I've been on these platforms before the riot and I've seen a lot of unmoderated criminal activity.
US law always seemed strange to me but why is discussions around violence and murder not covered under free speech? The countries that take free speech seriously allow you to freely speak about anything, as long as you don't break the law (inciting violence for example). Seems strange US would be so far behind on this but still see themselves as last bastion of free speech.
If it were though, I think it would indeed be a tricky can of worms. Some aspects of “talking” about criminal activity are considered illegal: for example, Conspiracy to Commit Offense [1] makes it illegal to conspire to do criminal activity.
Freedom of Speech was really meant to protect people from being able to criticize the government without fear of being disappeared. Great article on the history of that clause here [2].
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371
[2] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1_2_1/
I believe there is an ebb and flow to fear and control exercised over speech, whether it be fear that the speech is dangerous or just objectionable in moral systems (violence, obscenity, etc.)
Some day we’ll probably be back at the other end, where the scrutiny is primarily aimed at what is disallowed rather than allowed. But, I think new media and their impact on society is always scary. It happened with books, radio, movies, TV, video games and it’s happening with social media and the internet. And with how well conspiracies and misinformation spreads online, it’s easy to see where the fear comes from. It is causing people who believe in the truth to prevail to begin to question themselves.
Exactly what is covered by the first amendment is very wishy-washy and US law is intentionally elastic, so there are probably some blurred lines as to what kinds of violent threats may cause something to no longer be considered protected speech.
(Of course: IANAL.)
Here's the Parler account archive of one of the insurrectionists who died at the Capitol this week:
>Let’s take this fucking Country BACK!! Load your guns and take to the streets!
https://web.archive.org/web/20210108170202/https://parler.co...
https://thedonald.win/p/11RhTYar32/i-have-clicked-a-thousand...
They are still talking about throwing liberals off helicopters in the comments.
Downvote systems make this issue nearly impossible to discuss, so I’m not even sure why I’m posting this. All I can say is: fighting polarization starts with treating people you disagree with as fellow citizens and human beings, not as Others to be removed and excommunicated.
This is really important. And one of the naturally occuring effects of this community, that makes me optimistic on this being possible on a larger scale as well, if done right.
So what if those people think you're subhuman and want you dead? This is the kind of talk that happens on these platforms every single day. You've just had a violent insurgence on your capitol and you still think the solution is to ask these people to be nice? It's CLEARLY not working, and it's time for social media to rid themselves of open calls for violence and the conspiracy theories that fuel them.
People on the left have also been suspended for similar issues, and rightly so. If your movement cannot remain on a platform without adhering to a policy as simple as "do not threaten violence", then your ideology has a fundamental problem and deserves to be banned to the fringes of the net.
As decentralized solutions quickly flourish in response to their suppression efforts, they will learn the hard way that those who abuse their powers eventually lose them - whether the abuser is Donald Trump, Google, or Twitter. The technology exists to simply bypass and strip these platforms of the power and profits that come with being a gatekeeper. It’s been a long time coming.
Absolutely the wrong way to solve this problem.
The answer to the question 'Who are the intolerants?' is by definition biased.
https://fee.org/articles/why-the-paradox-of-tolerance-is-no-...
Sorry I just got carried away it is just that I am tired of this fallacy being thrown around by people who want to give even more power to silicon valley just because their personal beefs with a steak salesman from New York
Yeah and the internet is supposed to be like that I dont like them but letting them having their speech is prefereable to handing our asses to silicon valley tycoons
Okay, I'll bite. I would be curious about the details of moderation policies of a couple of long-standing apps that display user-generated content. I mean, just to get an understanding which kind of policies are acceptable. Chrome and Firefox.
(To be clear, I am laughing at the wording. And maybe large unaccountable corporations are not the correct vehicles to come up with rules to moderate public discussion)
It’s also the reason why it was all roses and fine when he was threatening nuclear strikes to another nation, but when he doesn’t explicitly tell people to stop their insurrection - it’s all “threatening violence” and what not.
This is really the phone you should get if you love freedom.
>see it’s an organized campaign (conspiracy?) to suppress the truth and freedom of speech. Deep state /qanon etc
What was the Game of Thrones quote; "when you tear out a man's tongue you're not proving him a liar; only that you are afraid of what he might say"?
This dictatorship is about international socialism. Either people awake or we get like the frog in boiling water.
People's Republic, Family Values, Pro-Life...
Iran used the same argument to block Telegram because a few groups were teaching people how to make coctel-molotov. But, Telegram was actively being used by peaceful protestors and other groups (real targets) as well. Blocking Telegram was condemned by the US and the EU.
