I gave you an answer in the form of my question.
Banning social media content that is hate speech or incites violence or is Qanon type stuff is not rocket science and is incredibly low stakes. You are not being silenced by an Orwellian government because you had your tweet removed. you can appeal it or post something else or go to a different platform or go yell about it at the actual real life town hall
1 Like
Oh Iâm saying that the free speech standards ought to be applied to Facebook or Twitter. And for this sort of thing distinguishing between obscene pornography which isnât protected by the first amendment and regular pornography which is isnât necessary. As I said, it isnât contrary to the first amendment to not let pornographic advertisements be posted on a community bulletin board. Similarly, Facebook can ban all nudity, if it is protected by free speech or not.
You already said it was ok to ban content like some words. Should I make a list like Carlin to see what passes your standards?
Also what a world where itâs ok to ban michelangeloâs david but not a Neo Nazi for spouting racism.
What are you talking about? You said that
And I asked you who do you want to determine what is a lie or not. Zuckerberg? The government?
The distinction is between restrictions on certain views and content neutral community standards. A community forum can ban all pornography but not specific types of pornography while allowing others.
Am I similarly hypocritical for thinking itâs fine for a town to ban pornographic advertisements on its community bulletin board?
Doesnât twitter already do this? I know facebook bans pretty much anything with a nipple in it, but twitter definitely allows some porn but not others.
Weâve already proven that as a society we are not ready for unfettered access to the Internet. How many people have to be radicalized before youâll consider that the 1st Amendment as designed in the age of the manual printing press is perhaps not right for the size and pervasiveness of modern communication systems?
I support free speech.
But practically, who decides what corners of the internet we are allowed to access? Who can promote this view or that view? Zuckerberg? Hope heâs nice!
If I knew the answers Iâd tell you, but I know the current system isnât working, and your way will make it worse.
I donât think Free Speech works when education is seen as something bad and every opinion is given equal weighting, regardless of how absurd it is. If people had the tools to separate the signal from the noise then maybe itâs workable but youâd still have people preying on the weakness of others to spread disinformation.
Capitalism is based on selling shit to people and sales is based on convincing people they need something they donât. How can we expect people to be honest on the internet when it is paid for by lies?
2 Likes
Weâve had two examples in this thread on how to run the internet. One is the way it is now, companies that control large social media platforms set the rules to use their platforms with little oversight. The second is Keedâs plan on âFree Speechâ uncontrolled by anyone.
I donât think the current system is doing very good and think Keedâs system will make the bad parts worse without providing any additional good parts.
If I knew how to make it better without it harming any groups Iâd post it. I canât reconcile anonymity and responsibility without someone having the keys, which means it wonât work. I canât reconcile needing someone to adjudicate the âtruthâ of a statement that wonât be seen by someone as a party hack.
Perhaps itâs time to get rid of social media or limit itâs scope somehow, like local TV stations? Weâre probably just fucked though and itâs just going to get worse when Grandparents start passing laws about technology.
Pretty sure if greenwald was your only source of information Hillary Clinton would be the alleged president.
So do you think a person should be able to share rape/murder âfantasiesâ on unstuck?
This idea that tech companies shouldnât censor is absurd. And when you have dummies going after their protections it is even worse.
I wonder how much greenwald wrote about trump threatening to pull protections from internet companies? Anyone know? I have a pretty good guess. Of course such a move would actually result in magnitudes increase in censorship. A huge number of sites would absolutely have to shit down.
What do the free speech stackers say about that? Are they familiar with Donald J. Trump in any way that isnât purely a defensive posture?
Kind of weird to me that this doesnât even seem to be an issue.
Viewpoints that incite violence, lead to harassment etc etc.
Your alleged standard for what they should censor is literally their standard now.
This is it really. The current free speech warriors are really fighting to protect free lying. They donât want to have their ability to just bald face lie to people in order to manipulate them reduced.
I am totally cool with that not being ok. I know the retort is âwho decides what the truth isâ and I say âlol.â
Donât bump that Keed. It is a dumb question and you know it.
Banning all untruths is also content neutral.
The only acceptable response to anything keed posts in this thread.
âZuckerbergâ is shorthand for all the tech oligarchs. Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.
My improvement, call conservatards bluff and repeal Section 230. Done and done. Then Big Tech and Zuckerberg donât even exist in anything like their current form. Freeze Peach should not come free of responsibility.