Support NeoGAF

[strange headache]

He literally replied to a post from me talking about holocaust deniers in a manner that clearly indicated he felt it was wrong to stop them from thinking that way.

Stop the automatic defence mechanism stuff any time anyone has a counter point to yours. I agree with quite a lot of what you’re saying, but you look foolish when defending that kind of extremist view.

You can present you facts and counter-arguments, but you can't prevent people from thinking something, nor is it your right to do so.

Thoughts are free.

My position being labeled "extremist" is already the problem.

 

[FunkMiller]

You can present you facts and counter-arguments, but you can't prevent people from thinking something, nor is it your right to do so.

Thoughts are free.

My position being labeled "extremist" is already the problem.

What? I never said your position was extremist. I said you dropped into an automatic defence of that other guy for holding what definitely looks like an extremist position.

I think you, and some others in this thread, are so determined to stand by this position of support an absolutist approach to free speech on Musk's Twitter, that even when someone brings up something that obviously needs to banned from the platform like holocaust denial, you're incapable of accepting that, even though you'd agree with it.

Long story short:

There will always be things that need to be banned on Twitter. Extremist viewpoints that actually do qualify as hate crimes are one of those. Nobody sane actually wants 100% free speech.

This entire thread is one long disagreement over where the line should be drawn in the sand.

And if anyone here is seriously sat thinking "It's okay for holocaust deniers to be able to spread their disinformation on Twitter because that's what true free speech means" then they need to take a long hard look at themselves. Those things are rightly banned by law for a reason.

 

[strange headache]

What? I never said your position was extremist. I said you dropped into an automatic defence of that other guy for holding what definitely looks like an extremist position.

I think you, and some others in this thread, are so determined to stand by this position of support an absolutist approach to free speech on Musk's Twitter, that even when someone brings up something that obviously needs to banned from the platform like holocaust denial, you're incapable of accepting that, even though you'd agree with it.

Long story short:

There will always be things that need to be banned on Twitter. Extremist viewpoints that actually do qualify as hate crimes are one of those. Nobody sane actually wants 100% free speech.

This entire thread is one long disagreement over where the line should be drawn in the sand.

And if anyone here is seriously sat thinking "It's okay for holocaust deniers to be able to spread their disinformation on Twitter because that's what true free speech means" then they need to take a long hard look at themselves. Those things are rightly banned by law for a reason.

The simple issue is that you cannot "factcheck" political orientations and convictions.

That is the fundamental problem that Musk seeks to adress. He knows full well that absolute free speech remains an unattainable ideal that fails at the problem of individual responsibility. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it.

Your example is therefore badly chosen and used purely as a means to discredit your opposition... "OMG u sUpPoRt HoLoCaUsT dEnIeRs!!!11".

 

[FunkMiller]

The simple issue is that you cannot "factcheck" political orientations and convictions.

That is the fundamental problem that Musk seeks to adress. Your example is therefore badly chosen and used purely as a means to discredit your opposition... "OMG u sUpPoRt HoLoCaUsT dEnIeRs!!!11".

I'll happily discredit anyone who wants complete and unbridled free speech on Twitter, because that means allowing things up to and including holocaust denial free rein. You can't just hand wave this stuff away. It exists. It has to be dealt with.

And I'll happily support anyone who wants sensible - and even handed - moderation of Twitter. Because that's the only way it'll continue to function.

 

[Toots]

He literally replied to a post from me talking about holocaust deniers in a manner that clearly indicated he felt it was wrong to stop them from thinking that way.

Stop the automatic defence mechanism stuff any time anyone has a counter point to yours. I agree with quite a lot of what you’re saying, but you look foolish when defending that kind of extremist view.

He does not.
And if you really think he does, why don't you show your post, the holocaust denier response and his defense of said response ?
I don't find Strangeheadache foolish when i read him, but you appear as someone of extreme bad faith and give a really unpleasant vibe overall.

