3 ms·

> But it's as easy to point to the dire consequences of persisting in amplifying the voices of people spewing hateful rhetoric as it is to point to the people s

> But it's as easy to point to the dire consequences of persisting in amplifying the voices of people spewing hateful rhetoric as it is to point to the people silenced to protect the interests of the powerful. I think treating this as a one-sided problem with an obvious answer does it an injustice. I don't think it is as easy to prove that something has been censored, that's the problem. There is not transparency. Maybe if we could examine exactly what was removed and why, that would be different. But we have normalized and legitimized the opaque and arbitrary removal of political content and historical records. I also don't think it is so easy to prove direct harm from something not being censored, and certainly not enough to outweigh the harm that accepting censorship brings. The truth is, when you outsource critical thinking to Facebook, it is not just potentially harmful content they remove. You can't say that you only support deplatforming for people you disagree with, because it will never be implemented that way. In practice, you either you support freedom of speech, or you support billionaires and dictators arbitrarily removing and editing what we say.

JadeNB 5y ago
> In practice, you either you support freedom of speech, or you support billionaires and dictators arbitrarily removing and editing what we say. I think that this is a false dichotomy, even if preceded by "in practice", because it follows the practice of conflating the freedom to speak with the freedom to be heard. I support people's right to say what they please. I don't think that people have any inherent right to be heard saying what they please, even if I personally think that the things that they are saying are important and should be heard. I support anyone's right not to amplify others' disgusting sentiments. When a private business is used to provide the platform for that speech, I support its right not to host speech that it (not I) finds disgusting, or objectionable, for any reason, even if I disagree with that reason. This is nothing new—it's always been the case, for example, that publishers didn't publish books that they determined to be disgusting or objectionable, and that their reasons for so determining could be lofty, or base, or completely counter to my own reasons. Given the prominence of Facebook and Twitter as global communications platforms, this gives their owners disproportionate influence over whose voices are heard. That's the problem. Requiring Facebook and Twitter to amplify everyone's voices equally won't fix that problem. (I have no idea what will fix the problem, to be clear, short of "how about everyone stops using Facebook and Twitter and we switch to a forum that somehow combines global reach with democratic moderation", which only requires (1) someone design the perfect such platform free from any possibility of abuse, and then turns its reins over to the masses, and (2) everyone agrees to use it, and so should be easy.)

JadeNB 5y ago

> In practice, you either you support freedom of speech, or you support billionaires and dictators arbitrarily removing and editing what we say. I think that this is a false dichotomy, even if preceded by "in practice", because it follows the practice of conflating the freedom to speak with the freedom to be heard. I support people's right to say what they please. I don't think that people have any inherent right to be heard saying what they please, even if I personally think that the things that they are saying are important and should be heard. I support anyone's right not to amplify others' disgusting sentiments. When a private business is used to provide the platform for that speech, I support its right not to host speech that it (not I) finds disgusting, or objectionable, for any reason, even if I disagree with that reason. This is nothing new—it's always been the case, for example, that publishers didn't publish books that they determined to be disgusting or objectionable, and that their reasons for so determining could be lofty, or base, or completely counter to my own reasons. Given the prominence of Facebook and Twitter as global communications platforms, this gives their owners disproportionate influence over whose voices are heard. That's the problem. Requiring Facebook and Twitter to amplify everyone's voices equally won't fix that problem. (I have no idea what will fix the problem, to be clear, short of "how about everyone stops using Facebook and Twitter and we switch to a forum that somehow combines global reach with democratic moderation", which only requires (1) someone design the perfect such platform free from any possibility of abuse, and then turns its reins over to the masses, and (2) everyone agrees to use it, and so should be easy.)