telling them to rub it into your face. This whole discussion seems to revolve around whether a publishing platform should be forced to tolerate any type of content, or not. I think you'll agree there's a line somewhere there. From seemingly easy, to more tricky, where do you draw the line (or maybe you just cultivate some fortitude)? * Twitter bans Trumpetists * AWS bans Parlor * You have a personal blog where people can comment (without you pre-approving the content). You choose ban someone's comments. * You have a personal blog to which people can post comments but they only show after your preview. You choose to specifically ignore someone's comments. * Mosquito Liberation Front decides to use your yard's lawn for a signpost advertising rights for mosquitoes. You take the sign down. * MLF decides to use your house's white painted walls as a medium for their freedom of speech and spraypaints their logos on it. (bonus: MLF chooses to use the white painted walls of Twitter HQ as a medium for their freedom of speech, next to a screen that shows live tweets, after they've been banned from twitter)

by jusssi 6y ago

cbozeman 6y ago

Maybe some day people will acknowledge that the Universe isn't a pleasant place and that sometimes you're going to be exposed to unpleasant shit, and you need to cultivate some fortitude to deal with it.

jusssi 6y ago
I think there's quite a difference between being exposed to unpleasantness, and someone deliberately taking the unpleasantness, handing it over to a publisher and telling them to rub it into your face. This whole discussion seems to revolve around whether a publishing platform should be forced to tolerate any type of content, or not. I think you'll agree there's a line somewhere there. From seemingly easy, to more tricky, where do you draw the line (or maybe you just cultivate some fortitude)? * Twitter bans Trumpetists * AWS bans Parlor * You have a personal blog where people can comment (without you pre-approving the content). You choose ban someone's comments. * You have a personal blog to which people can post comments but they only show after your preview. You choose to specifically ignore someone's comments. * Mosquito Liberation Front decides to use your yard's lawn for a signpost advertising rights for mosquitoes. You take the sign down. * MLF decides to use your house's white painted walls as a medium for their freedom of speech and spraypaints their logos on it. (bonus: MLF chooses to use the white painted walls of Twitter HQ as a medium for their freedom of speech, next to a screen that shows live tweets, after they've been banned from twitter)