 

[FunkMiller]

He does not.
And if you really think he does, why don't you show your post, the holocaust denier response and his defense of said response ?
I don't find Strangeheadache foolish when i read him, but you appear as someone of extreme bad faith and give a really unpleasant vibe overall.

My post clearly references holocaust denial. His response about the thought police and 'people believing other things rightly or wrongly' shows that he either - didn't read my post properly and just responded with a knee jerk answer, in which case- dumb, or actually thinks that people should be allowed to believe that the holocaust didn't happen.

And you're finding my responses unpleasant, because I'm using an example you're uncomfortable with, because it proves that some things can't just be allowed to be posted on Twitter.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

some tees to celebrate when Twitter inevitably goes down

That is fucking hilarious. Musk should sell those at $100/ea.

 

[Toots]

My post clearly references holocaust denial. His response about the thought police and 'people believing other things rightly or wrongly' shows that he either - didn't read my post properly and just responded with a knee jerk answer, in which case- dumb, or actually thinks that people should be allowed to believe that the holocaust didn't happen.

And you're finding my responses unpleasant, because I'm using an example you're uncomfortable with, because it proves that some things can't just be allowed to be posted on Twitter.

It was a bit abrupt for sure but then again you using shoah as the end all argument is what i think pushed him to just tell you off with his response (because it is essentially what he did). He does not advocate for holocaust deniers though, he's telling you that having a thought police is the danger here. Societal values are products of a norm. Norms can change. If you follow the norm but don't think by yourself, those who make the norm (the medias and politics) can make you act any way they want without you questioning the validity of such action (think children lynching grown up jews in hitlers germany for example)

Just take a look at what he said next :

"If a lunatic can convince others that the Holocaust didn't happen, the problem doesn't lie with the lunatic but goes much deeper."

It is not about what you think, but about how you think. We should teach people to think for themselves so they can engage with ideas that are not their own, not suppress them. Complotism thrives when you suppress it, like a mushroom, let it grow in the dark and it will never stop growing, but expose it to the light and it dies. The more we expose stupid complotist ideas and engage with them the more we can change complotists minds.

I'm sorry i called you unpleasant and of extreme bad faith (i think you are of some bad faith, but extreme is harsh). I think i amalgamated you with my almost namesake toons, who i think is really unfair on a lot of stuff he says.

May i remind you that the holocaust deniers and the complotists in general vote in the elections just like you and that power doesn't go awy with a twitter ban...

 

[Mistake]

I'm curious about how that has worked in your family.

Conspiracy theorists are interesting because you ban them... "A ha! What I believe must be true they are trying to silence me!" - Reinforce belief in theories

You don't ban them and they get scrutinized... "All of these people are wrong they just don't have the information or are sheep." - self-reinforced belief in theories?

How many conspiracy theorists can truly be saved once they already go down that path?

It’s not about being “saved” per say. A conspiracy theorist will always gravitate towards similar stuff. But when they are challenged, and not just berated, they’re forced to reevaluate their stance. There’s different ways to effectively use empathy, it doesn’t mean you need to believe what they’re saying.

Getting them banned only causes them to double down. I’ve seen it

 

[FunkMiller]

It is not about what you think, but about how you think. We should teach people to think for themselves so they can engage with ideas that are not their own, not suppress them. Complotism thrives when you suppress it, like a mushroom, let it grow in the dark and it will never stop growing, but expose it to the light and it dies. The more we expose stupid complotist ideas and engage with them the more we can change complotists minds.

And yet, social media has allowed ridiculous conspiracy theories like anti-vax, flat earth, election rigging etc. to proliferate over the last few years - and there's been no evidence of this 'exposure to the light and it dies' you're advocating for. If anything, they've only grown, simply because misinformation has been allowed to disseminate to people too vulnerable, impressionable, ignorant or biased to ignore it, or interrogate it.

