Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[The Brain]

If you're only tolerating tolerance then you are intolerant. There's no paradox. Other than the strawman based on unlimited tolerance.

[Sheilbh]

I personally think the "it's a private company" argument was always a little strained.  I think social media companies are closer to being privately-held utility companies, which puts some responsibilities on them that purely private companies won't have. 

Yeah I can see an argument for that, but I never felt there was an absolute right to be on Twitter or any other platform. It's challenging though thinking what those responsibilities should look like.

Especially, for example, in the UK where we have the Online Safety Bill which is horrendous and I don't think anyone is happy with it, but creates liability for companies for them to prevent "harmful content" including the idea of "legal but harmful content". If we're going down that route, I feel like a sharper clearer set of rules and regulation by government would be better than making that the responsibility of the company - so they mainly have to enforce, not work out what might be hamrful.

But I have no idea what the answer is to be honest, I think it's incredibly tough.

[DGuller]

If you're only tolerating tolerance then you are intolerant. There's no paradox. Other than the strawman based on unlimited tolerance.

Intolerance may be the bad word, because in this case it doesn't mean bigoted as it usually does, it really means opposed to free speech.  Maybe anti-tolerant is a better word.  The point is that giving freedom to destroy freedom is not promoting freedom, and that's where the paradox lies.

[The Brain]

If you're only tolerating tolerance then you are intolerant. There's no paradox. Other than the strawman based on unlimited tolerance.

Intolerance may be the bad word, because in this case it doesn't mean bigoted as it usually does, it really means opposed to free speech.  Maybe anti-tolerant is a better word.  The point is that giving freedom to destroy freedom is not promoting freedom, and that's where the paradox lies.

Sticks and stones...

[Jacob]

I don't fully get the garment-rending online. Trump'll get unbanned but I think that's about it.

I think there's a decent chance that Trump would've lost to Hillary if it hadn't been for Twitter.

[DGuller]

If you're only tolerating tolerance then you are intolerant. There's no paradox. Other than the strawman based on unlimited tolerance.

Intolerance may be the bad word, because in this case it doesn't mean bigoted as it usually does, it really means opposed to free speech.  Maybe anti-tolerant is a better word.  The point is that giving freedom to destroy freedom is not promoting freedom, and that's where the paradox lies.

Sticks and stones...

I'm happy for you, you live in a country where professional propaganda campaigns are not likely to make your country take an authoritarian turn.  You can afford to be so flippant and fatalistic.  I can't, so as a citizen I don't have an option to punt. 

Free speech near-absolutism used to be a simple principle, but in 2022 it's now a simplistic principle.  Social media being used by authoritarians to make countries more illiberal is not a strawman, it's a reality in more than a few countries.

[The Brain]

If you're only tolerating tolerance then you are intolerant. There's no paradox. Other than the strawman based on unlimited tolerance.

Intolerance may be the bad word, because in this case it doesn't mean bigoted as it usually does, it really means opposed to free speech.  Maybe anti-tolerant is a better word.  The point is that giving freedom to destroy freedom is not promoting freedom, and that's where the paradox lies.

Sticks and stones...

I'm happy for you, you live in a country where professional propaganda campaigns are not likely to make your country take an authoritarian turn.  You can afford to be so flippant and fatalistic.  I can't, so as a citizen I don't have an option to punt. 

Free speech near-absolutism used to be a simple principle, but in 2022 it's now a simplistic principle.  Social media being used to make countries more illiberal is not a strawman, it's a reality in more than a few countries.

*shrug* My impression is that democracy and freedom of speech is the most desirable system. If this impression ever changes then I will support a different system.

[Razgovory]

I used to be the same way.  Reality is hell on ideals.

[The Brain]

I used to be the same way.  Reality is hell on ideals.

In Sweden the past weeks dozens of police officers have been wounded, firefighters attacked and much material damage has been done by persons completely opposed to an open and democratic society. I still think that banning their propaganda would be extremely poor policy.

[DGuller]

*shrug* My impression is that democracy and freedom of speech is the most desirable system.

I think that as well, which is why I think protecting it is a good idea.  Sometimes freedom can only be protected with some elements of lack of freedom.  Democratic countries don't consider drafting people in times of war to protect their country to be beyond the pale, even though you're removing freedom from the people being drafted.  Reality is complicated and can't always be compressed down to clever one-liners.

[The Brain]

*shrug* My impression is that democracy and freedom of speech is the most desirable system.

I think that as well, which is why I think protecting it is a good idea.  Sometimes freedom can only be protected with some elements of lack of freedom.  Democratic countries don't consider drafting people in times of war to protect their country to be beyond the pale, even though you're removing freedom from the people being drafted.  Reality is complicated and can't always be compressed down to clever one-liners.

Reality is indeed very complicated. Which makes simple solutions not always the best. I'm reminded of the situation where society is attacked by a virus. Trying to stop the virus from reaching the population doesn't necessarily lead to a better outcome than developing resistance in the population and living with the virus.

[Eddie Teach]

What are you advocating here, Guller? That the government step in and decide who Twitter bans?

[Jacob]

Free speech is great.

I am not a big fan of misinformation campaigns nor influence operations waged by hostile powers with the intent to cause harm and undermine the security of our nations.

I believe there's probably a way to regulate speech that can lessen those harms while remaining sufficiently free. I suspect it's about solid, trustworthy processes and instutions.

[Zoupa]

*shrug* My impression is that democracy and freedom of speech is the most desirable system.

I think that as well, which is why I think protecting it is a good idea.  Sometimes freedom can only be protected with some elements of lack of freedom.  Democratic countries don't consider drafting people in times of war to protect their country to be beyond the pale, even though you're removing freedom from the people being drafted.  Reality is complicated and can't always be compressed down to clever one-liners.

Reality is indeed very complicated. Which makes simple solutions not always the best. I'm reminded of the situation where society is attacked by a virus. Trying to stop the virus from reaching the population doesn't necessarily lead to a better outcome than developing resistance in the population and living with the virus.

 

Oh Lord, please stay in your lane.

[DGuller]

What are you advocating here, Guller? That the government step in and decide who Twitter bans?

I'm advocating that we should consider more government policies to deal with speech designed to attack democracy than just sit back and hope for the best.  I don't have any detailed policy proposals, but I can pass judgments on actions that other countries have done. 

For example, when some former Soviet republics banned Russian TV channels, I thought that was an acceptable policy, and in fact a smart policy.  The propaganda zombifying the Russian speakers in those countries presented a very real threat to the democracy of those countries, a much bigger threat than the censorship of said propaganda or the slippery slope that comes with it.