Submitted 2 years ago by masterofballs@wolfballs.com to againstcensorship@wolfballs.com
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1514938507407421440.html
I personally think there is room for moderated spaces and spaces to go full retard.
The fediverse solves a lot of problems if you van get lots of instances.
Monopolies were formed to early IMO. We need competition to drive better policies. Maybe new technologies.
there is room for moderated spaces and spaces to go full retard
same, as a childhood analogy I look at it like being in school, versus being on the playground after school. School's pretty moderated. Playground, at least for me, was just basic common sense rules and then a lot of freedom to do whatever.
both sides are being moderated
this is probably due to corporate policies of trying to cater to a center so they have more customers
You really want to avoid censorship on social networks? Here is the solution: Stop arguing. Play nice.
lol wut? Pretty sure the whole point of a lack of censorship will be to allow arguments. Like, how do they expect to be argument-free?
"The best antidote to bad ideas is not to censor them, but to allow debate and better ideas." How naive.
But of course it's less naive to just ban people from arguing at all? kek
if people can't argue online (like at all, left or right) they'll just go out in to the streets to do it. Is this a delusional redditor take that you can just ban people from arguing online and it will go away?
Example: the "lab leak" theory (a controversial theory that is now probably true; I personally believe so) was "censored" at a certain time in the history of the pandemic because the "debate" included ... massive amounts of horrible behavior, spam-level posting, and abuse that spilled over into the real world - e.g. harrassment of public officials and doctors, racially-motivated crimes, etc.
He needs a better example, because the censorship of this information led to many people dying, and so whatever real world crimes spilled over is probably not as bad in comparison
ideas really can - at certain times and places - become lightning rods for actual, physical, kinetic mob behavior.
I get the problem he is trying to bring up, but like, what's the proposed alternative? The naive "let's just not argue" alternative? It sounds like gun control arguments. But when guns are banned, people get stabbed. So if you ban arguments on social media, people will go to bars and have barfights there more or something. Then people will still form a social network texting their friends what happened and you won't have controlled mobs at all.
I think the redditor doesn't realize there has always been conflict ongoing, it was going on in the 90s and goes on today. And actually the stats say we're less violent today I think.
Replace "lab leak theory" with whatever topic you think has been unfairly censored, and the reason it was censored (or any other action taken against it) is not because of the content of that topic, I ABSOLUTELY ASSURE YOU.
we have no reason to believe this. Reddit or other places did nothing to foster any "civil" discussion of the theory. They just banned discussion full stop.
It is because at Certain Times, given Certain Circumstances, humans will Behave Badly when confronted with Certain Ideas, and if you are The Main Platform Where That Idea is Being Discussed, you cannot do NOTHING, because otherwise humans will continue behaving badly.
But the ancap critique is that by this logic, bad humans are also censoring. So they're going to do a bad job of leading, for their own benefit, possibly. So you're not going to solve a problem of bad humans speaking, by putting bad humans in charge to censor them. Those bad humans in charge will just censor for their self-interest at the expense of the other people. In a way, they are acting out their own mob behavior. So basically your problem remains unsolved.
I think the last few years of @jack's administration have been the best years of Twitter's history.
delusion
elon will be damaged from running twitter
lmao so I guess running tesla and spacex is just a walk in the park... or maybe he's up to the task?
I'm against censorship but it's inevitable
but it's not. If they literally just don't censor
IIRC, almost every large social platform started out wanting to uphold free speech. They all buckle.
They don't have to buckle and a lot of things don't, and they don't buckle because of the mob
idk why I read through this but it was a bad take
They certainly don't have to sensor doctors on medical issues or elected politicians.
Scruffy_Nerfherder@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
He lost me when he tried to define 'Free Speech.'
If you define 'Free Speech' and place limits on it, then it isn't free. It is at best moderated speech which will always turn into allowed vs banned speech.