4 ms·
I think this only appears to be a contradiction, because your concerns apply at different scales. You can reconcile the tension by insisting that the public ut
by deadpannini 4y ago
I think this only appears to be a contradiction, because your concerns apply at different scales.
You can reconcile the tension by insisting that the public utility platforms (e.g., Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, etc.) remain neutral with respect to non-criminal content, but give people the tools to moderate and curate speech at a more granular level (like subreddits, or tools to filter who you see on Twitter).
- tailspin2019 4y agoI like this idea, but things like “tools to filter who you see on Twitter” rely on self moderating of content you’re exposed to. We all already have that capability in many respects. Eg I don’t really use Twitter at all apart from the odd tweet that will be referred to me. I moderate what I see by actively avoiding most social media (aside from HN of course) because I’ve decided that this is the easiest way to avoid sub-standard content that doesn’t add value for me. (A sweeping statement but just for sake of argument). So let’s say someone says something extremely insulting about a minority group - just on the right side of legal, but otherwise a disgusting remark when measured against social norms. Do we say that the utility platforms shouldn’t touch this because it’s not illegal? Because some of those subgroups of people and individuals with the moderation/curation responsibilities will proliferate that content rather than moderate it. I’m not saying you’re wrong, and I’m not arguing for strong censorship - I don’t have a counter suggestion, I’m just thinking it through…