3 ms·

Can’t edit my comment anymore so I’ll just reply here. I don’t see what’s obvious about the “but what about” categories for sex and violence. You could make th

Can’t edit my comment anymore so I’ll just reply here. I don’t see what’s obvious about the “but what about” categories for sex and violence. You could make the same argument about medical misinformation or hate speech — they’re obviously a separate category that social networks should censor. (You could also make the reverse argument about spam — who is Twitter to prevent Bob’s Viagra Store from promoting his business?) The point being that it’s all in the eye of the beholder. Everyone has their own line, and if you want to convince others to adopt yours you’re going to have to do more than offer as an axiom that sex and violence are uniquely deserving of censorship.

harshreality 5y ago
Didn't I make it clear it's not my line? Historical precedent. There's also plenty of precedent for restricting commercial speech and activity: zoning laws. Incorrect statements about the world (unless they're directed at people and companies, then there's slander and libel law), have never been the subject of legal restrictions that I'm aware of. Social, yes, legal, no. You can stand on a street corner with a sign protesting science and demanding recognition of flat earth theory. However, try that with a sign depicting gore or porn. Depending on your location, authorities would probably use some generic statute like disturbing the peace or some "harmful to minors" statute. I'd be shocked if any action were taken against anyone advocating Flat Earth Theory. Religious fanatics regularly do much worse protesting abortion clinics. The issue shows up when certain content is being broadcast in the public square. I think all of these things, from covid misinformation to sex and violence, are so prevalent on the internet that blocking it on the major social media sites is futile. I think it should be handled with a tag system, without blocking or deranking anything other than allowing people to choose which specially tagged content shows up in their feeds. But as long as they don't have those kinds of tagging systems (twitter allows users to flag their own accounts as 18+, but nothing else and nothing more granular except on their administrative backend), they can hide behind the excuse that their algorithms put arbitrary content into other people's feeds, and therefore the content that has historical precedent for community restrictions (obscene, disruptive, or harmful to minors) can plausibly be restricted on their platforms too.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

harshreality 5y ago

Didn't I make it clear it's not my line? Historical precedent. There's also plenty of precedent for restricting commercial speech and activity: zoning laws. Incorrect statements about the world (unless they're directed at people and companies, then there's slander and libel law), have never been the subject of legal restrictions that I'm aware of. Social, yes, legal, no. You can stand on a street corner with a sign protesting science and demanding recognition of flat earth theory. However, try that with a sign depicting gore or porn. Depending on your location, authorities would probably use some generic statute like disturbing the peace or some "harmful to minors" statute. I'd be shocked if any action were taken against anyone advocating Flat Earth Theory. Religious fanatics regularly do much worse protesting abortion clinics. The issue shows up when certain content is being broadcast in the public square. I think all of these things, from covid misinformation to sex and violence, are so prevalent on the internet that blocking it on the major social media sites is futile. I think it should be handled with a tag system, without blocking or deranking anything other than allowing people to choose which specially tagged content shows up in their feeds. But as long as they don't have those kinds of tagging systems (twitter allows users to flag their own accounts as 18+, but nothing else and nothing more granular except on their administrative backend), they can hide behind the excuse that their algorithms put arbitrary content into other people's feeds, and therefore the content that has historical precedent for community restrictions (obscene, disruptive, or harmful to minors) can plausibly be restricted on their platforms too.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]