3 ms·
I, too, am uncomfortable with such things. The slippery slope does exist, although to a lesser degree when the entity does not hold a monopoly (don't want to dr
by ahelwer 15y ago
I, too, am uncomfortable with such things. The slippery slope does exist, although to a lesser degree when the entity does not hold a monopoly (don't want to drive users away to more permissive options). However, the slipperiness of the slope should not preclude people stepping out onto it. It is less comfortable out there, less simple, less black-and-white than settling at one extreme or another. To take the example from the other direction, consider zero-tolerance policies for weapons at schools. I don't think many people would find it reasonable for a young student to be expelled for bringing a swiss army knife his grandfather gave him to school. Doesn't matter, says the school district. Slippery slope. Where do we draw the line?
As rational individuals, we can decide where to draw the line. This vastly increases the surface area of critical attacks - the line will seem arbitrary, and there will always be boundary cases which could go one way or the other. "Why this and not that?" will be heard often. It's an easy target. So yes, the easy answer is that all discourse should be allowed.
But really, I don't want people advocating that bullshit to teenagers.
- pjscott 15y agoI think that every advocate for censorship that I've ever heard has said some subset of the following things: 1. Freedom of speech is important, but this is a special case. 2. This stuff really is harmful. I don't want bad people exposing children to sex/communism/homosexuality/anorexia/witchcraft/whatever. 3. We're only going to censor $TOPIC_OF_THE_DAY. This is not a slippery slope. 4. Be reasonable. Of course in this case, the stakes aren't that high, since it's easy for censored blogs to move away from Tumblr. This policy is more about social signaling than about seriously trying to help anyone.