Ok, I've had this in my drafts for a day or two now. But since no one's talking about the issues in recent weeks I guess it should remain in the drafts.
The following are questions that have popped in my mind for the past days. I don't fully understand some, I don't have answers for many.
Just like Jadakiss in the song "Why?", here goes...
1. Should Parler Have Been Shut Down? 2. Can a Tech Company ban a customer? 3. When Amazon, Twitter and Facebook de-platform you which literally throws you out of business does the immediate past question still hold? 4. Were there reports of civil war and/or insurrection plans on the Parler? 5. Should the internet be ruled by American corporations? 6. Does free speech has limits? 7. Who should determine what's true? Social media corps, government, or cryptography? 8. Is china doing it right? (I know the answer to this - a big NO!!!... lol). 9. Can we actually achieve true privacy online? 10. Why is my head thinking about all of the above? LOL
Love questions -- and agree they're abstract -- I.e. there are too many what-ifs. Wiggle-room is high.
Q. Should anything be shut down, ever? A. When the person with their finger on the switch thinks it should be, it will be.
Q. Can a Tech Company ban a customer? A. "We reserve the right to refuse service." -- is a common business practice.
Q. Does free speech has limits? A. Like all the "free" we get from companies like Google -- free doesn't mean their aren't "costs" involved. Freedom to speak your mind is one thing.
Wielding your speech as a weapon when able to do so -- that's no longer just speech.
Verbally threatening others in a believable way - changes the equation.
The corporate platforms own the algorithms. See the first QA above.
That's a problem too, the whole situation brings up more questions than answers, but it's not a bad problem to have provided we can discuss them freely and openly. So far, *that* hasn't been a problem, everyone's having their say. But to Brian's point, it's important to have intent count for something in this equation. If the intent of free-speech is to uncover, to get to some truth, and pave the way forward toward understanding, there should be no limits - and that's the spirit, I believe, the concept is grounded in. If the intent is to instigate, if it stirs up violence, then it's something else. But even there we need to be careful; who can really define intent?
yeah i feel like it's intent all the way down and all the way up. We're all intending something when we are thinking.
I think what's happening is... okay just imagine a human for example. Let's say this human is a man who puts off the important stuff. A man who is scared of the truths. Maybe his goals are aligned with his abilities. And what does he do? He can either get down to questioning what his abilities must become and start the metamorphposis. Or he can go deep within in an attempt to block out all the thoughts/inquiries into what do i not have now that i must need for my goals?
I think if we were to look at human race as an organism we are doing a lot of the latter. Details, no matter how grim don't phase us if we're willing to take them as data to help us improve. They only are grim when we don't intend to change or if we intend to hold onto past beliefs of normalcy.
The dynamic person never fears inquiry into even the darkest of places.
GabrielGreco
Q. Should anything be shut down, ever?
A. When the person with their finger on the switch thinks it should be, it will be.
Q. Can a Tech Company ban a customer?
A. "We reserve the right to refuse service." -- is a common business practice.
Q. Does free speech has limits?
A. Like all the "free" we get from companies like Google -- free doesn't mean their aren't "costs" involved. Freedom to speak your mind is one thing.
Wielding your speech as a weapon when able to do so -- that's no longer just speech.
Verbally threatening others in a believable way - changes the equation.
The corporate platforms own the algorithms. See the first QA above.
Keep up the questions.
But to Brian's point, it's important to have intent count for something in this equation.
If the intent of free-speech is to uncover, to get to some truth, and pave the way forward toward understanding, there should be no limits - and that's the spirit, I believe, the concept is grounded in.
If the intent is to instigate, if it stirs up violence, then it's something else. But even there we need to be careful; who can really define intent?
I think what's happening is... okay just imagine a human for example. Let's say this human is a man who puts off the important stuff. A man who is scared of the truths. Maybe his goals are aligned with his abilities. And what does he do? He can either get down to questioning what his abilities must become and start the metamorphposis. Or he can go deep within in an attempt to block out all the thoughts/inquiries into what do i not have now that i must need for my goals?
I think if we were to look at human race as an organism we are doing a lot of the latter. Details, no matter how grim don't phase us if we're willing to take them as data to help us improve. They only are grim when we don't intend to change or if we intend to hold onto past beliefs of normalcy.
The dynamic person never fears inquiry into even the darkest of places.