4 ms·
If you forgo justice in the name of the greater good don't be mad when you get neither. By your own admission, it's a precarious moral tightrope you're walking
by rscoots 6y ago
If you forgo justice in the name of the greater good don't be mad when you get neither.
By your own admission, it's a precarious moral tightrope you're walking here.
- emodendroket 6y agoI don't think that's really what I'm saying. Every Web forum (this one quite notably included) has some kind of ground rules for moderation because if you don't have them they become overrun with pornography, hate speech, or some other kind of content that puts off the majority of users -- in other words they were never radical free speech zones in the first place. If we were talking about sending people to jail for sharing PizzaGate conspiracies I wouldn't support it, but I don't really see what benefit there is to Facebook or Twitter tolerating such content, and with something like 10% of Americans saying they at least partly believe in QAnon it is getting hard to act like the problems arising from this content are irrelevant or just a sideshow.
- rscoots 6y agoWhat is their excuse for not having a transparent and accountable model for their censorship efforts? You never named the people at these companies you trust to decide what is conspiracy and what is not. I'm sure you can recall many recent examples of the censors getting it wrong however.
- rscoots 6y ago> If we were talking about sending people to jail for sharing PizzaGate conspiracies I wouldn't support it, but I don't really see what benefit there is to Facebook or Twitter tolerating such content Why is the punishment morally revelant to the principle of freedom of conscience? I bet there's a lot of people who would much rather go to jail than lose a Twitter account.
- emodendroket 6y agoBecause you don’t have an inherent right to use a Web site. I also doubt that that many people prefer jail to losing access to one.
- rscoots 6y agoSo you disagree with the 1st amendment in principle? Websites either allow freedom of conscience or they do not. The government supplying a "right" doesn't appear to be morally relevant.
- emodendroket 6y agoI don’t really find it workable to say that the First Amendment means everyone has to let you use their site to say whatever you want. Again, consider this very site, which is strictly moderated.
- rscoots 6y agoYou'll have to re-read my comment, that's not at all what I said.
- emodendroket 6y agoThen I don’t know what you mean.