7 ms·

So you would have no issue with a concerted, national effort backed by politicians and the owner of the largest public square on the Internet to label you a ped

So you would have no issue with a concerted, national effort backed by politicians and the owner of the largest public square on the Internet to label you a pedophile and an enemy of the people? And you would react kindly to the wave of death threats and potential violence towards you and your loved ones that would come as a result?

noxer 4y ago
This is totally silly, these are slurs/insults not acts of violence or incitements. Also why is "groomer" apparently "incitement of violence" but directly saying "pedophile" isn't? How can one word put people in imminent danger but the other not if they are almost interchangeably used? Needless to say that if a word is banned people just use a different word or they use codes. So if you are actually worried about people getting hurt you know that banning word and related account suspensions isn't doing anything against actual violence.
- trs8080 4y ago
  > Also why is "groomer" apparently "incitement of violence" but directly saying "pedophile" isn't? How can one word put people in imminent danger but the other not if they are almost interchangeably used? That's the point. Both put people in danger when used maliciously. If I told all your neighbors that you're a pedophile and a danger to children, you would feel uncomfortable and probably unsafe. Now imagine that I told all your neighbors, and then started putting up flyers all around town. Would you feel safe? Do you think you'd be able to convince your town that you're not a pedophile? Just saying "more free speech defeats bad speech" doesn't really work. I'm not talking about banning words. I'm talking about moderation to deal with targeted campaigns of misinformation designed to put people in danger by powerful people with huge platforms. > these are slurs/insults not acts of violence or incitements When your rhetoric also often includes violence, they are incitements. "There's a pedophile living in your neighborhood, snatching up children left and right, right under your nose! We must act as We The People to defend our way of life against these groomers!"
  - noxer 4y ago
    You are confusing speech on twitter with real life actions that include speech. Going to my neighbors and lie about me is a real life action with speech. On top of that you force them to listen to you (at least temporally) AND it is targeted specifically at my neighbors which means you have an intent beyond informing people from the general public who happened to voluntary listens to you. If it would actually be true then you could make the claim that your intent is to protect my neighbors kids (but you should ofc instead report it to the police) but if it is a baseless false accusation or lie then your INTENT was to harm me and that is not comparable in any way with a "slur", "insult" or "mean speech" its an actual criminal act. >When your rhetoric also often includes violence, they are incitements. "There's a pedophile living in your neighborhood, snatching up children left and right, right under your nose! We must act as We The People to defend our way of life against these groomers!" Nothing is this example is even remotely criminal, there is no way to find intent to harm someone in that. It could be boiled down to "lets protect our kids from criminals" A (generic) call to action but not to violence. Its ofc silly to post something like that on twitter but it wouldn't even violate twitter rules. The word "groomer" on twitter is only "banned" if directed against a twitter user or other specific non-anonymous real person. What actually happens on twitter is people are filmed acting and saying weird, creepy or sexual things around/to kids (Even the POTUS did that) and then people call them "groomers", "pedos" and other insults. I dont see the point of doing that but its definitely not criminal and not an incitement of violence its an insult and expression of disgust.

noxer 4y ago

This is totally silly, these are slurs/insults not acts of violence or incitements. Also why is "groomer" apparently "incitement of violence" but directly saying "pedophile" isn't? How can one word put people in imminent danger but the other not if they are almost interchangeably used? Needless to say that if a word is banned people just use a different word or they use codes. So if you are actually worried about people getting hurt you know that banning word and related account suspensions isn't doing anything against actual violence.

trs8080 4y ago
> Also why is "groomer" apparently "incitement of violence" but directly saying "pedophile" isn't? How can one word put people in imminent danger but the other not if they are almost interchangeably used? That's the point. Both put people in danger when used maliciously. If I told all your neighbors that you're a pedophile and a danger to children, you would feel uncomfortable and probably unsafe. Now imagine that I told all your neighbors, and then started putting up flyers all around town. Would you feel safe? Do you think you'd be able to convince your town that you're not a pedophile? Just saying "more free speech defeats bad speech" doesn't really work. I'm not talking about banning words. I'm talking about moderation to deal with targeted campaigns of misinformation designed to put people in danger by powerful people with huge platforms. > these are slurs/insults not acts of violence or incitements When your rhetoric also often includes violence, they are incitements. "There's a pedophile living in your neighborhood, snatching up children left and right, right under your nose! We must act as We The People to defend our way of life against these groomers!"
- noxer 4y ago
  You are confusing speech on twitter with real life actions that include speech. Going to my neighbors and lie about me is a real life action with speech. On top of that you force them to listen to you (at least temporally) AND it is targeted specifically at my neighbors which means you have an intent beyond informing people from the general public who happened to voluntary listens to you. If it would actually be true then you could make the claim that your intent is to protect my neighbors kids (but you should ofc instead report it to the police) but if it is a baseless false accusation or lie then your INTENT was to harm me and that is not comparable in any way with a "slur", "insult" or "mean speech" its an actual criminal act. >When your rhetoric also often includes violence, they are incitements. "There's a pedophile living in your neighborhood, snatching up children left and right, right under your nose! We must act as We The People to defend our way of life against these groomers!" Nothing is this example is even remotely criminal, there is no way to find intent to harm someone in that. It could be boiled down to "lets protect our kids from criminals" A (generic) call to action but not to violence. Its ofc silly to post something like that on twitter but it wouldn't even violate twitter rules. The word "groomer" on twitter is only "banned" if directed against a twitter user or other specific non-anonymous real person. What actually happens on twitter is people are filmed acting and saying weird, creepy or sexual things around/to kids (Even the POTUS did that) and then people call them "groomers", "pedos" and other insults. I dont see the point of doing that but its definitely not criminal and not an incitement of violence its an insult and expression of disgust.