5 ms·
Good, now do away with other forms of censorship.
by lzooz 4y ago
Good, now do away with other forms of censorship.
- Eisenstein 4y agoYou mean spam blocking? That is literally censorship.
- realgeniushere 4y agoIn the government context, this problem is very aptly dealt with by distinguishing “content neutrality” from “viewpoint neutrality”. That’s why the government can punish spam emailers without violating the first amendment.
- Eisenstein 4y agoTwitter is not the government.
- realgeniushere 4y agoWhat a low effort and low thought reply. No one said it is. I’m saying there’s a principled way to have free speech and still take down spam.
- Eisenstein 4y agoI'm sorry, please clarify. What does the 'government aspect' have to do with 'twitter removing other forms of censorship'? What is 'content neutrality' and how is it different from 'viewpoint neutrality'? How does pointing out that 'censoring' in regards to removing objectionable content by a corporation relate to the first amendment at all, and what does being 'principled' have to do with it?
- realgeniushere 4y agoMaybe this is more productive: What point were you trying to make with your spam comment? And how isn’t it addressed by twitter abiding by viewpoint neutrality but not content neutrality?
- datadata 4y agoCensorship = you can't say X at all Spam Blocking = you can't say X more than Y (>> 1) times While technically censorship, there is a big difference, I think. Obviously in practice spam blocking could maliciously or accidentally be used for censorship.
- williamtrask 4y agoWhen Y==1 (such as an email spam blocker) then you proved their point.
- datadata 4y agoWhy would Y==1 for email spam? In spam, the same message is sent many times. Entropy to try to make spam messages different is generally merely meant to. circumvent spam blockers.
- Eisenstein 4y agoSpam is not illegal. Blocking non-illegal speech is censorship. End of story. There is no argument around this. Any conditions you place on it are arbitrary and are just you saying certain things are acceptable and others are not -- which is the definition of censorship.
- datadata 4y agoGenuinely trying to understand your beliefs here. When you say "Any conditions you place on it are arbitrary" does that also apply to the laws around speech themselves? For example if spam was made illegal, would it then (according to you) not be censorship to block spam? My belief is that illegal speech is also still a form of censorship, just one that we are OK with. And that spam is more like a denial of service attack. Blocking spam is not about blocking the expression of an idea, but making sure that a communication channel is not abused as to make the channel ineffective.
- 4y ago
- saint_fiasco 4y agoI don't consent to receiving spam, so I don't mind if it's censored. I also self-censor my timeline aggressively by silencing, unfollowing and blocking accounts I don't like. I only dislike censorship when they don't ask me first.
- Proven 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]