3 ms·

What if we allowed all speech online, no matter how vile? The problem would be that people want to avoid seeing some things, and they really want to avoid thei

What if we allowed all speech online, no matter how vile? The problem would be that people want to avoid seeing some things, and they really want to avoid their kids seeing things. So what if we define a group of flags that can be set to say "This content does contain X" or "This content does not contain X." If the flag is not set, we don't know. Then web filters can just block content that lacks a flag saying "This content does not contain X."

krapp 3y ago
You're making the mistake many people make in assuming all communication on the web is strictly two way, and that the only possible outcome of speech online is hurt feelings. If I post your real name, address and bank account credentials online, or photos of you in the bathroom, or start a forum to plan acts of genocide against your race or religion, or maybe spread plausible slander about you on every social media platform I can, that's perfectly acceptable under your terms. But it doesn't help you if all you're allowed to do is set a filter flag on it. It's still there, having an effect. The web isn't just teenage edgelords shitposting at each other for lulz anymore, there are actual real world consequences at play.
- RecycledEle 3y ago
  I will accept the slander because (1) anonymous slander lacks credibility and (2) being slandered is a small price to pay for my free speech rights and (3) when all limits are removed on speech my big mouth will get me in far more trouble than any slander.
- metalspot 3y ago
  if people are doing something illegal than allowing them to freely post about it online makes it much easier to detect and prosecute.
  - krapp 3y ago
    You'd be surprised how much damage can be done to a person within the technical limits of legality.
    - metalspot 3y ago
      literally zero. if you incur any provable damage you have a legal cause of action in civil court. [edit] adding here that "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" is a real thing in US law. so, legal remedies do exist. https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress.html https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/i...

krapp 3y ago

You're making the mistake many people make in assuming all communication on the web is strictly two way, and that the only possible outcome of speech online is hurt feelings. If I post your real name, address and bank account credentials online, or photos of you in the bathroom, or start a forum to plan acts of genocide against your race or religion, or maybe spread plausible slander about you on every social media platform I can, that's perfectly acceptable under your terms. But it doesn't help you if all you're allowed to do is set a filter flag on it. It's still there, having an effect. The web isn't just teenage edgelords shitposting at each other for lulz anymore, there are actual real world consequences at play.

RecycledEle 3y ago
I will accept the slander because (1) anonymous slander lacks credibility and (2) being slandered is a small price to pay for my free speech rights and (3) when all limits are removed on speech my big mouth will get me in far more trouble than any slander.
metalspot 3y ago
if people are doing something illegal than allowing them to freely post about it online makes it much easier to detect and prosecute.
- krapp 3y ago
  You'd be surprised how much damage can be done to a person within the technical limits of legality.
  - metalspot 3y ago
    literally zero. if you incur any provable damage you have a legal cause of action in civil court. [edit] adding here that "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" is a real thing in US law. so, legal remedies do exist. https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress.html https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/i...