(October 12, 2018 at 2:36 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 1:53 am)robvalue Wrote: Although social media sites are not endorsing what anyone posts per se, they are allowing and enabling it. So it seems right to me that they have a responsibility to block people who are using it in ways known to incite violence or hatred.

The thing is, if you say it's okay for one person, then it's okay for everyone. You give permission for a virtual lynch mob to assemble itself using your platform.

How does one police the feelings of others?

To expand on this, I hate what the GOP has turned into.  I believe they're a fascist, cult-like entity, who, if allowed to continue, threaten humanity on the whole.  Between their regressive social stances/policies, callous greed, and aggression stemming from fear driven by wanton ignorance, I fear what will happen to the world if they're allowed to keep control of all facets of the US government for much longer.

My stance is not driven by fake news, but by what the GOP is doing, and what they claim to stand for.

Is my hate, in and of itself a bad thing?  Does it have merit?  And if so, does that automatically mean the other side is completely without merit?  Or, really, that it's even a black and white issue with only two sides?  And, most importantly: do you want Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc. determining this?

I've said it before, but I'm 100% not comfortable with corporate entities becoming de facto gatekeepers of what is/is not appropriate for our society.  For becoming the ultimate shapers of our culture because they filter what we consume.

I'm all for social media platforms taking care of the obvious - trolling, doxxing, harassment, hate speech (both blatant ("Kill the Jews/blacks/whatever!") and coded (14/88 and whatnot)), fake news, etc.  But, even legitimate forms of media can incite people to hatred and/or violence.  The Brett Kavanaugh hearings pissed off people on both sides of the political aisle.  Should something like that not be available online?

(October 12, 2018 at 8:39 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: I'm all for social media platforms taking care of the obvious - trolling, doxxing, harassment, hate speech (both blatant ("Kill the Jews/blacks/whatever!") and coded (14/88 and whatnot)), fake news, etc.  But, even legitimate forms of media can incite people to hatred and/or violence.  The Brett Kavanaugh hearings pissed off people on both sides of the political aisle.  Should something like that not be available online?

It's not media that incites people to anything; it's what people do with the media.
Need to change the people, not the media.

Good luck.

Quote:Should something like that not be available online?

The crazies can still go to Breitbart.  Or Stormfront.  Or FOX.

It isn't as if they don't have options.

Did Stormfront come back?  I thought those sad nazis finally gave up because they were too poor?

(October 12, 2018 at 2:31 pm)CarveTheFive Wrote: If it were my world popular social media sites wouldn’t censor any content whatsoever even if the end results were harmful to mankind.

The Truth isn't a suicide pact.

(October 16, 2018 at 7:35 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(October 12, 2018 at 2:31 pm)CarveTheFive Wrote: If it were my world popular social media sites wouldn’t censor any content whatsoever even if the end results were harmful to mankind.

The Truth isn't a suicide pact.

We don’t know. It might be. So far centuries of distortion is bringing us pretty close.

(October 12, 2018 at 2:31 pm)CarveTheFive Wrote: If it were my world popular social media sites wouldn’t censor any content whatsoever even if the end results were harmful to mankind.

Oh really? So when fuckwit jones says I and my family and my extended family deserve to die in a fire I should simply roll over and die? Really?

Jones is such a comprehensive fuckwit that it has gone beyond any means of measurement. I cannot believe that here you are defending such a level of buffoonery, yet here you are doing exactly that. It beggars belief.

(October 12, 2018 at 2:31 pm)CarveTheFive Wrote: If it were my world popular social media sites wouldn’t censor any content whatsoever even if the end results were harmful to mankind.

Most people embrace a consequentialist view that if the harm resulting from a course of action exceeds the good resulting from that action, the action is thus undesirable. Do you think that the good resulting from unrestricted free speech on these social media platforms would outweigh the harm? If so, what do you base that on? If not, what reasons lead you to conclude that speech shouldn't be restricted in spite of any harm caused?

I'm also curious as to whether you feel it's okay to shout "fire" in a crowded theater? To make terroristic threats without consequence? Do you think that all laws against libel and slander should be abolished?

Quote:Oh really? So when fuckwit jones says I and my family and my extended family deserve to die in a fire I should simply roll over and die? Really?

Goddamn you’re really fucking weird. Like, I didn’t say anything even remotely close to that.

Quote:I cannot believe that here you are defending such a level of buffoonery, yet here you are doing exactly that.

GAY FROGS!!!

I mean, that was fun, wasn’t it?

Quote:Do you think that the good resulting from unrestricted free speech on these social media platforms would outweigh the harm?

Maybe. Idk. But right now they’re boring and if they have crazy shit on them it’s entertaining. I like to be entertained when I’m clicking on websites. That’s all.

Quote:I'm also curious as to whether you feel it's okay to shout "fire" in a crowded theater?

I don’t care. I mean, yes for sure if it’s on fire otherwise it concerns me about as much as shouting bad cliche on an Internet forum.

Quote:To make terroristic threats without consequence?

Consequence from whom?

Quote:Do you think that all laws against libel and slander should be abolished?

Yes.

(October 16, 2018 at 2:38 pm)CarveTheFive Wrote:

Quote:Oh really? So when fuckwit jones says I and my family and my extended family deserve to die in a fire I should simply roll over and die? Really?

Goddamn you’re really fucking weird. Like, I didn’t say anything even remotely close to that.

Quote:I cannot believe that here you are defending such a level of buffoonery, yet here you are doing exactly that.

GAY FROGS!!!

I mean, that was fun, wasn’t it?

Quote:Do you think that the good resulting from unrestricted free speech on these social media platforms would outweigh the harm?

Maybe. Idk. But right now they’re boring and if they have crazy shit on them it’s entertaining. I like to be entertained when I’m clicking on websites. That’s all.

Quote:I'm also curious as to whether you feel it's okay to shout "fire" in a crowded theater?

I don’t care. I mean, yes for sure if it’s on fire otherwise it concerns me about as much as shouting bad cliche on an Internet forum.

Quote:To make terroristic threats without consequence?

Consequence from whom?

Quote:Do you think that all laws against libel and slander should be abolished?

Yes.

Well that's... a depressingly immature approach to the situation. You don't actually seem to care about freedom of speech, its impacts, and its limits. You're just in it for the lols?