Read on Twitter
7/ When people say that "it was right to censor Trump because he incited violence", they assume that censoring the President is a de-escalatory act. A very strong assumption.
8/ When people say that "it was right to censor X because he incited violence", they assume they will never be ruled by a dictator who needs to be overthrown.
9/ Banning dangerous speech on a ~bipartisan platform assumes that the censored won't move to a ~partisan platform.
If he does, two echo chambers form, and instability increases.
If he does, two echo chambers form, and instability increases.
10/ Censorship is not the only recourse to harmful speech. For example, if X insults me, I can sue X and a judge can decide a sentence. https://twitter.com/Molson_Hart/status/1265781389355556869?s=20
11/ I don't believe in the false dichotomy of the paradox of tolerance.
We can:
– never censor
– consistently condemn violence
– be fair in general & pursue criminals & the corrupt, to remove fertile ground for "dangerous speech" seeds to grow
We can:
– never censor
– consistently condemn violence
– be fair in general & pursue criminals & the corrupt, to remove fertile ground for "dangerous speech" seeds to grow
12/ Cognitive dissonances:
– to believe in the outcome of democratic elections AND censorship
– to believe in fairness AND selective censorship
– to believe of being oppressed AND having the power to censor
– to believe in the outcome of democratic elections AND censorship
– to believe in fairness AND selective censorship
– to believe of being oppressed AND having the power to censor
13/ Final thoughts: https://twitter.com/DellAnnaLuca/status/1347172734757908480?s=20
14/ Many replied, “but Twitter should censor calls for violence.”
Yes, but no censor stops there (exhibit below).
One can’t cherry-pick on the first-order benefits of censorship while ignoring the second-order risks.
Whether we like it or not, it’s a full package. https://twitter.com/dellannaluca/status/1324787274077396992
Yes, but no censor stops there (exhibit below).
One can’t cherry-pick on the first-order benefits of censorship while ignoring the second-order risks.
Whether we like it or not, it’s a full package. https://twitter.com/dellannaluca/status/1324787274077396992
15/ Some replied. “If Trump were an ordinary citizen, he would have been indicted. Hence the need for censorship.”
First we had a problem.
So we introduced censorship.
Now we have two problems.
First we had a problem.
So we introduced censorship.
Now we have two problems.
16/ A great question (quoted) and my reply:
I don’t know. Perhaps, in extreme cases, censorship is a solution, but it’s a last resort one. Like chemio. We don’t want to try it before having tried everything else, and definitely not as a preventive measure https://twitter.com/HannesM1/status/1347570829182251008?s=20
I don’t know. Perhaps, in extreme cases, censorship is a solution, but it’s a last resort one. Like chemio. We don’t want to try it before having tried everything else, and definitely not as a preventive measure https://twitter.com/HannesM1/status/1347570829182251008?s=20