You're advocating for a system and an approach that assumes people will always question what they are being told. That they will examine these ideas properly.

The evidence we see all around us very clearly indicates that many of them don't. They simply believe what they're being fed.

Therefore, it is incumbent on the platforms themselves to police certain concepts, views and ideologies - but only the ones that cause harm to others when believed, and spread.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

in a manner that clearly indicated he felt it was wrong to stop them from thinking that way

 

[Clear]

And yet, social media has allowed ridiculous conspiracy theories like anti-vax, flat earth, election rigging etc. to proliferate over the last few years - and there's been no evidence of this 'exposure to the light and it dies' you're advocating for. If anything, they've only grown, simply because misinformation has been allowed to disseminate to people too vulnerable, impressionable, ignorant or biased to ignore it, or interrogate it.

Those ideas would have proliferated either-way because they all grow from a fundamental lack of faith in government etc.

Social media are communication networks, that's their fundamental purpose. So the argument that they are somehow culpable for spreading ideas is redundant, and in fact the idea that only "approved" ideas be allowed to spread on them is the perverse thing. Because basically that makes them more propaganda/marketing platforms - which is not how they are sold to the public.

You're advocating for a system and an approach that assumes people will always question what they are being told. That they will examine these ideas properly.

Not everyone can be "saved", because not everyone wants to be "saved" even if they have the rational capacity and knowledge to fully interrogate every idea.
You appear to be working from an assumption that there's some inalienable absolute truth waiting to be found about everything. This is a fallacy.

The evidence we see all around us very clearly indicates that many of them don't. They simply believe what they're being fed.

So the answer is to let government and big business feed all of us their particular brand of "truth" by marginalizing and expunging all dissenting opinion?

Therefore, it is incumbent on the platforms themselves to police certain concepts, views and ideologies - but only the ones that cause harm to others when believed, and spread.

Define "harm"....

Well, actually here's the problem - You or I don't get to define it, they get to define it.

This is why this stuff has to ultimately be backstopped by the law, not by the whims of corporations or activists.

 

[Vestal]

The simple issue is that you cannot "factcheck" political orientations and convictions.

That is the fundamental problem that Musk seeks to adress. He knows full well that absolute free speech remains an unattainable ideal that fails at the problem of individual responsibility. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it.

Your example is therefore badly chosen and used purely as a means to discredit your opposition... "OMG u sUpPoRt HoLoCaUsT dEnIeRs!!!11".

You can't strive for the type free speech you are advocating while still allowing for anonymity. It simply does not work.

 

[Toots]

misinformation has been allowed to disseminate to people too vulnerable, impressionable, ignorant or biased to ignore it, or interrogate it.

Give a man a fish or teach him how to fish... Shall we educate the people so they are not too vulnerable, impressionable, etc. or do we just shelter them? Politicians would tell you to shelter them because they are then more easily controllable.

You're advocating for a system and an approach that assumes people will always question what they are being told. That they will examine these ideas properly.

I'm advocating a system that assume that people are human being striving to be better if we give them the choice. It might be a naïve stance, but its the only one that suits me.
I'm not sure about the evidence to the contrary you're talking about , apart in cesspools like twitter, which does n't represent society and the people at all.

Therefore, it is incumbent on the platforms themselves to police certain concepts, views and ideologies - but only the ones that cause harm to others when believed, and spread.

You are again advocating for some kind of thought police, and even your broad-based and somewhat unattackable stance "only suppress ideologies that cause harm to others when believed" can be twisted into something used to oppress rather than suppress. One could say US democracy and its ideals caused a lot of pain in many countries throughout the world, therefore we need to stop talking about it.

 

[Guilty_AI]

And yet, social media has allowed ridiculous conspiracy theories like anti-vax, flat earth, election rigging etc. to proliferate over the last few years - and there's been no evidence of this 'exposure to the light and it dies' you're advocating for. If anything, they've only grown, simply because misinformation has been allowed to disseminate to people too vulnerable, impressionable, ignorant or biased to ignore it, or interrogate it.

