3 ms·
I agree that information can do harm. I wouldn't even consider that an opinion, rather an observable fact. "Harm" is very fuzzy though. Twitter's extremophiles
by fleddr 5y ago
I agree that information can do harm. I wouldn't even consider that an opinion, rather an observable fact.
"Harm" is very fuzzy though. Twitter's extremophiles call reading something they don't like "genocide". So basically, anything is harm. Harm can be real, imagined, perceived, understated, overstated, direct, indirect, grasping at straws.
Further, any matter of importance or division has no clear-cut right or wrong. There's always a gray zone.
- csee 5y agoYes I agree. The people who go overboard like this are dangerous in their own way, and I'd say are even more dangerous than the free speech absolutists who insist on constraining private companies in a way that is actually anti-1A. What I advocate for is basically what we have now. Non-governmental, voluntary and minimal censorship of things that are likely to cause outsized harm in the real world. Also called moderation. I want these platforms to voluntarily remove ISIS propaganda, outright hate speech, election misinformation, and a few other categories, and otherwise allow open discourse. These are all slippery slopes (especially election misinformation removal), but that shouldn't resign us to simply throw up our hands and allow Kremlin propaganda to destabilize democracies.