QAnon

BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
Censorship of dangerous ideas is already occurring - albeit in an ad-hoc unorganized manner (Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc. all remove posts/ban users).

I honestly do not know how best to responsibly censor ideas without infringing on freedom of speech. Yet, I feel that censorship must occur.

In an ideal world, we could form panels of apolitical topical experts to advise or perhaps oversee policy in this regard. Might this be possible in practice? After all, we have judges who ostensibly are apolitical (but in fact are anything but) - but nonetheless, the judicial system in the US stood firm for Democracy - rejecting challenge after challenge brought by Trump and his allies seeking to overturn the legal, fair and honest election of Joe Biden.

And thus - the burden isn't that we find apolitical experts - rather it is that we find experts sworn to uphold truth - and having identified such experts - for example going through congressional vetting after nomination by the sitting President - a panel to oversee dangerous speech/writings/online posts could conceivably be formed. Moreover, it seems to me that formation of such a panel is no more difficult than establishing a functioning judiciary.
Click to expand...
The problem you have with this is how do you define dangerous speech and who is going to regulate that definition? You can't have politicians making that decision because politicians are never interested in the problem, they are only interested in the politics of it, I.E, their politics.

You couldn't for example have a Democrat and Republican committee deciding what is dangerous speech because they'd argue night and day only about the kind of speech that benefits or damages each other. This actually sums up the majority of things I read on social media by the way which is just people arguing for the sake of argument.

Either way, do people really think that Facebook or Twitter exist and offer platforms for free in order to provide social media to the masses? They are not interested in policing or regulating their platforms because to them what is said on their platforms is irrelevant. They can't make money from people inciting hatred.

Facebook is only interested in what it can sell and that is your data, the more you put on there the more they can aggregate who you are and what to sell to you. Twitter makes all of it's money from advertisers and again selling the aggregation of data. To generate advertising clicks and data to sell, they need more people arguing on Twitter and not less.

The only reality is if you regulate more and censor then you'll drive the extremists elsewhere and decentralised social networks (that are impossible to police) are perhaps the more dangerous thing coming over the hill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.