You're advocating for a system and an approach that assumes people will always question what they are being told. That they will examine these ideas properly.

The evidence we see all around us very clearly indicates that many of them don't. They simply believe what they're being fed.

Therefore, it is incumbent on the platforms themselves to police certain concepts, views and ideologies - but only the ones that cause harm to others when believed, and spread.

The whole problem with your position is that you assume such policing is done in good faith by the few who have such power. It is not.

We want our free speech not so we can say whatever we want, but because the alternative is to cede control of the narrative to someone. That someone will not "save the fools" from misinformation, it'll merely select the truths and falsehood it wants others to see, give them whatever context it wishes to.

 

[NickFire]

Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the "free speech" crusader.

His support for absolute "Free Speech" will go only so far as the money allows. He will throw open the doors as wide as he can where he can and then censor the hell out of the places where he can't to make sure the money keeps coming. If he truly believed in what he was saying and that "free speech" must be maintained he would pull the platform from the places that don't allow it rather than caving into the censorship he claims to fight against.


But he won't because that would take away the advertising money he gets from those markets. He isn't a "free speech absolutist". He is just as fake as anyone else. The only difference between him and every other charlatan is the billions of dollars, the cult of personality, and the sheer number of suckers that have bought into it.

You can believe in something even if you don’t believe it’s your duty to change laws in other countries to reflect your belief. You can also disapprove of people’s views / beliefs / laws while still working with / for them. Guaranteed that doctors have operated on people they would detest in real life. Doesn’t mean the doctor condoned their bad attributes.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

The whole problem with your position is that you assume such policing is done in good faith by the few who have such power. It is not.

We want our free speech not so we can say whatever we want, but because the alternative is to cede control of the narrative to someone. That someone will not "save the fools" from misinformation, it'll merely select the truths and falsehood it wants others to see, give them whatever context it wishes to.

I agree, and I don't think this is a new problem. This quote is attributed to John Swinton from a toast at an Independent Journalists banquet in 1883:

"There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in country towns. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. The man who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an "Independent Press"! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

And if anyone here is seriously sat thinking "It's okay for holocaust deniers to be able to spread their disinformation on Twitter because that's what true free speech means" then they need to take a long hard look at themselves. Those things are rightly banned by law for a reason.

Where were you when race grifters were spreading disinformation about hate hoaxes, evil police, Russiagate, mass graves in Canadian churches, Hunter laptop nonsense etc...

If you want to have a serious discussion about the powerful elite censoring speech of regular people, wouldn't it be more effective if your examples weren't so obviously partisan?

 

[DeepEnigma]

You're assuming they're as petty as Musk is then? Thats a high bar to achieve given his behavior

They're petty enough to not notice "hateful content" until he bought the place.

Why were they ever so blind to it before? I have doubts any of that bullshit impacted their marketing to notice in such a short window of extraction.

"Hateful content" is the new zeitgeist in this ether we are going to see parroted; as if it were a new revolutionary thing not seen in the likes of the ever so lovable hugbox that was twitter. Derp.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I agree, and I don't think this is a new problem. This quote is attributed to John Swinton from a toast at an Independent Journalists banquet in 1883:

"There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in country towns. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. The man who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an "Independent Press"! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

And this highlights the core of the issue of the current age.

The internet allowed people to express honest opinions. Truly honest unfiltered opinions, both correct and misguided.
These 'intellectual prostitutes' - and the ones above them - cannot control information through their old methods anymore. So in desperation they scatter and scream and coerce.

The division we see today is a conflict between the people who want the old ways back, a controlled narrative unifying people through their mix of truths and falsehoods - and the people who don't, those who tasted the sweet nectar of chaotic truth the internet provided and wants it to stay that way.

 

[TaylorSwiftFan]

See, this is why this conversation is impossibly with some of you.

