3 ms·
Talk about an appeal to absurdity. The point is made, however, it's a bit hyperbolic. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that moderation is absolutely requ
by r00fus 4y ago
Talk about an appeal to absurdity. The point is made, however, it's a bit hyperbolic.
In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that moderation is absolutely required for any "public square". You can't have society without some agreed-upon rules.
The real question is where are the lines, and how do you police them (and who polices the police, etc etc). It's not like we haven't solved those. It's just that the solutions themselves are imperfect like the world we live in.
- istinetz 4y ago>In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that moderation is absolutely required for any "public square". No. You want moderation, because you don't want people saying The Bad Things™, but it's not an absolute property of all discussion. Otherwise - you're missing the point that GP wants to destroy twitter in it's current form because we don't need a public square. It's not a matter of where we draw the lines for moderation.
- btbuildem 4y agoIn a real public square, moderation is both official (the police, keeping the peace or enforcing authoritarian oppression, depending on where you are) and organic (a loudmouth nazi sympathizer getting knocked out and nobody-having-seen-anything). Not that the IRL public square is immune to rule-breaking. In the heat of the moment, a mob can do horrendous things in a flash.