This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
clearspira wrote: ↑Wed Nov 02, 2022 7:22 am
And its also true that some hate speech is socially acceptable with BLM and feminists allowed to say things about whites and men that would NEVER be allowed the other way around. I found it interesting a few pages back the idea that the N-word is on the rise on Twitter as the only people I see use the term regularly are black people - which they are freely allowed to do.
Lets be honest about this. If you are part of a certain protected group, you can say whatever the hell you like regardless of how you try and frame it.
I was hearing old men give this exact rant (minus Twitter and BLM by name) thirty years ago. I don't think it was new then either.
They used more slurs though, I'll give you that.
You haven't actually tried to refute what I said, just that its an old argument. Interesting.
I'm not a straight white cis man so I know you already know what my answer is and are posed to dismiss it without processing it. Have this thing John "Old Man's War" Scalzi did, might be more useful to you.
clearspira wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:31 am
And Obama has the blood of thousands of civilians on his hands due to drone strikes and the invasion of Libya. And Bush through Iraq and Afghanistan. If your evidence that Trump is dangerous is that he okayed a murder (apparently) then that is not convincing me as all of your presidents have the body count of a comic book villain.
Couple of points:
1. Yes, Obama doesn't get nearly the shit he deserves for continuing the war on Terror and arming the Saudis for their unjustified invasion of Yemen.
2. Bush deserves to be in jail for lying about the Iraq War and legalizing torture.
3. If either of them tried to subvert elections, they should be in jail.
clearspira wrote: ↑Wed Nov 02, 2022 7:22 am
And its also true that some hate speech is socially acceptable with BLM and feminists allowed to say things about whites and men that would NEVER be allowed the other way around. I found it interesting a few pages back the idea that the N-word is on the rise on Twitter as the only people I see use the term regularly are black people - which they are freely allowed to do.
Lets be honest about this. If you are part of a certain protected group, you can say whatever the hell you like regardless of how you try and frame it.
I was hearing old men give this exact rant (minus Twitter and BLM by name) thirty years ago. I don't think it was new then either.
They used more slurs though, I'll give you that.
You haven't actually tried to refute what I said, just that its an old argument. Interesting.
The matter of who can say things and who cannot say things is pretty superficial in the grand scheme of things.
The political implications aren’t about speech habits, they’re about specific historical issues revolving around groups of people decidedly mistreated.
It's obvious Musk doesn't care about free speech (if he did he wouldn't act like such a child when confronted with criticism or doesn't get his way), it's all about profit, which is fair game but don't give me that "I care about free speech" BS. Elon Musk is a perfect example of a ''up-your-arse'' type.
If it was about free speech, Musk would allow spam.
It is almost universally regarded as okay to ban (i.e. CENSORSHIP) but spam is in no way illegal. When people like Musk talk about free speech on private platforms mirroring free speech laws, the exceptions cited are typically “fire in a crowded theater” or maybe “threatening imminent bodily harm.” Spam is nothing close to either of those, yet everyone agrees: yes, it is okay to moderate (censor) spam.
Why is this? Because it has no value? Because it is sometimes false? Certainly it is not causing offline harm.
No, no, and no.
No one argues that speech must have value to be allowed. And it is not clear that content should be banned for being untrue (especially since adjudicating truth is likely intractable). So what gives? Why are we banning spam? The answer every one of you already knows: there IS no principled reason for banning spam. Spam is banned for purely outcome-based reasons:
It affects the quality of experience for users we care about, and users having a good time on the platform makes it successful. That's the end goal for all content moderation and why ultimately there will be very little change (if any) in Twitter rules.
Lol spam is considered harassment. It’s never about the content of the message, it’s about what the information does.
Ie: people are compelled to act on information if it is suggested that it will save their lives. So when someone yells fire in a theater, it’s not about fires or theaters being restricted for conversation, nor is the moral consideration of each/both the issue.
People generally have options to disable spam filtering if they wish.
I have absolutely no doubt that there are lots of people who would value a service that banned opinions and positions they disagreed with and statements of fact that they would prefer to consider untrue, regardless of whether they actually are. And of course people are free to seek out such services.
The thing about echo chambers is that people absolutely love them, no matter how toxic they end up being to our society.
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows." -- George Orwell, 1984
