4 ms·

I would stay well within the law if I would reply to your post with "oh fuck off you retarded cunt!!!" This would obviously fall well within the protections of

I would stay well within the law if I would reply to your post with "oh fuck off you retarded cunt!!!" This would obviously fall well within the protections of free speech for many countries, certainly those of the U.S. And if you really wanted to you can go much nastier than that. But I don't think it should be allowed here, or even on Twitter. Even using as an example here already feels iffy, but I feel adding it makes the point clearer.

mytailorisrich 4y ago
But you are not making any points here, just basically a stunt. If Twitter is the de facto standard and akin to an utility why should they make decisions on what's allowed beyond lawfulness?
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  > But you are not making any points here, just basically a stunt. My point is that allowing "anything that's within the law" will lead to some pretty unpleasant stuff. > If Twitter is the de facto standard and akin to an utility why should they make decisions on what's allowed beyond lawfulness? I don't think Twitter is the "de-facto standard" or akin to an utility, and the problem is that by allowing such content you would drive away a lot of people who would rather not be buried with insults and nastiness every time they post something. There are loads of places where speech is regulated in some way, and you can't just go off on a expletive-laden rant at any moment. If I go to a Biden or Trump Q&A townhall meeting and start shouting abuse at him I will be removed as well.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    You're still attempting to take my comments to the extreme instead of making a substantial reply on any of my points (unfortunately). In addition, whether a certain moderation approach would "drive away people" is a strawman. This is not the question.
    - Beltalowda 4y ago
      > You're still attempting to take my comments to the extreme instead of making a substantial reply on any of my points (unfortunately). That was not my intention; I'm genuinely trying to engage constructively and in good faith. You stated that "anything that's within the law should be allowed", and I'm trying to examine what that would mean and what effects it would have. With an extreme example, yes, but that is the sort of stuff that would be allowed under your proposed policy. Now, if you think that's an acceptable trade-off: fair enough, I can't argue with that. But I don't think it can merely be brushed aside with "that's extreme", because in my experience things like that will be posted, usually by a small (but very active) group of people. > In addition, whether a certain moderation approach would "drive away people" is a strawman. This is not the question. The question is what effect this policy would have. This is, in my opinion, one of them.

mytailorisrich 4y ago

But you are not making any points here, just basically a stunt. If Twitter is the de facto standard and akin to an utility why should they make decisions on what's allowed beyond lawfulness?

Beltalowda 4y ago
> But you are not making any points here, just basically a stunt. My point is that allowing "anything that's within the law" will lead to some pretty unpleasant stuff. > If Twitter is the de facto standard and akin to an utility why should they make decisions on what's allowed beyond lawfulness? I don't think Twitter is the "de-facto standard" or akin to an utility, and the problem is that by allowing such content you would drive away a lot of people who would rather not be buried with insults and nastiness every time they post something. There are loads of places where speech is regulated in some way, and you can't just go off on a expletive-laden rant at any moment. If I go to a Biden or Trump Q&A townhall meeting and start shouting abuse at him I will be removed as well.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  You're still attempting to take my comments to the extreme instead of making a substantial reply on any of my points (unfortunately). In addition, whether a certain moderation approach would "drive away people" is a strawman. This is not the question.
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    > You're still attempting to take my comments to the extreme instead of making a substantial reply on any of my points (unfortunately). That was not my intention; I'm genuinely trying to engage constructively and in good faith. You stated that "anything that's within the law should be allowed", and I'm trying to examine what that would mean and what effects it would have. With an extreme example, yes, but that is the sort of stuff that would be allowed under your proposed policy. Now, if you think that's an acceptable trade-off: fair enough, I can't argue with that. But I don't think it can merely be brushed aside with "that's extreme", because in my experience things like that will be posted, usually by a small (but very active) group of people. > In addition, whether a certain moderation approach would "drive away people" is a strawman. This is not the question. The question is what effect this policy would have. This is, in my opinion, one of them.