I talk about lunatics who believe that the holocaust didn’t happen, and you reply with an answer that strongly indicates you’re fine with them thinking that.

If you’re seriously talking about the ‘thought police’ in defence of those kinds of holocaust denial opinions then you’re far, far too lost to be able to engage in any reasonable discourse.

So what if the lunatics believe that? What’s the consequence of them believing what they want?

 

[a multicultural team of v]

Where were you when race grifters were spreading disinformation about hate hoaxes, evil police, Russiagate, mass graves in Canadian churches, Hunter laptop nonsense etc...

If you want to have a serious discussion about the powerful elite censoring speech of regular people, wouldn't it be more effective if your examples weren't so obviously partisan?

You don't even have to look back further than this weekend to the Colorado shooting.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

 

[DeepEnigma]

So what if the lunatics believe that? What’s the consequence of them believing what they want?

Thought crimes.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You don't even have to look back further than this weekend to the Colorado shooting.

Lol, of course. What strange times we live in.

 

[Vestal]

So what if the lunatics believe that? What’s the consequence of them believing what they want?

There is no problem as long as the person spewing that garbage is not hiding behind the veil of anonymity.

Anonymity is the enemy of Free Speech.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

Anonymity is the enemy of Free Speech.

Help me understand this thought process because the first thing that came to mind was people in dictatorships being disappeared for expressing their opinions without anonymity

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Anonymity is the enemy of Free Speech.

Can you make a compelling case (without personally believing it) that anonymity is necessary for Free Speech?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Help me understand this thought process because the first thing that came to mind was people in dictatorships being disappeared for expressing their opinions without anonymity

Bingo. They want to send the mob machine to stifle ideas and thought crimes.

Otherwise, he is free to reveal his real name and place of residency on here. *crickets*

 

[JayK47]

You know Twitter is "dead" when all of the biased legacy media has turned on it and is pushing articles on the alternatives.

 

[DeepEnigma]

You know Twitter is "dead" when all of the biased legacy media has turned on it and is pushing articles on the alternatives.

The same legacy media that has the exact same filtered talking points down to the word for word catchphrases?

 

[FunkMiller]

So what if the lunatics believe that? What’s the consequence of them believing what they want?

Well, it's anti-semitism, isn't it. The absolute worst kind. And the consequence of them being allowed to spread the belief that the holocaust never happened is that Jewish people suffer.

You can't possibly think it's okay for people to be allowed to spread that kind of lie on social media.

 

[Vestal]

Help me understand this thought process because the first thing that came to mind was people in dictatorships being disappeared for expressing their opinions without anonymity

Can you make a compelling case (without personally believing it) that anonymity is necessary for Free Speech?

We don't live in a dictatorship, we live in a democracy with one of its founding principals being Free speech.

Own what you say and what you do. If you want to be a holocaust denier, a flat earther etc etc.. Whatever you want to be or you want to believe. Own it and put your name on it. If not, keep it to yourself as people have for generations.

I mean we have a somewhat similar dynamic here. Sure we are all "Anonymous" here to an extent. But guess what, because of that people probably say more than they should or say things just to inflame the situation which in turn requires Gaf to have moderation.

Anonymity is the pathway to trolling and gaslighting. It does not fit with the ideals of American Free Speech.


Don't get me wrong, anonymity can be a good thing but not when we are talking about Free speech and an open public square.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

We don't live in a dictatorship, we live in a democracy with one of its founding principals being Free speech.

Own what you say and what you do. If you want to be a holocaust denier, a flat earther etc etc.. Whatever you want to be or you want to believe. Own it and put your name on it. If not, keep it to yourself as people have for generations.

I mean we have a somewhat similar dynamic here. Sure we are all "Anonymous" here to an extent. But guess what, because of that people probably say more than they should or say things just to inflame the situation which in turn requires Gaf to have moderation.

