5 ms·

I think that Snopes link makes it perfectly clear what is going on. Just because you disagree doesn't mean that it's wrong.

by efdee 2y ago

hyeonwho4 2y ago
I think the Snopes link indicates the grandparent's point well, if not in the way that was intended: words being subjective and imprecise, the fact checker has many degrees of freedom. If we allow fact checkers to censor content, they will use the linguistic degrees of freedom to censor selectively to the benefit of their political bias. (Your terrorist is my freedom fighter, your demonstrator is my rioter, your just cause is an imposition on my freedoms, etc.) Snopes was careful to show degrees of freedom with this fact check, but most social media fact checkers will not be so careful. Social media fact checkers will have a tendency to censor in the direction of the currently-in-power political party, because that party is able to set regulatory policy on social media companies. So the only thing which will prevent censorship from blowing with the political winds is to not have centralized censorship. Community notes (as implemented at Twitter) require agreement of multiple people who are not in agreement on issues to agree on Notes. I am cautiously optimistic that it may be possible to correct wrong speech with more speech in a nonpartisan manner.
nailer 2y ago
No. Someone who attacks civilians for political gain is a terrorist. Edit for the reply below: yes that very obviously includes being a member of a group that attacks civilians for political purposes. There being debate over whether other groups that do other things should be called terrorists is a separate matter.
- defrost 2y ago
  Her specific crimes were possession of unregistered firearms, transport of firearms and explosives shipped in interstate commerce, unlawfully use of false identification documents, and robbing armoured cars. Given all armoured car robbers would engage in such activities (unregistered firearms, explosives, fake papers, etc), is it your position that all armoured car robbers are terrorists?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - nailer 2y ago
    No. Due to rate limits, I replied above.

I think that Snopes link makes it perfectly clear what is going on. Just because you disagree doesn't mean that it's wrong.

by efdee 2y ago

I think that Snopes link makes it perfectly clear what is going on. Just because you disagree doesn't mean that it's wrong.

hyeonwho4 2y ago

I think the Snopes link indicates the grandparent's point well, if not in the way that was intended: words being subjective and imprecise, the fact checker has many degrees of freedom. If we allow fact checkers to censor content, they will use the linguistic degrees of freedom to censor selectively to the benefit of their political bias. (Your terrorist is my freedom fighter, your demonstrator is my rioter, your just cause is an imposition on my freedoms, etc.) Snopes was careful to show degrees of freedom with this fact check, but most social media fact checkers will not be so careful. Social media fact checkers will have a tendency to censor in the direction of the currently-in-power political party, because that party is able to set regulatory policy on social media companies. So the only thing which will prevent censorship from blowing with the political winds is to not have centralized censorship. Community notes (as implemented at Twitter) require agreement of multiple people who are not in agreement on issues to agree on Notes. I am cautiously optimistic that it may be possible to correct wrong speech with more speech in a nonpartisan manner.

nailer 2y ago

No. Someone who attacks civilians for political gain is a terrorist. Edit for the reply below: yes that very obviously includes being a member of a group that attacks civilians for political purposes. There being debate over whether other groups that do other things should be called terrorists is a separate matter.

defrost 2y ago
Her specific crimes were possession of unregistered firearms, transport of firearms and explosives shipped in interstate commerce, unlawfully use of false identification documents, and robbing armoured cars. Given all armoured car robbers would engage in such activities (unregistered firearms, explosives, fake papers, etc), is it your position that all armoured car robbers are terrorists?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- nailer 2y ago
  No. Due to rate limits, I replied above.