3 ms·

Just to not forget the “past”: Trump was banned from twitter due to inciting violence, see https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https:/

by kaba0 4y ago

Just to not forget the “past”: Trump was banned from twitter due to inciting violence, see https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... There is an objective truth out there, no reason to return to our echo chambers. Some people are angry at Elon buying twitter because a subjectively good platform might just die in a short time, because everyone who had even an ounce of try at managing a platform knows that “unmoderated free speech” is just shitposting. Also, I don’t see how death threats, n-words and the like would contribute to any discussion.

kragen 4y ago
The objective truth is that states are founded on violence — both punishment for crimes and warfare — so every politician spends their entire career inciting violence. "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists" is inciting violence against whatever country refuses to fall in line. "Three strikes and you're out" is inciting violence against junkies, hundreds of thousands of whom are imprisoned in the US today as a result. The press in the US had unmoderated free speech for over a century until the FCC was established, and print publishing still does. That's why the New York Times bought the first Gatling guns: they were inciting violence (specifically, the Civil War) and justifiably feared that rioters would try to lynch them. Though you're probably too young to remember it, Usenet had unmoderated free speech for about 25 years. Freenet still does. It's not a bullshit idea. Just an unpopular one.
- moistly 4y ago
  > Though you're probably too young to remember it, Usenet had unmoderated free speech for about 25 years. To the point that it became dangerous to use a Usenet browser that would automatically download & display attachments because extremely illegal content would be displayed. God forbid you were running a server, because that was getting pretty close to “possessing” that shit in your data storage. Unmoderated Usenet became a hell hole. Regulation is, IMO, preferable to seeing unsolicited illegal pornography in one’s social media firehouse. I will argue that no civil society has ever had a truly free press. To my knowledge, there has never been legal press publication of the images Usenet propagated.
  - kragen 4y ago
    maybe the problem is that you live in a place where 'extremely illegal content' is a phrase that makes sense to you. if you live somewhere that criminalizes possession of certain information of course you are not going to want access to free speech; at any moment you could come into accidental possession of photos of tiananmen square. but that's a problem created by your local laws, not by unmoderated free speech
    - Zak 4y ago
      Let's not be abstract here. The content in question was child sexual abuse photographs. Those are illegal almost everywhere (I do not know of any exceptions). Most people think those should be illegal to distribute or intentionally possess. I think that; there is a victim who suffered real harm, which is compounded by distribution of images of their abuse. Perhaps you do not, but you'll probably find that opinion falls under PG's "What You Can't Say".
    - moistly 4y ago
      Are you telling me that you live where it is legal to possess, let alone publish/distribute/“free speech”, photographs of children being raped? Because that is literally what happened circa I’m going to say 1992ish on Usenet, and not in overly obscure newsgroups, but also the ordinary default newsgroups. There is no unmoderated free speech because sick freaks will always do horrible things with their speech if they think they can get away with it. This is as factual as gravity: unmoderated free speech will never be legal speech. Further, you don’t want unmoderated free speech. You cannot unsee those photos.
saurik 4y ago
The point of the person you are responding to wasn't to really defend whether the idea of unbanning Trump was good or not: it was to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to explicitly move to a decentralized solution like Mastadon if that's your concern.
- kaba0 4y ago
  But mastodon is not without moderation on a per instance basis.
  - woah 4y ago
    Also as I said in my comment, the people who want Trump banned do not want to prevent themselves from seeing his tweets, they want to prevent other people from seeing his tweets. This is what Mastodon prevents. If they just didn’t want to see the tweets themselves, they can block him.
    - kaba0 4y ago
      Well, maybe because it is the best for everyone to not see posts which has the potential of armed resurgence against the democratically elected officials against the country, also known as a coup, especially not from a traitor with connections to Saudi Arabia and Russia? And I’m not even from the US, but the country’s fate with the biggest military is insanely important to anyone who shares this planet.
      - saurik 4y ago
        Again... The point of the person you are responding to wasn't to really defend whether the idea of unbanning Trump was good or not: it was to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to explicitly move to a decentralized solution like Mastadon if that's your concern.

by kaba0 4y ago

kragen 4y ago

The objective truth is that states are founded on violence — both punishment for crimes and warfare — so every politician spends their entire career inciting violence. "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists" is inciting violence against whatever country refuses to fall in line. "Three strikes and you're out" is inciting violence against junkies, hundreds of thousands of whom are imprisoned in the US today as a result. The press in the US had unmoderated free speech for over a century until the FCC was established, and print publishing still does. That's why the New York Times bought the first Gatling guns: they were inciting violence (specifically, the Civil War) and justifiably feared that rioters would try to lynch them. Though you're probably too young to remember it, Usenet had unmoderated free speech for about 25 years. Freenet still does. It's not a bullshit idea. Just an unpopular one.

moistly 4y ago
> Though you're probably too young to remember it, Usenet had unmoderated free speech for about 25 years. To the point that it became dangerous to use a Usenet browser that would automatically download & display attachments because extremely illegal content would be displayed. God forbid you were running a server, because that was getting pretty close to “possessing” that shit in your data storage. Unmoderated Usenet became a hell hole. Regulation is, IMO, preferable to seeing unsolicited illegal pornography in one’s social media firehouse. I will argue that no civil society has ever had a truly free press. To my knowledge, there has never been legal press publication of the images Usenet propagated.
- kragen 4y ago
  maybe the problem is that you live in a place where 'extremely illegal content' is a phrase that makes sense to you. if you live somewhere that criminalizes possession of certain information of course you are not going to want access to free speech; at any moment you could come into accidental possession of photos of tiananmen square. but that's a problem created by your local laws, not by unmoderated free speech
  - Zak 4y ago
    Let's not be abstract here. The content in question was child sexual abuse photographs. Those are illegal almost everywhere (I do not know of any exceptions). Most people think those should be illegal to distribute or intentionally possess. I think that; there is a victim who suffered real harm, which is compounded by distribution of images of their abuse. Perhaps you do not, but you'll probably find that opinion falls under PG's "What You Can't Say".
  - moistly 4y ago
    Are you telling me that you live where it is legal to possess, let alone publish/distribute/“free speech”, photographs of children being raped? Because that is literally what happened circa I’m going to say 1992ish on Usenet, and not in overly obscure newsgroups, but also the ordinary default newsgroups. There is no unmoderated free speech because sick freaks will always do horrible things with their speech if they think they can get away with it. This is as factual as gravity: unmoderated free speech will never be legal speech. Further, you don’t want unmoderated free speech. You cannot unsee those photos.

saurik 4y ago

The point of the person you are responding to wasn't to really defend whether the idea of unbanning Trump was good or not: it was to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to explicitly move to a decentralized solution like Mastadon if that's your concern.

kaba0 4y ago
But mastodon is not without moderation on a per instance basis.
- woah 4y ago
  Also as I said in my comment, the people who want Trump banned do not want to prevent themselves from seeing his tweets, they want to prevent other people from seeing his tweets. This is what Mastodon prevents. If they just didn’t want to see the tweets themselves, they can block him.
  - kaba0 4y ago
    Well, maybe because it is the best for everyone to not see posts which has the potential of armed resurgence against the democratically elected officials against the country, also known as a coup, especially not from a traitor with connections to Saudi Arabia and Russia? And I’m not even from the US, but the country’s fate with the biggest military is insanely important to anyone who shares this planet.
    - saurik 4y ago
      Again... The point of the person you are responding to wasn't to really defend whether the idea of unbanning Trump was good or not: it was to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to explicitly move to a decentralized solution like Mastadon if that's your concern.