zlacker

>>feross+(OP)
>>avoid-harassment side happier, since they could set their filters to stronger than the default setting,

I don't think it actually would make them happy or happier

This group has a problem with the content existing at all, self moderation tools have been suggested and implemented in other contexts, and in a limited degree on twitter today (mute and block) and that is not seen as "good enough"

The group that opposes free speech does not just want to be in a self guided safe space no they want to ensure no one can says things they have deemed hate speech or misinformation. Many of this group also want to go further and punish people outside of the platform they spoke incorrectly on

So to imply self moderation tools is the solution completely misunderstands the goals of the "avoid-harassment side" which is to control and narrow the Overton window

>>phpist+4t
Absolutely, and equally on the other side of things the free speech side don't just want to be able to say whatever they want - they want the right to speech in front of people who don't want to hear it. People who don't like moderation on Twitter can go off to gab, gettr, telegram, Truth, 4chan or a tonne of other venues. But they don't just want to say what they want, they want the people they hate to hear it. The person shouting slurs at AOC on twitter isn't satisfied with calling AOC names if they don't think she will see it.

>>Silver+OQ
>>equally on the other side of things the free speech side don't just want to be able to say whatever they want - they want the right to speech in front of people who don't want to hear it.

While I am sure that is true in some circumstances, I believe that is less common than my original statement

>People who don't like moderation on Twitter can go off to gab, gettr, telegram, Truth, 4chan or a tonne of other venues.

All of those sites have various moderation rules, the key difference here is the people that control the moderation are likely of a different political leaning to you so you view them as being "unmoderated" because you do not like the content that is allowed there.

Gab as an example started out as a "free speech" platform, but now has pretty intensive moderation rules especially around Adult content. This cost them alot of good will from Free Speech Absolutists, and libertarians.

>>The person shouting slurs at AOC on twitter isn't satisfied with calling AOC names if they don't think she will see it.

AOC is somewhat of a different case, without addressing your red herring of slurs. AOC is an elected official, as such the bar should be set higher for elected official in that they have an ethical obligation to hear from the people they represent.

>>phpist+WR
You went from asserting its uncommon for people to be advocating for a right to be heard at the beginning of your reply, to actually asserting that is your position at the end of it.

I just don't think it's a reasonable position, no one has an ethical obligation to make themselves endure racist and misogynist abuse. And you might call it a red herring, but there's overwhelming evidence that that's what AOC is exposed to under the system you advocate.

Free speech is a right to speak, not a right to insist other people listen.

>>Silver+pX
>>but there's overwhelming evidence that that's what AOC is exposed

No there really is not because she and many others have the habitat of calling all criticism "harassment", and then posting a couple of example many of which are not even harassment

>no one has an ethical obligation to make themselves endure racist and misogynist abuse.

Sure, but we would first need to settle on a definition of what is "racist" and "misogynist" because if you use AOC definition of those word I can assure you we do not agree on what would be considered "racist" and "misogynist", because AOC thinks someone saying "We need strong border security" is racist.

>>phpist+bk1
I mean... if you want to try and claim that AOC hasn't been harassed, that's fine. But I don't think anyone is going to take you seriously, no matter your definition of racism or misogyny. I decided to go AOC's twitter page and view the replies to the first tweet I saw, I scrolled past 8 replies before I found the following

>How does it feel to know that in 2 weeks you will be voted out? What a loser you are. The People of NY hate you. After you lose the election, you should disappear forever. Go to Puerto Rico fix you abuelas roof and stay living there

Now, I personally think the racist trope of "go back to where you came from" is pretty obvious. I also think that the fact that I can find such comments so easily is fairly telling. But let's ignore that and just point out that people have literally been jailed for harassing AOC and sending her death threats.

So let's back up, you can make a judgement about the extent to which you value free speech, but you have to do that grounded in reality.

>>Silver+pt1
See if that is your definition of "harassment" then we have widely different definition as I find that comment neither racist nor harassment

it is harsh sure, but if that comment falls outside your bounds of "acceptable" speech then your Overton window is VERY VERY NARROW