5 ms·
“People can use the platform without the liability that their contributions will be automatically saved as posts. This can embolden some users to make abusive o
by dabbledash 6y ago
“People can use the platform without the liability that their contributions will be automatically saved as posts. This can embolden some users to make abusive or derogatory remarks, thinking they won't be recorded and won't face consequences.”
Incredibly disappointing to see Ars jumping on this bandwagon. People are having ephemeral conversations that censors can’t police after the fact. Truly, the horror!
- tosser0001 6y agoI really hope that in the near future, we can look back at this period as a moment of temporary cultural insanity.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Dma54rhs 6y agoPlenty of public hysterias not so past distance. I remember when American conservatives cried about Satanists recruiting young people online, this feels so very similar.
- abernard1 6y ago> ephemeral conversations that censors can’t police after the fact The ephemeral part is what's crazy. We've moved from "speech is fine as long as it doesn't lead to violence" to "speech itself is violence when certain people hear it" to "it doesn't matter if anyone hears it, you saying it privately is violence." It's thoughtcrime.
- lolwhateffects 6y agoDon't let your kids tell their teachers that you told your wife that you only believe there are two sexes while you were alone in the kitchen. That kind of problematic belief is cause for bringing in CPS to take the kids away to be raised in the foster program
- anoncake 6y agoWhy would you tell your wife that intersex people don't exist?
- anoncake 6y agoDevil's advocate: How are you going to determine if speech led to violence without a record of it?
- theklr 6y agoWe now know the effects of not being relaxed on this, of course we’re now going to overcompensate
- lolwhateffects 6y agoAre you arguing that private conversations, ones not terribly different than private phone calls, led to Trump (I assume Trump is "the effects" but you're not very specific or clear about what "this" is or what "the effects" are, so your comment seems like a dog whistle to some group I'm not in (I'm not a dog)), and therefore it's expected that private conversations now be censored? I mean seriously why don't we call in the censors to the plain old telephone system? I'm sure lots of people express "problematic" ideas privately in phone calls to trusted people. Why not start cancelling people based on those conversations? "We now know the effects of being relaxed on" allowing people to have private conversations! Anything less than censoring people on private phone calls would be supporting fascism.