4 ms·

I'm less troubled that the censorship actually happened, as much as I am troubled by the increasing demand for such censorship. social media networks give you a

I'm less troubled that the censorship actually happened, as much as I am troubled by the increasing demand for such censorship. social media networks give you all the tools you could possibly want to prevent you from seeing posts you don't want to see, but that's not good enough—people are demanding that people get deplatformed for speech. ubiquitous smartphone and social media access brought about the slow death of the "libertarian free speech haven" aspect of the Web, and there's no reason to think those ideals will come back into vogue anytime soon.

sureglymop 5y ago
Those "ideals" absolutely exist on the internet... they just don't have a place in mainstream media. For example, I often use Mastodon and other platforms like it. Now while popular Mastodon instances obviously don't want to federate with "free speech" instances, those instances still exist and stand on their own. I still remember a discussion some time ago, about federating with what I think was called Gab. At the end of the day, free speech doesn't mean that a platform like twitter has to let you on to their platform, but should you want to create or host your own alternative to Twitter? Well you can, so you're not restricted in your free speech.
- Clubber 5y ago
  >At the end of the day, free speech doesn't mean that a platform like twitter has to let you on to their platform Perhaps in law, but certainly not spirit. I understand the dilemma. Twitter doesn't want the KKK on their site, but they've gone way too far. It's nothing more than a thinly veiled self-serving propaganda machine anymore, as is all the other large social media sites. The original dream of internet freedom is dead.
Pxtl 5y ago
To me it stems from a basic central problem: verifiable fact has value, but it is not defended by our institutions meaningfully. You can spread all the harmful lies you like as long as your victims are diffuse and lack the standing for a lawsuit. We have plenty of forms of censorship available through the courts - people can be punished for perjury, filing a false report, defamation, false advertising, fraud, uttering threats, etc. But in all those cases, you only face punishment if you target somebody with the standing and means to retain a lawyer, or you target the machinery of justice itself. What happens when you target something like "climate change"? Or vaccines? Or the history of the 2020 election? Nothing. Nobody has standing to sue so the act is not punished. So why is Hulk Hogan more worthy of protection from harmful speech than Climate Change? And letting falsehoods go uncorrected plainly hasn't worked. The "Marketplace of Ideas" has done jack squat about Q or climate change denial or antivaxxers or whatever, and now we're facing real catastrophic impact of those problems. Significant thought-leaders in these communities can be caught over and over again in easily-verifiable lies and supporting extremist and hateful content... and face no consequences in terms of losing support through the normal mechanisms of the platform. You can see what happens to platforms without substantive moderation or censorship - they're gradually consumed by obsessed extremists who simply exhaust all the normal people until they leave. So, with the total failure of a government policy to tackle the problem, is it any wonder that people are looking to the owners of the platforms to tackle the issue? They have the means, and can be influenced through threats of boycotts. Until reality itself can sue for defamation, we have to come up with a decent alternative. The stakes are high and the impact is real.
- adamrezich 5y ago
  why assume that our institutions have all of the verifiable facts? verifiable by whom? the institutions themselves? and which institutions? the elected federal government? the appointed federal government? the intelligence agencies? who is the authority on truth, and what gives them that authority?
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    The platforms are the authority on truth on their platform. I question whether they should want to be such an authority, or whether they are competent to be such an authority, but they have the power (both technically and, currently, legally) to be the authority... on their own platform.
  - Pxtl 5y ago
    Because we already do that when it's a matter of perjury, filing a false report, defamation, fraud, etc. In all those cases, the government becomes the arbiter of truth. If celebrities can sue the Daily Mail for lying about them and win, why doesn't climate change or covid infectiousness get the same protection, considering the stakes are so much higher?

sureglymop 5y ago

Those "ideals" absolutely exist on the internet... they just don't have a place in mainstream media. For example, I often use Mastodon and other platforms like it. Now while popular Mastodon instances obviously don't want to federate with "free speech" instances, those instances still exist and stand on their own. I still remember a discussion some time ago, about federating with what I think was called Gab. At the end of the day, free speech doesn't mean that a platform like twitter has to let you on to their platform, but should you want to create or host your own alternative to Twitter? Well you can, so you're not restricted in your free speech.

Clubber 5y ago
>At the end of the day, free speech doesn't mean that a platform like twitter has to let you on to their platform Perhaps in law, but certainly not spirit. I understand the dilemma. Twitter doesn't want the KKK on their site, but they've gone way too far. It's nothing more than a thinly veiled self-serving propaganda machine anymore, as is all the other large social media sites. The original dream of internet freedom is dead.

Pxtl 5y ago

To me it stems from a basic central problem: verifiable fact has value, but it is not defended by our institutions meaningfully. You can spread all the harmful lies you like as long as your victims are diffuse and lack the standing for a lawsuit. We have plenty of forms of censorship available through the courts - people can be punished for perjury, filing a false report, defamation, false advertising, fraud, uttering threats, etc. But in all those cases, you only face punishment if you target somebody with the standing and means to retain a lawyer, or you target the machinery of justice itself. What happens when you target something like "climate change"? Or vaccines? Or the history of the 2020 election? Nothing. Nobody has standing to sue so the act is not punished. So why is Hulk Hogan more worthy of protection from harmful speech than Climate Change? And letting falsehoods go uncorrected plainly hasn't worked. The "Marketplace of Ideas" has done jack squat about Q or climate change denial or antivaxxers or whatever, and now we're facing real catastrophic impact of those problems. Significant thought-leaders in these communities can be caught over and over again in easily-verifiable lies and supporting extremist and hateful content... and face no consequences in terms of losing support through the normal mechanisms of the platform. You can see what happens to platforms without substantive moderation or censorship - they're gradually consumed by obsessed extremists who simply exhaust all the normal people until they leave. So, with the total failure of a government policy to tackle the problem, is it any wonder that people are looking to the owners of the platforms to tackle the issue? They have the means, and can be influenced through threats of boycotts. Until reality itself can sue for defamation, we have to come up with a decent alternative. The stakes are high and the impact is real.

adamrezich 5y ago
why assume that our institutions have all of the verifiable facts? verifiable by whom? the institutions themselves? and which institutions? the elected federal government? the appointed federal government? the intelligence agencies? who is the authority on truth, and what gives them that authority?
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  The platforms are the authority on truth on their platform. I question whether they should want to be such an authority, or whether they are competent to be such an authority, but they have the power (both technically and, currently, legally) to be the authority... on their own platform.
- Pxtl 5y ago
  Because we already do that when it's a matter of perjury, filing a false report, defamation, fraud, etc. In all those cases, the government becomes the arbiter of truth. If celebrities can sue the Daily Mail for lying about them and win, why doesn't climate change or covid infectiousness get the same protection, considering the stakes are so much higher?