Anonymity is the pathway to trolling and gaslighting. It does not fit with the ideals of American Free Speech.


Don't get me wrong, anonymity can be a good thing but not when we are talking about Free speech and an open public square.

Yes but...can you make a compelling case (without personally believing it) that anonymity is necessary for Free Speech?

 

[funkygunther]

We don't live in a dictatorship, we live in a democracy with one of its founding principals being Free speech.

Own what you say and what you do. If you want to be a holocaust denier, a flat earther etc etc.. Whatever you want to be or you want to believe. Own it and put your name on it. If not, keep it to yourself as people have for generations.

I mean we have a somewhat similar dynamic here. Sure we are all "Anonymous" here to an extent. But guess what, because of that people probably say more than they should or say things just to inflame the situation which in turn requires Gaf to have moderation.

Anonymity is the pathway to trolling and gaslighting. It does not fit with the ideals of American Free Speech.


Don't get me wrong, anonymity can be a good thing but not when we are talking about Free speech and an open public square.

anonymity is afforded when the person speaking needs to be protected, that is whistleblowers, victims of crime, witnesses of crime...it's absolutely necessary in a society in certain contexts

in this context, I don't know, if we are still thinking Twitter represents a town square then there is no anonymity there

 

[Grildon Tundy]

We don't live in a dictatorship, we live in a democracy with one of its founding principals being Free speech.

Own what you say and what you do. If you want to be a holocaust denier, a flat earther etc etc.. Whatever you want to be or you want to believe. Own it and put your name on it. If not, keep it to yourself as people have for generations.

I mean we have a somewhat similar dynamic here. Sure we are all "Anonymous" here to an extent. But guess what, because of that people probably say more than they should or say things just to inflame the situation which in turn requires Gaf to have moderation.

Anonymity is the pathway to trolling and gaslighting. It does not fit with the ideals of American Free Speech.


Don't get me wrong, anonymity can be a good thing but not when we are talking about Free speech and an open public square.

anonymity is afforded when the person speaking needs to be protected, that is whistleblowers, victims of crime, witnesses of crime...it's absolutely necessary in a society in certain contexts

in this context, I don't know, if we are still thinking Twitter represents a town square then there is no anonymity there

I hear what you're saying, but I like the idea of anonymity providing an easy separation of "art from the artist" so to speak. I see ideas attempted to be discredited because of the speaker, rather than the ideas being presented. Ad hominem arguments. It's not intellectually honest, but it WORKS and tends to shut down conversation. I'm sure you can find examples of it happening antagonistically to any political side you happen to espouse, too. Anonymity allows the ideas to stand on their own.

General example: I float the idea that anonymity is a better way to protect and encourage free speech and in this example, that's a brand-new idea. But someone disagrees, and they find out that I once pooped my pants. Now they push the association that anyone who believes anonymity is preferable when it comes to free speech is a pants-pooper. No one wants that association, it just isn't worth it, and now the idea dies on the vine. I don't think the conversation around free speech should lose a viewpoint just because I ate too-rich food and didn't plan my workout properly

 

[BadBurger]

Getting them banned only causes them to double down. I’ve seen it

Yes, you're right - there are plenty of examples in documentaries and docuseries from the past few years highlighting a number of these individuals. Plenty of anti-vaxx, Q-anon, and election fraud advocates. However, just because they won't learn their lesson doesn't mean platform owners need to suffer their delusions and/or grifts, risking exposing their users to the dangerous nonsense. These lies cause actual harm. Think about the legion of anti-vaxxers who died because of such lies, as one example.

But oh well. They are adults, their mistakes are not everyone else's problem, nor should they be our forced burdens - it is no one's responsibility to educate them or teach them critical thinking. And pragmatically, they chase off advertisers and other partners because, well, even speaking chiefly from a business and pecuniary perspective, who wants to have their brand and products associated with ridiculous, dangerous nonsense?

