5 ms·
> these terrorism cases are about wanting platforms to take down more content, to step in more to prevent bad things from happening. And I think everybody sympa
by junofan 4y ago
> these terrorism cases are about wanting platforms to take down more content, to step in more to prevent bad things from happening. And I think everybody sympathizes with that goal, whatever we think is the right set of rules to achieve it without a bunch of collateral damage.
Interviewee is a bit biased. I don’t think everyone sympathizes with the goal of taking down more content.
- threeseed 4y ago4chan and early Reddit are classic examples of this. There are people for whom abhorrent content is what they prefer and will defend. And they want this content on mainstream sites so they can feel like they are normal.
- throwawaylinux 4y agoYes that's true. And there are others who believe governments are the peddlers and enablers of the most abhorrent crimes, from slavery to arms trafficking to war and assassination and "intervention" to human experimentation, and should absolutely be fought at every step of the way in their neverending thirst for more power and control, particularly where private speech is concerned. The former group sadly does make a great strawman for people who are emotionally hysterical and don't care to think very deeply about the issue though.
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago> And there are others who believe governments are the peddlers and enablers of the most abhorrent crimes, from slavery to arms trafficking to war and assassination and "intervention" to human experimentation, and should absolutely be fought at every step of the way in their neverending thirst for more power and control, particularly where private speech is concerned. Which is an (in my opinion) very inmature position to take. Look at the governments of western Europe, particularily Scandinavia
- throwawaylinux 4y agoOh, well I looked at them and in my opinion it is not a very immature position to take. Solid debate.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jterrys 4y ago>And they want this content on mainstream sites so they can feel like they are normal. I think they want this content on mainstream sites because they know it pisses off people and makes them laugh
- ever1337 4y ago4chan and reddit are both mainstream sites
- Sakos 4y agoIt's the same manipulative argument you see with "protecting the children". Everybody agrees with the goal, so obviously we're doing the right thing by curtailing everybody's freedoms.
- forgetfreeman 4y agoHow about instead of "curtailing freedoms" we attach some really aggressive consequences for poor choices as regards broadcasting obvious bullshit in public spaces? We good now?
- perryizgr8 4y agoHow about we treat freedom of speech like the inalienable right it is? We better now?
- forgetfreeman 4y agoWe pretending freedom of speech means you can say literally anything you feel like in any venue at any time without repercussions? Care to review any of the laws barring communicating threats, hate speech, slander, libel, etc? If what you're trying to defend is folks shilling obvious falsehood and intentionally misleading rhetoric what's your agenda here?
- perryizgr8 4y ago> you can say literally anything you feel like Yes, by definition. > any of the laws barring communicating threats, hate speech, slander, libel, etc By definition, such laws are incompatible with free speech. > what's your agenda here Free speech
- forgetfreeman 4y agoHaving proposed we legalize calling in bomb threats I feel like you've thoroughly invalidated any argument you may have been trying to advance here.