DonQuixote99
pfm Member
All in all, I see some reason to fear the great starship project may crash. It certainly is stunning in its meglomania, may be the most stunning project since those Mesopotamians tried to build a ziggurat to heaven.
Twitter needs to be a freer space for discussion, at the minute, and facebook, that's even worse, it's clumsy algorithms don't recognise sarcasm, irony or wit. So Musk at the helm is welcome for anyone who recognises the value in free speech, rather than 'free for me, but not for thee'.
As stated upthread Musk speaks with all the perspective of someone who has never moderated any internet platform. It is exceptionally easy for rich white straight men to get all sanctimonious about such things as they have never, and will never be the ones on the receiving end of cyber-bullying, bigotry etc. Twitter is far from perfect as-is, but everything Musk has said suggests he would make it an even more hostile environment for those who are the victims of modern alt-right hate campaigns etc (racial minorities, LGBT+ communities, even medical professionals offering abortion services are frequently doxxed, stalked, attacked in real life after having their addresses published openly online).
If I get moderation wrong here I upset an audiophile or two and maybe cost myself some annual income. If Twitter gets it wrong people get killed, either directly by white-supremacists, terrorists etc, or by highly vulnerable people being being bullied into suicide (e.g. transgender folk have a >50% attempted suicide rate as-is, and that’s before being stalked and doxxed by fascists or religious bigots). I really don’t think Musk understands the weight of responsibility here. This is the reason I am so firmly against his takeover bid. There is a duty of care that needs to be factored-in to any successful social media business and “free speech” in the far-right context (the only way it tends to be used these days) ensures it is a weapon to be used to punch downwards.
The examples you give of the 'victims' of free speech are almost entirely partisan, you do not mention the victims of Trans activists being doxxed, such as Rowling's address been posted on Twitter, or the real world harassment of Kathleen Stock, or indeed the people who have lost their livelihoods because of their unfashionable beliefs. I know the US is in a scary place at the moment, but free speech is a basic right, and if the GOP get into power again, just think how entitled they will feel to circumscribe free speech in more serious ways.
Glad to hear you say that "direct incitement to violence should never be tolerated'.The right and left both use the free speech issue against each other, in bad faith...of course direct incitement to violence should never be tolerated.
My only desire is for beliefs - both mainstream and extreme, reasonably argued, not to be subject to censure. At the moment, fashion dictates that it's OK for a teenager to willingly undergo a mastectomy for cosmetic reasons cheered on by right thinking Liberals, while it's not OK to talk about immigration controls without being called the F word. There is nothing intrinsically immoral about extremist views, they are simply far from the centre, do you think that 20 years ago we would be arguing over the definition of a woman for instance? Fashion dictates what is acceptable, the concept of free speech ensures everyone's democratic right to at least air - if not put into action - their views. Also, when people migrate from mainstream platforms to their own special interest sites, then they lose the ability to debate with others whose views will differ.Glad to hear you say that "direct incitement to violence should never be tolerated'.
If you have time, here's a Twitter thread about the 18-year old from Buffalo, New York who shot 13 people, killing 10, in a Tops Friendly Markets supermarket six days ago. It describes how an interest in 4chan deepened into beliefs about anti-semitism, 'great replacement' and white supremacy. None of these were necessarily 'direct incitement to violence'. And yet, 10 people - 10 black people - are dead. They didn't get the chance to defend themselves.
https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1527713922928852993
Firstly, I note that you haven't engaged with my post at all, but instead have clarified the reasoning behind your position.My only desire is for beliefs - both mainstream and extreme, reasonably argued, not to be subject to censure...the concept of free speech ensures everyone's democratic right to at least air - if not put into action - their views.
My only desire is for beliefs - both mainstream and extreme, reasonably argued, not to be subject to censure. At the moment, fashion dictates that it's OK for a teenager to willingly undergo a mastectomy for cosmetic reasons cheered on by right thinking Liberals, while it's not OK to talk about immigration controls without being called the F word. There is nothing intrinsically immoral about extremist views, they are simply far from the centre, do you think that 20 years ago we would be arguing over the definition of a woman for instance? Fashion dictates what is acceptable, the concept of free speech ensures everyone's democratic right to at least air - if not put into action - their views. Also, when people migrate from mainstream platforms to their own special interest sites, then they lose the ability to debate with others whose views will differ.
My only desire is for beliefs - both mainstream and extreme, reasonably argued, not to be subject to censure. At the moment, fashion dictates that it's OK for a teenager to willingly undergo a mastectomy for cosmetic reasons cheered on by right thinking Liberals, while it's not OK to talk about immigration controls without being called the F word. There is nothing intrinsically immoral about extremist views, they are simply far from the centre, do you think that 20 years ago we would be arguing over the definition of a woman for instance? Fashion dictates what is acceptable, the concept of free speech ensures everyone's democratic right to at least air - if not put into action - their views. Also, when people migrate from mainstream platforms to their own special interest sites, then they lose the ability to debate with others whose views will differ.
My only desire is for beliefs - both mainstream and extreme, reasonably argued, not to be subject to censure.
My only desire is for beliefs - both mainstream and extreme, reasonably argued, not to be subject to censure.
Because as I said perfectly reasonable beliefs are being censored and at times their advocates even censured, all because they are being thrown into the same sinbin as extremism, who is to judge what is labelled extremism anyway? When people accept these limits to free speech, they never imagine that tomorrow their speech might be subject to censorship.Firstly, I note that you haven't engaged with my post at all, but instead have clarified the reasoning behind your position.
My point is this: what happens online does not stay online - it spills into the real world. Since you have accepted that direct incitement to violence is too dangerous to be allowed, you know this too. What you seem less prepared to accept is that some of the gravest real world consequences - deaths, suicides - flow from statements that are not direct incitements to violence.
When the outcomes are the same - needless death - why draw the line at direct incitements to violence?
That depends on who is being called an extremist, would you say Communists are broadly extremist? Is Jeremy Corbyn an extremist? many would label him so.By definition, extreme beliefs cannot be argued for by reason.