A new regulation from the Supreme Court holds Meta, X, and other online platforms accountable for content and user safety, setting Brazil on a collision course with the Trump administration.
On the one hand, I’m against censorship. But on the other, every bit of content on Facebook and X should be removed and all their hardware run through industrial shredders. It’s quite the conundrum.
The same way your right to wave your hands ends before they reach other people’s faces, free speech can’t include speech infringing on other people’s dignity (in the legal/philosophical sense).
Regulating speech within this frame is as bad as stopping a bar fight by dragging the instigator away.
You are thinking about dignity and imagining a British aristocrat drinking tea from a fine porcelain cup with the pinky held up while plotting world domination. That’s the vernacular meaning of dignity.
In the context of human rights, dignity is the natural right of every single person to be valued and respected for their own sake, and to be treated ethically.
You don’t infringe it by saying that your government is being managed by incompetent or immoral people. You infringe it when you say women belong in the kitchen and not in the office, or that black people are naturally inferior to white people, or that gay people don’t have right to love who they love, etc.
Censorship is bad, but Facebook and X’s entire business models revolve around spreading content that is at once false and inflammatory, either just to create engagement or for more malicious purposes, and they reach a huge portion of the population directly, including children, teenagers, the mentally ill and other vulnerable populations. This requires a new understanding of accountability for spreading information.
I wouldn’t agree that it makes sense to hold a Mastodon instance responsible for what its users post, because they don’t have a financial incentive or the ability to promote misinformation at a massive scale. Twitter does. As Aristotle said, we must treat equals equally, and treat the unequal unequally according to the form and extent of their inequality.
It’s not censorship to hold people accountable for making editorial decisions on media platforms, and as long as FB, Twitter, and others are weighting different kinds of content in their algorithms (which they are), they should be held accountable financially and legally for the consequences.
On the one hand, I’m against censorship. But on the other, every bit of content on Facebook and X should be removed and all their hardware run through industrial shredders. It’s quite the conundrum.
The same way your right to wave your hands ends before they reach other people’s faces, free speech can’t include speech infringing on other people’s dignity (in the legal/philosophical sense).
Regulating speech within this frame is as bad as stopping a bar fight by dragging the instigator away.
Actually, that’s exactly what free speech is for. Nobody needs free speech to tell their neighbor their hair looks nice today.
You are thinking about dignity and imagining a British aristocrat drinking tea from a fine porcelain cup with the pinky held up while plotting world domination. That’s the vernacular meaning of dignity.
In the context of human rights, dignity is the natural right of every single person to be valued and respected for their own sake, and to be treated ethically.
You don’t infringe it by saying that your government is being managed by incompetent or immoral people. You infringe it when you say women belong in the kitchen and not in the office, or that black people are naturally inferior to white people, or that gay people don’t have right to love who they love, etc.
Censorship is bad, but Facebook and X’s entire business models revolve around spreading content that is at once false and inflammatory, either just to create engagement or for more malicious purposes, and they reach a huge portion of the population directly, including children, teenagers, the mentally ill and other vulnerable populations. This requires a new understanding of accountability for spreading information.
I wouldn’t agree that it makes sense to hold a Mastodon instance responsible for what its users post, because they don’t have a financial incentive or the ability to promote misinformation at a massive scale. Twitter does. As Aristotle said, we must treat equals equally, and treat the unequal unequally according to the form and extent of their inequality.
The algorithms optimized for engagement with no ethics was the point the world starts going downhill.
It’s not censorship to hold people accountable for making editorial decisions on media platforms, and as long as FB, Twitter, and others are weighting different kinds of content in their algorithms (which they are), they should be held accountable financially and legally for the consequences.
What do you think censorship is, exactly?