Where the design community meets.
over 4 years ago from John Doe
They're just providing a free channel for everyone to say whatever they want. I agree 100% that it can be dangerous and removing likes isn't doing anything to stop it... I found this decision really odd, to say the least.
"They're just providing a free channel for everyone to say whatever they want."
Right, but that's not free from consequences.
Freedom of speech is a human right and with social media becoming a more prominent way of how we communicate as a species, censorship is a dangerous pathway to go down.
I wonder how much of this idea was influenced by Kanye. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/09/kanye-west-is-right-about-social-media-follower-counts.html
Freedom of speech is indeed a right. Being a user of a social media platform is a privilege though. And that privilege can be revoked.
Why is this getting downvoted? He's right. A private company has every right not to let you on their platform.
I agree that cyberbullying users should be banned if possible. But as far as specific groups with bad ideas, should discourse of polarizing/disagreeable/wrong ideas take place in public forums or fester in dark corners? Perhaps there are arguments for both, but I believe an open dialogue is healthiest for society.
That's a very idealistic approach that completely fails to take into account several issues, such as what and who defines what hate speech is and where do you draw the line, among other things, and the implications both philosophical, political and financial that would result in doing this.
It’s not that difficult. There’s only two concerns: 1. What’s legal. 2. The private company that owns the service you’re posting.
The line isn’t that hard to draw. The financial implications will take care of themselves, if Twitter continues to fail to act. Anyone who’s run a community likely knows that letting this stuff fester does not end well.
But that's the thing - They have acted, and clearly their 'line' is different to your 'line' which is where the problem lies. Everyone has different tolerances for this kind of stuff and it's extremely difficult to get a happy middle ground of both free speech and a nice community because of that.
Their line is objectively wrong, and they are risking the future of their business as a result.
Genuine question: Could you please explain how it is objectively wrong?
I could try, but I think this article does a better job than I could: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376
That article contradicts your point.
"To withdraw those protections from those who would destroy it does not violate its moral principles; it is fundamental to them, because without this enforcement, the treaty would collapse. It is appropriate, even ethical, to answer force with proportional force"
That's what I'm saying - twitter's proportional force aligns with what they want to do, which is different from what you want to do, so by definition it isn't objective at all.
Yes Tony Gines, several large tech oligarchies should be able to decide what people can or cannot say on their totally private and independent platforms influenced in no way by their own internal political persuasions.
Twitter should look at removing users that are fueling hate
Which specific journalists are fueling hate? (I know which ones are, but I'm curious what your answer is.)
DN isn't the right place for me to name and shame but let me just say it would probably take less time to name the ones who are not rather than the ones who are.
The whole journo and bluecheck sphere of twitter is honestly most of the people turning it into an awful place to go.
There's a block button for a reason. Use it.
Where the design community meets.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.
Twitter should look at removing users that are fueling hate. Having a social media presence should be a privilege, not a right. They need to take a hard, long look inwards and figure out what role they have in promoting hate-speech and violence.