3 ms·
It depends on how you feel about the current US administration. It’s there in significant part because of what I’d regard as disinformation and hate speech. It
by foldr 9mo ago
It depends on how you feel about the current US administration. It’s there in significant part because of what I’d regard as disinformation and hate speech. It seems pretty dangerous to me, and there are historical parallels for that danger too. Meanwhile, as you say, people in the US and Europe are able to express all kinds of political opinions online, and we don’t seem to be in any kind of crisis caused by European censorship of hate speech.
- judahmeek 9mo agoOkay, but what if there was a strong robust mechanism for removing disinformation and hate speech from the internet & the current US administration was in charge of it? Because if you're wrong & the current US administration was elected for other reasons than disinformation and hate speech, which could very well be more symptoms than cause, then our situation would be worse, not better. Don't forget that our current laws & regulations would have been enough to stop Trump's election if not for Merrick Garland & the Supreme Court. Figuratively, American politics works like a pendulum. Attempts to weaken the First Amendment are like placing an obstacle directly in the path of that pendulum.
- foldr 9mo agoAll fair points. What I’m saying is that it’s no longer obvious that limited ‘censorship’ of hate speech and disinformation creates a greater danger than its objects. You’re making a positive argument based on real world facts that it is in fact more dangerous, which is fine. I’m not trying to argue one side or the other here so much as point out that it is necessary to do what you’re doing in order to make a convincing case.