 

[DeepEnigma]

The arbiters of truth*!

 

[Vestal]

Yes but...can you make a compelling case (without personally believing it) that anonymity is necessary for Free Speech?

Not in the context of a public square such as Twitter if what you are trying to achieve is "Red, white and blue" Free speech.

But yes, anonymity in the sense that it protects the oppressed is required if we are talking about Free Speech in the context of the over all idea.

 

[a multicultural team of v]

The same legacy media that has the exact same filtered talking points down to the word for word catchphrases?

listen journalists have a hard life ok please dont be mean to them

 

[DeepEnigma]

Not in the context of a public square such as Twitter if what you are trying to achieve is "Red, white and blue" Free speech.

But yes, anonymity in the sense that it protects the oppressed is required if we are talking about Free Speech in the context of the over all idea.

Well, there are current players in power using their position and letter agencies to prosecute and attack their opponents. So you're right, looking more and more like a "democracy of rule."

Even more of a reason for anonymity in current year, me thinks.

 

[Vestal]

I hear what you're saying, but I like the idea of anonymity providing an easy separation of "art from the artist" so to speak. I see ideas attempted to be discredited because of the speaker, rather than the ideas being presented. Ad hominem arguments. It's not intellectually honest, but it WORKS and tends to shut down conversation. I'm sure you can find examples of it happening antagonistically to any political side you happen to espouse, too. Anonymity allows the ideas to stand on their own.

General example: I float the idea that anonymity is a better way to protect and encourage free speech and in this example, that's a brand-new idea. But someone disagrees, and they find out that I once pooped my pants. Now they push the association that anyone who believes anonymity is preferable when it comes to free speech is a pants-pooper. No one wants that association, it just isn't worth it, and now the idea dies on the vine. I don't think the conversation around free speech should lose a viewpoint just because I ate too-rich food and didn't plan my workout properly

I am not for or against either approach to twitter.. But I am presenting arguments regarding what would be required.

But to your original point, we are talking in the context of Twitter here and my argument is directed at those that want full on "red white and blue" free speech on the platform.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Not in the context of a public square such as Twitter if what you are trying to achieve is "Red, white and blue" Free speech.

So if you entered a public debate where you were tasked with defending your opponents position, you wouldn't be able to do it?

Doesn't that suggest you haven't fully explored the issue?

 

[Vestal]

So if you entered a public debate where you were tasked with defending your opponents position, you wouldn't be able to do it?

Doesn't that suggest you haven't fully explored the issue?

I am not an attorney so I don't need to debate in favor of a position I don't believe in.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I am not an attorney so I don't need to debate in favor of a position I don't believe in.

True, but a Vestal who can argue the opposing position would have a better understanding of the topic.

 

[Vestal]

True, but a Vestal who can argue the opposing position would have a better understanding of the topic.

Again, in this specific context of a public square and absolute free speech. There is no room for anonymity, anonymity comes into play under specific circumstances that don't fall under the umbrella of a Public square.

If you want to keep anonymity as part of Twitter, then you are required to have heavy content moderation.

 

[Wildebeest]

I'm for Twitter being accessible only to the USA and being funded and operated by the government as a "public town square" where you can lie and spread misinformation as much as you want (as long as you have wealthy enough patrons). At least that will limit the damage it can do globally.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I'm for Twitter being accessible only to the USA and being funded and operated by the government as a "public town square" where you can lie and spread misinformation as much as you want (as long as you have wealthy enough patrons). At least that will limit the damage it can do globally.

 

[Kraz]

People, professionals, businesses would be suckers to stay on and support a service that helps those that threatens their well being and those of others, their values and what they want for the future by being concerned trolled with "but absolute free speech".

 

[DeepEnigma]

People, professionals, businesses would be suckers to stay on and support a service that helps those that threatens their well being and those of others, their values and what they want for the future by being concerned trolled with "but absolute free speech".

Lost in the saucy ether.