3 ms·
> But the article is NOT an argument for censorship. Really? It sure looks to me like it's advocating putting limits on people's ability to say things.
by tbrownaw 2y ago
> But the article is NOT an argument for censorship.
Really? It sure looks to me like it's advocating putting limits on people's ability to say things.
- toss1 2y agoIt is putting zero constraints on what can be said It only suggests constraining the rate of broadcasting You can go to the town square and shout all you want, you'll still be limited by how much you can enunciate in 24 hours. That is not censorship. Similarly constraining an automated system to act like physical reality is not censorship. If I constrain WHAT you say in your allotted time, THAT is censorship.