6 ms·

This is always going to be the argument against anything like this, and of course it should be used with caution. Then again, my life is too short to be dealing

This is always going to be the argument against anything like this, and of course it should be used with caution. Then again, my life is too short to be dealing with (say) bots, literal nazis etc. While their opinions may be interesting occasionally, it's not always worth the energy expended on some people. > the antithesis of dialogue Yes, perhaps > , freedom of speech, No absolutely not. Not in any interpretation of "freedom of speech" is individuals choosing not to listen to other indivuduals the antithesis of freedom of speech.

eftychis 5y ago
>> , freedom of speech, > No absolutely not. Not in any interpretation of "freedom of speech" is individuals choosing not to listen to other indivuduals the antithesis of freedom of speech. How long do you think it will take for shared block lists to appear or for people to block people of other parties (e.g. Republicans blocking Democrats and vice-versa)? A bubble then or an algorithm has effectively banned a set of people from reaching another set of people. I agree in the U.S. legal sense, the liberty of freedom of speech is not applicable, as it is a negative right, a liberty that is, that is to not be infringed solely by the government. Twitter or people are not involved parties. However: a) It is against the whole goal of free speech for me to decide that e.g. a friend of mine or a stranger should not listen to this "noise." (It could be in fact noise, the quotes are here as it is regardless a subjective claim.) b) And a level further, using this tool, we are banning someone that might have partially agreed with some disliked news or statement but never heard their position. The whole point of freedom of speech is to allow dialogue. Our future selves never have the chance to write to the people we just blocked. (Or hear them.) Your past self just self censored your future self.

eftychis 5y ago

>> , freedom of speech, > No absolutely not. Not in any interpretation of "freedom of speech" is individuals choosing not to listen to other indivuduals the antithesis of freedom of speech. How long do you think it will take for shared block lists to appear or for people to block people of other parties (e.g. Republicans blocking Democrats and vice-versa)? A bubble then or an algorithm has effectively banned a set of people from reaching another set of people. I agree in the U.S. legal sense, the liberty of freedom of speech is not applicable, as it is a negative right, a liberty that is, that is to not be infringed solely by the government. Twitter or people are not involved parties. However: a) It is against the whole goal of free speech for me to decide that e.g. a friend of mine or a stranger should not listen to this "noise." (It could be in fact noise, the quotes are here as it is regardless a subjective claim.) b) And a level further, using this tool, we are banning someone that might have partially agreed with some disliked news or statement but never heard their position. The whole point of freedom of speech is to allow dialogue. Our future selves never have the chance to write to the people we just blocked. (Or hear them.) Your past self just self censored your future self.