3 ms·

Do you truly, genuinely think that is what people want, or are you constructing a straw man to beat up? Do you care to make a point, or are you just asking lead

Do you truly, genuinely think that is what people want, or are you constructing a straw man to beat up? Do you care to make a point, or are you just asking leading questions that create the illusion that you're making a point?

Ekaros 4y ago
They are not on barricades when anyone is kicked out from social media platforms. As thus I'm fully sure that they support all types of censorship or at least those types advancing their own agendas.
commandlinefan 4y ago
> Do you truly, genuinely think that is what people want I can't honestly believe you don't think there are a lot of people who want that. They've been very up front about it.
- zaik 4y ago
  Who exactly? The most common argument is that platforms should have the right to refuse service to users, not that those users should be jailed.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  I think it genuinely depends on how extreme the speech is. Alex Jones arguably profited by spreading lies knowing it would ruin the lives of specific people who already had tragedy happen to them. I genuinely don’t know how to defend that behavior on principles of free speech and genuinely wished Alex Jones was stopped years earlier. Michelle Carter convinced her boyfriend to commit suicide over text messages and was convicted for it. I don’t know if I disagree that trying to use speech to convince a sick person into suicide shouldn’t be legal. But at the same time I’m generally a free speech proponent and find jailing people for speech abhorrent. But I struggle to believe all speech should be legal if it knowingly ruins lives or causes death.
  - potatototoo99 4y ago
    Alex Jones spouting some conspiracy theories didn't ruin any person's lives. The chilling effect of attacking "desinformation" on the other hand, does.
    - dmix 4y ago
      Plus human societies has survived and thrived for a long time and it has always had a fringe group of conspiracy theorists nipping at the heels of the mainstream. There's really no justification for extreme measures to deal with this problem, especially when the potential side-effects largely outweigh any potential gains. People try to say that things are different now with tech, that conspiracies are spreading faster. But what is also spreading faster and is 10x more popular than conspiracy theories is alarmist news and pearl clutching that society won't be able to deal with it without widespread censorship. People need to step away from Twitter and take a deep breath. We can handle it.
  - coderaptor 4y ago
    Blame the fools who believe the misinformation (or better yet, take responsibility for publishing truth in a more compelling form). It takes two to tango, and one of these tango dancers was raised in a country where they were given a right to dance.
rhino369 4y ago
>Do you truly, genuinely think that is what people want Many do want something like this--as long as someone with their viewpoint is the one deciding what is true or false. >asking leading questions that create the illusion that you're making a point? It's called a rhetorical question.
- Nevermark 4y ago
  Actually it’s called a leading question A rhetorical question usually has an answer too obvious for any need to answer A leading question creates a discussion on some topic, using the question instead of some new information or rational argument, to move the baseline assumptions of the discussion

Ekaros 4y ago

They are not on barricades when anyone is kicked out from social media platforms. As thus I'm fully sure that they support all types of censorship or at least those types advancing their own agendas.

commandlinefan 4y ago

> Do you truly, genuinely think that is what people want I can't honestly believe you don't think there are a lot of people who want that. They've been very up front about it.

zaik 4y ago
Who exactly? The most common argument is that platforms should have the right to refuse service to users, not that those users should be jailed.
SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
I think it genuinely depends on how extreme the speech is. Alex Jones arguably profited by spreading lies knowing it would ruin the lives of specific people who already had tragedy happen to them. I genuinely don’t know how to defend that behavior on principles of free speech and genuinely wished Alex Jones was stopped years earlier. Michelle Carter convinced her boyfriend to commit suicide over text messages and was convicted for it. I don’t know if I disagree that trying to use speech to convince a sick person into suicide shouldn’t be legal. But at the same time I’m generally a free speech proponent and find jailing people for speech abhorrent. But I struggle to believe all speech should be legal if it knowingly ruins lives or causes death.
- potatototoo99 4y ago
  Alex Jones spouting some conspiracy theories didn't ruin any person's lives. The chilling effect of attacking "desinformation" on the other hand, does.
  - dmix 4y ago
    Plus human societies has survived and thrived for a long time and it has always had a fringe group of conspiracy theorists nipping at the heels of the mainstream. There's really no justification for extreme measures to deal with this problem, especially when the potential side-effects largely outweigh any potential gains. People try to say that things are different now with tech, that conspiracies are spreading faster. But what is also spreading faster and is 10x more popular than conspiracy theories is alarmist news and pearl clutching that society won't be able to deal with it without widespread censorship. People need to step away from Twitter and take a deep breath. We can handle it.
- coderaptor 4y ago
  Blame the fools who believe the misinformation (or better yet, take responsibility for publishing truth in a more compelling form). It takes two to tango, and one of these tango dancers was raised in a country where they were given a right to dance.

rhino369 4y ago

>Do you truly, genuinely think that is what people want Many do want something like this--as long as someone with their viewpoint is the one deciding what is true or false. >asking leading questions that create the illusion that you're making a point? It's called a rhetorical question.

Nevermark 4y ago
Actually it’s called a leading question A rhetorical question usually has an answer too obvious for any need to answer A leading question creates a discussion on some topic, using the question instead of some new information or rational argument, to move the baseline assumptions of the discussion