4 ms·

In all cases ILLEGAL speech can’t be allowed to remain on platform. There needs to be a high tech system for logging and reporting Illegal Speech to government

In all cases ILLEGAL speech can’t be allowed to remain on platform. There needs to be a high tech system for logging and reporting Illegal Speech to government. And a means for government to take efficient and prompt action. Disliked speech is not illegal speech and this article states the unique definition that each person has and poses some solves to allow people to use systems that filter out what they dont want to hear in addition to what is illegal. The issue we are facing is what to do about the legal but disliked speech and whether to forcibly prevent people from hearing or seeing it. The spirit of of our first amendment is very much the opposite. It is to protect your ability to speak. Our public forum is now virtual, privatized and highly centralized and we didn’t prepare for that as a society. As they say “...Defend to the death your right to say it.”

tick_tock_tick 6y ago
The end goal is to make sure "ILLEGAL" speech can not be suppressed. If you can block "illegal" speech you can block legal speech any protocol designed to be immune to censorship will have to make that sacrifice; I am very much willing too.
einpoklum 6y ago
> In all cases ILLEGAL speech can’t be allowed to remain on platform. On the contrary. In most cases, it is imperative that illegal speech remain on online platforms. It's bad enough that governments censor criticism, alternative viewpoints (including ones we may abhor), and leaked information using the police, the judicial and prison systems, and their close ties with large media companies. > Disliked speech is not illegal speech Not so. There exist all of: * Well-liked, illegal speech * Disliked illegal speech * Well-liked, legal speech * Disliked legal speech It seems like you're assuming the law, everywhere, is just and fair and should be not just followed but upheld. > our first amendment Most people don't live in the US, you know. In fact, less than 5% of people do. Not that I would agree with you had I lived there, but online content is not a US-local affair.
bccdee 6y ago
Private speech is necessarily something that the government cannot monitor. When choosing between ubiquitous surveillance and "illegal speech going unpunished," opposing the former is more important than preventing the latter.

tick_tock_tick 6y ago

The end goal is to make sure "ILLEGAL" speech can not be suppressed. If you can block "illegal" speech you can block legal speech any protocol designed to be immune to censorship will have to make that sacrifice; I am very much willing too.

einpoklum 6y ago

> In all cases ILLEGAL speech can’t be allowed to remain on platform. On the contrary. In most cases, it is imperative that illegal speech remain on online platforms. It's bad enough that governments censor criticism, alternative viewpoints (including ones we may abhor), and leaked information using the police, the judicial and prison systems, and their close ties with large media companies. > Disliked speech is not illegal speech Not so. There exist all of: * Well-liked, illegal speech * Disliked illegal speech * Well-liked, legal speech * Disliked legal speech It seems like you're assuming the law, everywhere, is just and fair and should be not just followed but upheld. > our first amendment Most people don't live in the US, you know. In fact, less than 5% of people do. Not that I would agree with you had I lived there, but online content is not a US-local affair.

bccdee 6y ago

Private speech is necessarily something that the government cannot monitor. When choosing between ubiquitous surveillance and "illegal speech going unpunished," opposing the former is more important than preventing the latter.