3 ms·
This is 100% what I used to think re: the censorship debate, so hear me out. The problem isn't censorship or dangerous speech. The problem is NOT censorship!
by throwawaygh 5y ago
This is 100% what I used to think re: the censorship debate, so hear me out.
The problem isn't censorship or dangerous speech.
The problem is NOT censorship! Literally everyone can throw apache on an old laptop and then punch a hole in port 80 on their home router. Some issues with that setup, sure, but we had billionaire POTUS crying censorship. Fucker could buy a bunch of data centers with a week's income or whatever, so clearly has the ability to speak, but also isn't wrong that his speech on twitter/fb is being curtailed.
The problem is not dangerous speech either, though. Something happened over the last 10 years that I'm absolutely certain would not have happened if we were still hosting everything on geocities or BBSes.
The problem is platforms and profit motive.
- jimmygrapes 5y agoTo add on to your thought, I think the problem is somewhere closer to "network effects" or "expected reach". Hear me out: there is Ana increasing expectation, realistic or not, that every voice CAN be heard (or words read, or whatever disability compliant version you like) by everybody else. That you have the RIGHT to be heard. That if you aren't heard (and maybe even amplified), you are being unfairly punished. In the U.S. and E.U. and others there is some aspect of that enshrined in the founding documents, in the form of right to petition[1] but it generally doesn't spill over into the right for your ideas to be spread to your fellow citizen/countryman/human/otherkin beyond the government. After all, why should [popular person] get so many views when MY videos or writings or recordings are so much better? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition