- Messages
- 8,632
Check your DMs.
Meta - Zuckerberg pressured by Trump admin on laptop story and Biden admin regarding COVID disinformation
- Thread starter Heelscape
- Start date
- Replies: 23
- Views: 495
gtyellowjacket
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 743
I'm happy to criticize Trump or anyone that wants to use the power of the government to suppress speech for political reasons. Nyc's explanation seems pretty reasonable to me.
Last edited:
gtyellowjacket
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 743
This could go under the telegram or the Facebook thread so NYC, let me know if you need me to move it.
It's behind paywall, but here's a really good editorial on weighing the costs and benefits of free speech on the internet. This writer advocates compellingly for unfettered Free speech despite the downsides.
"And so there has been a concerted push for institutions to censor, to hand over user data, to fiddle with algorithms to tilt conversations in a more prosocial direction. Defending the freedom to say dark things — in private or public — inevitably raises the question “Why would you want to help such people?” Services such as Telegram, where conversations can tip from bad speech to bad deeds, make this particularly awkward to answer.
But there is an answer, which is that this is the wrong question. We should not be asking whether anyone wants to help criminals (no!) but whether it’s worth sacrificing our own liberties to make it easier for the government to stop them. The Bill of Rights answered this with a resounding no, and that’s still the correct answer after more than 200 years."
It's behind paywall, but here's a really good editorial on weighing the costs and benefits of free speech on the internet. This writer advocates compellingly for unfettered Free speech despite the downsides.
Loading…
www.washingtonpost.com
"And so there has been a concerted push for institutions to censor, to hand over user data, to fiddle with algorithms to tilt conversations in a more prosocial direction. Defending the freedom to say dark things — in private or public — inevitably raises the question “Why would you want to help such people?” Services such as Telegram, where conversations can tip from bad speech to bad deeds, make this particularly awkward to answer.
But there is an answer, which is that this is the wrong question. We should not be asking whether anyone wants to help criminals (no!) but whether it’s worth sacrificing our own liberties to make it easier for the government to stop them. The Bill of Rights answered this with a resounding no, and that’s still the correct answer after more than 200 years."