3 ms·

There has been a division because historically publication was expensive and labor intensive not because of some inherent virtue of the arrangements. Some peop

There has been a division because historically publication was expensive and labor intensive not because of some inherent virtue of the arrangements. Some people who don't like the moderation policies have created a fictional world where such policies are wrong instead of merely disagreeable like someone who hates pineapple imagining that putting them on pizza violates some moral principal instead of merely their own tastes. If you examine such a request the user nearly always desires not broader liability for websites but for the government to use such liability as a cudgle to force websites to accept speech they would otherwise object to and host it on their platform. Effectively they want to take away others freedom and compell their speech. This is so obviously immoral that one wonders what moral principles could possibly justify this.

tgragnato 6y ago
What changed since 230 was enacted is simple from my pov ... There are few platforms. Without those few enormous platforms shaping the public discourse, 230 is largely good and unproblematic. Which is why I’d love to have more platforms, while retaining 230. But I also need to acknowledge that’s not where we are heading to.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  What does the number of platforms have to do with anything?
  - tgragnato 6y ago
    Extreme and fringe ideas would naturally move to unpopular platforms, and die over time. With too few platforms some are arguing they feel censored, banned from participating in public discourse.
    - giantrobot 6y ago
      > With too few platforms some are arguing they feel censored, banned from participating in public discourse. The people making these arguments aren't doing so in good faith. They're playing the victim for extra attention. They claim they're banned from platforms because of their "conservative" politics when in fact it was them directly advocating for direct and explicit violence against political opponents that got them banned. There's nothing "conservative" about advocating murder for your political opposition. That's not a necessary part of a conservative ethos. It's also not any sort of political discussion. If someone openly advocates for your murder you can't meet them half way. When platforms get in trouble they make the same bad faith arguments. Parler whined claiming AWS dropped them for being a "conservative" platform while it was clear Amazon dropped them for not taking any meaningful steps to shut down open and explicit calls for violence.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      You are describing an important and functional element of social networks going back thousands of years. Substantially new and different ideas most of which are bad and stupid face a trial by fire and over time society adopts the survivors.

tgragnato 6y ago

What changed since 230 was enacted is simple from my pov ... There are few platforms. Without those few enormous platforms shaping the public discourse, 230 is largely good and unproblematic. Which is why I’d love to have more platforms, while retaining 230. But I also need to acknowledge that’s not where we are heading to.

michaelmrose 6y ago
What does the number of platforms have to do with anything?
- tgragnato 6y ago
  Extreme and fringe ideas would naturally move to unpopular platforms, and die over time. With too few platforms some are arguing they feel censored, banned from participating in public discourse.
  - giantrobot 6y ago
    > With too few platforms some are arguing they feel censored, banned from participating in public discourse. The people making these arguments aren't doing so in good faith. They're playing the victim for extra attention. They claim they're banned from platforms because of their "conservative" politics when in fact it was them directly advocating for direct and explicit violence against political opponents that got them banned. There's nothing "conservative" about advocating murder for your political opposition. That's not a necessary part of a conservative ethos. It's also not any sort of political discussion. If someone openly advocates for your murder you can't meet them half way. When platforms get in trouble they make the same bad faith arguments. Parler whined claiming AWS dropped them for being a "conservative" platform while it was clear Amazon dropped them for not taking any meaningful steps to shut down open and explicit calls for violence.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    You are describing an important and functional element of social networks going back thousands of years. Substantially new and different ideas most of which are bad and stupid face a trial by fire and over time society adopts the survivors.