5 ms·

> Harmful speech and misinformation should not have a platform. Interesting phrasing. By using the word "and", you are saying that those are two different cate

> Harmful speech and misinformation should not have a platform. Interesting phrasing. By using the word "and", you are saying that those are two different categories of speech, that do not totally overlap. Meaning you believe speech that is not misinformation, i.e. true, factual speech, should be banned, if it is deemed "harmful"?

cratermoon 5y ago
Yes, if it is a harmful perlocutionary act.
- chuckee 5y ago
  That's very abstract - could you give an example of harmful, true information, that you wish was banned?
  - cratermoon 5y ago
    I provided links to the information. Read them.
    - chuckee 5y ago
      The first link only has the abstract available, that contains no such examples. The second link gives me an endless captcha. The closest to an example that I could find in the very verbose third link was the 'okay' hand gesture. Is that the kind of expressions you want banned? What about, for example, a website that catalogues black-on-white murders, and ignores white-on-black murders, would that be allowed, or is it harmful? What about the reverse? The third link also says anti-immigrant speech should be banned. Does that mean "I believe immigration should be reduced" gets censored? If anti-immigrant speech should be banned, does it then follow that anti-non-immigrant speech is also not permissible? E.g. statements disparaging the local majority population? When you say "harmful" speech, implicitly you mean "harmful to my values". Others see harm in speech that you find agreeable. But you are confident that the enforcers will share your values, and the speech that ends up banned won't be, for example, undermining the territorial integrity of China.
      - cratermoon 5y ago
        Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
        chuckee 5y ago
        > Sealioning thus works both to exhaust a target's patience, attention, and communicative effort, and to portray the target as unreasonable. I deeply apologize if providing a single, one-sentence answer has exhausted your patience and attention. Your dismissal is of course correct - anyone that asks the most basic clarifying questions, as I have done, is doing so maliciously. If they weren't malicious, they would simply concede that you are correct, and that would be the end of the debate.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Advertising?

cratermoon 5y ago

Yes, if it is a harmful perlocutionary act.

chuckee 5y ago
That's very abstract - could you give an example of harmful, true information, that you wish was banned?
- cratermoon 5y ago
  I provided links to the information. Read them.
  - chuckee 5y ago
    The first link only has the abstract available, that contains no such examples. The second link gives me an endless captcha. The closest to an example that I could find in the very verbose third link was the 'okay' hand gesture. Is that the kind of expressions you want banned? What about, for example, a website that catalogues black-on-white murders, and ignores white-on-black murders, would that be allowed, or is it harmful? What about the reverse? The third link also says anti-immigrant speech should be banned. Does that mean "I believe immigration should be reduced" gets censored? If anti-immigrant speech should be banned, does it then follow that anti-non-immigrant speech is also not permissible? E.g. statements disparaging the local majority population? When you say "harmful" speech, implicitly you mean "harmful to my values". Others see harm in speech that you find agreeable. But you are confident that the enforcers will share your values, and the speech that ends up banned won't be, for example, undermining the territorial integrity of China.
    - cratermoon 5y ago
      Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
      - chuckee 5y ago
        > Sealioning thus works both to exhaust a target's patience, attention, and communicative effort, and to portray the target as unreasonable. I deeply apologize if providing a single, one-sentence answer has exhausted your patience and attention. Your dismissal is of course correct - anyone that asks the most basic clarifying questions, as I have done, is doing so maliciously. If they weren't malicious, they would simply concede that you are correct, and that would be the end of the debate.
raxxorrax 5y ago
Advertising?