4 ms·

Because it has becomes a haven for racism and misinformation. That ultimately risks lives as misinformation has real-world consequences.

Spivak 3y ago
When people say we're living in the information age it's not just some hokey platitude. The (amount, speed, distance) of information travel is something that's been thrust upon us and how we as a society deal with whatever happens as a consequence is something that's still in its infancy. The phrase "sticks and stones" was coined in 1844 when by all reasonable account words has a real tangible limit on how much they could follow and hurt you.
commandlinefan 3y ago
Even if I agreed with you (that "racism and misinformation" were reasonable grounds for censorship), we've seen again and again, every single time, that when racism and misinformation become justification for censorship, the scope of "racism and misinformation" immediately grows to encompass whatever happens to be out of fashion right now - subject to change as styles and opinions change. In this case, it's grown to encompass evidence of war crimes.
- invalidname 3y ago
  It's a delicate balance. I'm very much for freedom of speech. But it's a problem in the modern age. People use it for effectively disabling speech by using a denial of service attack through buckets of misinformation. E.g. a ridiculously corrupt official just spewing misinformation about his rivals to avoid accountability. In the past the press would have been a barrier. Nixon tried to do that and failed. Misinformation can drown out legitimate information in this situation. We need safeguards to stop that. It's super easy to see when looking at pre-Musk Twitter and the current state of X. Old twitter had terrible people on it. No doubt. The volume is now unbearable. Those facts are proven statistically and are plain to see... Free speech is a tool that was invented in the age of the quill. We curtailed it in the past e.g. fire in a crowded theater, copyrights and defamation. It needs additional stopgaps for the modern age. I understand the distrust in government, mine sucks... So I get that. It's a choice between bad and worse... (edited to fix a couple of grammar mistakes)
  - nradov 3y ago
    Free speech is not an actual problem in the modern age, or any age. The volume is bearable. I see very little misinformation in my feed. And let's not forget how pre-Musk Twitter actively suppressed accurate information at the request of the US federal government.
    - invalidname 3y ago
      I'm sure the Rohingya people would have an issue with these assertions. Currently misinformation is disseminated by elected officials who then regurgitate it back and forth with social networks. There's now a concept of "picking what's true" which is ludicrous. People can't even agree on the facts due to the levels of misinformation. Looking at your own feed and projecting it as an absolute fact for the general public is a problematic assertion. The main problem with social networks is that people can lock themselves within a disinformation bubble that bounces the lie back and forth.
      - nradov 3y ago
        Have you actually asked the Rohingya people what they think, or have you appointed yourself as their spokesperson? They are not suffering because of free speech. They are suffering because they live in a failed state which has multiple ongoing internal violent conflicts and which is ruled by a corrupt, incompetent junta. If they EU was serious about improving the situation there (and in other conflict zones) then they would take direct action instead of pretending to help by imposing pointless, symbolic restrictions on US-based social media companies. It's obvious that what the EU is doing here is just a political farce to convince the gullible that they're doing something rather than spending any money or taking any risks.
        invalidname 3y ago
        Did you ask? Trying to help is hard. See the case of Somalia. Yes, there are other worse problems. But misinformation ISN'T free speech. Just like an anti-democracy organization using democracy to cancel elections isn't democratic. You're equating speech anarchy with free speech. They are not the same.

Spivak 3y ago

When people say we're living in the information age it's not just some hokey platitude. The (amount, speed, distance) of information travel is something that's been thrust upon us and how we as a society deal with whatever happens as a consequence is something that's still in its infancy. The phrase "sticks and stones" was coined in 1844 when by all reasonable account words has a real tangible limit on how much they could follow and hurt you.

commandlinefan 3y ago

Even if I agreed with you (that "racism and misinformation" were reasonable grounds for censorship), we've seen again and again, every single time, that when racism and misinformation become justification for censorship, the scope of "racism and misinformation" immediately grows to encompass whatever happens to be out of fashion right now - subject to change as styles and opinions change. In this case, it's grown to encompass evidence of war crimes.

invalidname 3y ago
It's a delicate balance. I'm very much for freedom of speech. But it's a problem in the modern age. People use it for effectively disabling speech by using a denial of service attack through buckets of misinformation. E.g. a ridiculously corrupt official just spewing misinformation about his rivals to avoid accountability. In the past the press would have been a barrier. Nixon tried to do that and failed. Misinformation can drown out legitimate information in this situation. We need safeguards to stop that. It's super easy to see when looking at pre-Musk Twitter and the current state of X. Old twitter had terrible people on it. No doubt. The volume is now unbearable. Those facts are proven statistically and are plain to see... Free speech is a tool that was invented in the age of the quill. We curtailed it in the past e.g. fire in a crowded theater, copyrights and defamation. It needs additional stopgaps for the modern age. I understand the distrust in government, mine sucks... So I get that. It's a choice between bad and worse... (edited to fix a couple of grammar mistakes)
- nradov 3y ago
  Free speech is not an actual problem in the modern age, or any age. The volume is bearable. I see very little misinformation in my feed. And let's not forget how pre-Musk Twitter actively suppressed accurate information at the request of the US federal government.
  - invalidname 3y ago
    I'm sure the Rohingya people would have an issue with these assertions. Currently misinformation is disseminated by elected officials who then regurgitate it back and forth with social networks. There's now a concept of "picking what's true" which is ludicrous. People can't even agree on the facts due to the levels of misinformation. Looking at your own feed and projecting it as an absolute fact for the general public is a problematic assertion. The main problem with social networks is that people can lock themselves within a disinformation bubble that bounces the lie back and forth.
    - nradov 3y ago
      Have you actually asked the Rohingya people what they think, or have you appointed yourself as their spokesperson? They are not suffering because of free speech. They are suffering because they live in a failed state which has multiple ongoing internal violent conflicts and which is ruled by a corrupt, incompetent junta. If they EU was serious about improving the situation there (and in other conflict zones) then they would take direct action instead of pretending to help by imposing pointless, symbolic restrictions on US-based social media companies. It's obvious that what the EU is doing here is just a political farce to convince the gullible that they're doing something rather than spending any money or taking any risks.
      - invalidname 3y ago
        Did you ask? Trying to help is hard. See the case of Somalia. Yes, there are other worse problems. But misinformation ISN'T free speech. Just like an anti-democracy organization using democracy to cancel elections isn't democratic. You're equating speech anarchy with free speech. They are not the same.