3 ms·

You were doing okay up to that last disastrous couple sentences. The legal system most emphatically should not engage in monitoring and removal of speech. It'

You were doing okay up to that last disastrous couple sentences. The legal system most emphatically should not engage in monitoring and removal of speech. It's bad enough when private companies do it, and that should be opposed as strongly as possible — but government shouldn't begin to touch the decision of what opinions are and are not allowable.

dudus 5y ago
What's a good solution then? Who should be the judge of right vs wrong if not for actual judges? Or you think no monitoring is the best scenario, even with evidence of how speach has been weaponized on social media to push for conflict.
- d110af5ccf 5y ago
  There is no good solution. You either tolerate the necessary consequences of actually being able to speak freely or you curtail those freedoms in order to avoid the consequences of having them. Actually, I disagree with the bit where I said there's no good solution. Curtailing free speech is never a good solution as far as I'm concerned. Freedom includes the ability to choose to behave poorly. This is a fundamental consequence of having a free society.
  - JasonFruit 5y ago
    Since I was being asked, this is exactly the answer I would have given. We don't have to have a solution for every problem, because living in society together has inconveniences; some of them are simply worth it.
  - robbedpeter 5y ago
    There is a good solution - culture and positive social feedback loops. That's also the hardest thing to get right, dependent on shared values and open communication and people wanting to participate.
equality_1138 5y ago
Try to understand that the economy is structured on a system of laws that facilitate the provision of jobs and goods/services by companies, while minimizing harm and maximizing fairness. Are you anti-regulation in general, or saying something more like Facebook is a special case that for some strange reason should keep hiding from legal scrutiny?
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  I've addressed how I think it should be handled elsewhere in the thread. I'm just going to point out here that condescension — "Try to understand [that my model of the world is the correct one]" — doesn't help gain an audience for your opinion.
  - equality_1138 5y ago
    Sorry, just asking questions in a manner I thought was appropriate following your response with the words 'disastrous' and 'emphatic'. Honestly it's unclear how or whether you think this brigading issue should be handled. I see that you think Facebook's actions here should be "opposed as strongly as possible" but excluding use of our legal system(?)

dudus 5y ago

What's a good solution then? Who should be the judge of right vs wrong if not for actual judges? Or you think no monitoring is the best scenario, even with evidence of how speach has been weaponized on social media to push for conflict.

d110af5ccf 5y ago
There is no good solution. You either tolerate the necessary consequences of actually being able to speak freely or you curtail those freedoms in order to avoid the consequences of having them. Actually, I disagree with the bit where I said there's no good solution. Curtailing free speech is never a good solution as far as I'm concerned. Freedom includes the ability to choose to behave poorly. This is a fundamental consequence of having a free society.
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  Since I was being asked, this is exactly the answer I would have given. We don't have to have a solution for every problem, because living in society together has inconveniences; some of them are simply worth it.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  There is a good solution - culture and positive social feedback loops. That's also the hardest thing to get right, dependent on shared values and open communication and people wanting to participate.

equality_1138 5y ago

Try to understand that the economy is structured on a system of laws that facilitate the provision of jobs and goods/services by companies, while minimizing harm and maximizing fairness. Are you anti-regulation in general, or saying something more like Facebook is a special case that for some strange reason should keep hiding from legal scrutiny?

JasonFruit 5y ago
I've addressed how I think it should be handled elsewhere in the thread. I'm just going to point out here that condescension — "Try to understand [that my model of the world is the correct one]" — doesn't help gain an audience for your opinion.
- equality_1138 5y ago
  Sorry, just asking questions in a manner I thought was appropriate following your response with the words 'disastrous' and 'emphatic'. Honestly it's unclear how or whether you think this brigading issue should be handled. I see that you think Facebook's actions here should be "opposed as strongly as possible" but excluding use of our legal system(?)