I agree as well. This article was terrible with the ‘experts’ just spewing the standard arguments with multiples of them just being wrong.
Gems like these:
First off, that precedent already exists and has for a while. People peddling hatespeech aren’t allowed on the platform, yet they match the supposed start of the slippery slope quoted here. The assumption that censorship is a beast that grows once fed is correct. The assumption that once it’s fed once you have to keep feeding it is not.
Not to mention that the cultural bounds of what is acceptable change over time. If this had been the late seventies showing nudes of 16 year olds would have been perfectly fine. That certainly isn’t the case today.
Or this:
This is only true if the contrary idea adheres to the same truth framework the original idea does. If it doesn’t a debate isn’t possible in the first place. You don’t debate the ideas of a crazy person, you ignore or muzzle them.
Not if the speech itself is to promote intolerance just like Trump did. Though I suppose Trump did promote the latter as insurrection is a form of civil engagement. :|
It’s a terrible argument being made by the Guardian – and, I think, others making a similar case. They’re applying a set of circumstances that might muzzle a pundit or member of the political commentariat to a US President. If Ben Shapiro gets tossed off of Twitter, that might strongly affect Ben Shapiro’s ability to perform his job of being a tiny little racist shitsipper.
But if you are a US President, you still command a bully pulpit, no matter what. You speak at a press conference or podium announcement, the things you say will be covered by all media. It’ll show up in twitter, for sure, from reporters covering what you’re saying.
Of course the “cost” for that is that you have to stand in front of reporters and speak, and those reporters are likely to shout questions at you. Comes with the territory of being president.
But social media is no more required to give a megaphone to a US president than any other media outlet that isn’t bound by contract or compact to do so.
The Guardian’s not making any argument in that piece. Nor even the piece’s author. It’s a Q&A.
Sorry, was typing quickly on the train this AM. That characterization is more accurate.
Though to be fair, this is clearly an edited Q&A, and Guardian editors and/or the writer of the piece chose to print those particular answers.
I feel like the context is important – that it happened to a president who lost the election during the unusual limbo of a (so-called) peaceful transition of power.
Thrag
3295
QAnon Karen’s twitter suspension ended and it’s like a kettle of crazy boiled over.
Long thread.
Christ, Taylor Green is both insane and boring as fuck.
Soma
3298
There are two issues here. First is where the limit of free speech is. Second is whether social media company should be the arbiter of where the limit is.
Even if you think Trump crossed the threshold in the first issue (I won’t fight anyone on this point, but if he crossed it IMO he crossed it a loooooong time), there is still the second issue. Twitter etc. banned Trump not out of the kindness of their hearts. They do it for profit. And they have been profiting from his rhetoric for at least 4 years. The state, with the check and balance of the court and representative government, should be making that call, not private companies.
Muzzling dissent is the classic tactic of anti-liberal states. States like Russia, Iran, PRC. Liberal states and societies don’t do that. We engage constructively with the other party as much as possible. And as last resort we have to agree to disagree, and ignore each other. That is how we build a civil society. Silencing dissent is a nuclear option when the dissent causes harm.
For instance, an armed coup attempt?
Soma
3300
IMO Trump crossed that line a while ago, like asking the Proud Boys to “stand by” (that is Trump doing the exact opposite of virtue-signalling, i.e. vice-signalling). The issue is free speech mixed in with social media companies as gatekeepers. They don’t do it for the good of the people, they do it for the good of their shareholders.
So the real issue is that they should exercise their capacity to limit speech on their platform more swiftly! Which I completely agree on.
CraigM
3302
Yup.
Trump inciting a coup attempt is not ‘dissent’. Discussing fiscal policy with a Romney is dissent. Formenting a riot is committing illegal incitement and direct calls for violence. It should have been tamped down years ago.
The problem with the enforcement of rules is not that they did it, it’s that for so long they refused to.
I feel like it keeps getting overlooked that Trump lost the election and was basically finished as a leader when Twitter banned him.
Soma
3304
That’s the point. Twitter etc. basically dump him when he is of no further use to them (the cost of retaining him outweighs the benefit). It should never have been their call to make. The democratic state under the rule of law should make the call.
When social media platforms, like utilities, become so successful as to be a necessary part of life, then it has to be regulated. The alternative is to let them retain and abuse their monopolistic power. It is something even Milton Friedman would agree with.
Stochastic terrorism isn’t dissent.
edit:
@CraigM already said this, but better.
@rrmorton thanks! Hasty typing lol.
(Stochastic)
And if we’re comparing abuses of power…
Yeah, so? Can muzzling opinions lead to bad outcomes? Absolutely. Does that mean that muzzling opinions always lead to bad outcomes? Absolutely not.
Additionally; I was taking about people who are operating on an entire different plane of existence when it comes to what they believe. They must be ignored and marginalized. It’s the difference between Q-Anon idiots and the Republicans that enable them. The first is crazy, the second is just evil.
Soma
3309
As long as you have real evil people, they will keep deceiving others. And they have a factory line i.e. media empire that will keep producing QAnon or equivalent conspiracy theory. As long as the “crazies” are Trumpist and not Bernie Bro, that media empire has done its job. The solution is to deradicalise those people attracted to QAnon. It is painful and I’ve dealt with them, but muzzling or ignoring them simply means abandoning them to their rightwing overlords. Hell fucking no.
So the existing arrangement is ok? That social media companies will ONLY act when they can’t milk profit (or enough to justify the flak they will get) from Trump et al? Unless there is a third way, state regulation will have to do. It is virgin territory so there will be lots of room for discussion, but right now it is a mess and it cannot continue.
I think this is why I disagree with you on this issue. Social media is not, IMO, a necessary part of life.
