5 ms·

> nobody wants Nazis or Pedophiles to spread their opinions because they are obscene. I want both sets of people to expose their views to the public. Disgustin

> nobody wants Nazis or Pedophiles to spread their opinions because they are obscene. I want both sets of people to expose their views to the public. Disgusting though these views may be, it is safer for society if individuals are able to check and decide that someone else's views are reprehensible. If the people are merely told such by authorities, with the "offending" content immediately removed, then the authorities have enormous power to expand the definition of "offending" when it pleases them to do so.

GoOnThenDoTell 5y ago
People aren’t ironclad in their current views of right and wrong for all topics, its possible to convince people of really anything with enough exposure
- malthuswaswrong 5y ago
  >its possible to convince people of really anything with enough exposure Not really. You can spend days, weeks, and months; millions of dollars; thousands of paid shill accounts; all geared towards selling a single lie. And that lie can be exposed to millions of people in 10 seconds for free. But only if there is free speech.
colordrops 5y ago
Agreed, the neo-nazis were fringe and people laughed at their marches. Now that they are taken entirely too seriously, the attention and victimization has empowered them to recruit and grow. The deplatforming has had the opposite of the intended effect, instead putting them in a spotlight.
- phs318u 5y ago
  Except that's not quite the sequence that occurred to my recollection. With the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, what was previously "unsayable" was being said by the highest voices, directly legitimising fringe voices and empowering many that previously self-regulated to an extend for fear of judgement. That fear proved unfounded as it turned out and media (both MSM and social) amplified all sorts of previously fringe content. It's only once the push-back began that companies, fearing for their bottom line in some form or other (customers moving, regulation, legal fights) began turfing people off their platforms. At least, that's how it seems to me.
IggleSniggle 5y ago
There’s an argument around growing / shrinking a market here. Have you ever experienced morbid fascination? Some people get addicted to the experience of horror (I don’t mean the genre). This arguably creates a new demand for something that even those demanding it would not otherwise have had any interest in. I think you’re right about the dangers of giving authority over what does and doesn’t get censored, but there are also very real dangers on the other side of this. You don’t make consuming heroin normative, because you don’t want to make it easy to fall into an addiction by accident for those who are more prone to do so. The more harm the addiction causes to society as a whole, the more prerogative you have to protect people from accidentally becoming addicted.
- rglullis 5y ago
  We "protected" people from heroin addiction by getting a State-sponsored opiod addiction.
aklemm 5y ago
This doesn’t produce a good outcome because violent, indefensible bad actors shout down others and each one drives away 100 reasonable people. Yours is naive idea, though I recognize you are advocating for the good of all.

GoOnThenDoTell 5y ago

People aren’t ironclad in their current views of right and wrong for all topics, its possible to convince people of really anything with enough exposure

malthuswaswrong 5y ago
>its possible to convince people of really anything with enough exposure Not really. You can spend days, weeks, and months; millions of dollars; thousands of paid shill accounts; all geared towards selling a single lie. And that lie can be exposed to millions of people in 10 seconds for free. But only if there is free speech.

colordrops 5y ago

Agreed, the neo-nazis were fringe and people laughed at their marches. Now that they are taken entirely too seriously, the attention and victimization has empowered them to recruit and grow. The deplatforming has had the opposite of the intended effect, instead putting them in a spotlight.

phs318u 5y ago
Except that's not quite the sequence that occurred to my recollection. With the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, what was previously "unsayable" was being said by the highest voices, directly legitimising fringe voices and empowering many that previously self-regulated to an extend for fear of judgement. That fear proved unfounded as it turned out and media (both MSM and social) amplified all sorts of previously fringe content. It's only once the push-back began that companies, fearing for their bottom line in some form or other (customers moving, regulation, legal fights) began turfing people off their platforms. At least, that's how it seems to me.

IggleSniggle 5y ago

There’s an argument around growing / shrinking a market here. Have you ever experienced morbid fascination? Some people get addicted to the experience of horror (I don’t mean the genre). This arguably creates a new demand for something that even those demanding it would not otherwise have had any interest in. I think you’re right about the dangers of giving authority over what does and doesn’t get censored, but there are also very real dangers on the other side of this. You don’t make consuming heroin normative, because you don’t want to make it easy to fall into an addiction by accident for those who are more prone to do so. The more harm the addiction causes to society as a whole, the more prerogative you have to protect people from accidentally becoming addicted.

rglullis 5y ago
We "protected" people from heroin addiction by getting a State-sponsored opiod addiction.

aklemm 5y ago

This doesn’t produce a good outcome because violent, indefensible bad actors shout down others and each one drives away 100 reasonable people. Yours is naive idea, though I recognize you are advocating for the good of all.