@measlytwerp Let's agree to disagree, since this discussion isn't going to go anywhere (since we have a fundamental disagreement here).

@measlytwerp Moderation of platforms isn't unethical. Moderation of generic tools is.

DashEquals boosted
Should I move over all my political / controversial discussion to this account?

@measlytwerp Blocking them in the web browser essentially takes away their freedom of speech, because they no longer have the tools to use to express it. Yes, it's still legal, but it's unethical.

I'd rather have Nazis in a dark internet form than shouting on the streets recruiting people.

@measlytwerp You're not seeing the large benefits of freedom of speech and expression. Imagine if speaking out against Nazis was banned. I'm sure that would kill many people, right? In fact, it would probably kill more people than pro-Nazi speech does currently, as far more people would become radicalized.

mastodon thoughts 

@measlytwerp No, I'm not. I'm arguing that giving them, alongside everyone else, that freedom saves more lives than that freedom kills.

Interesting how the "Toots" number on actually counts Toots + Replies, so it looks like I spam people's feeds much more than I do (especially given that ~20% of all my toots have occured within five threads).

@measlytwerp Freedom of speech doesn't kill people. The fact that people are becoming Nazis simply by being exposed to the ideas shows a failure in the education system, not a failure in the concept of free speech.

@measlytwerp No, my position is to benefit freedom. Yes, giving Nazis freedom is an unfortunate side effect of giving everyone freedom. No, it's not worth restricting freedom from everyone to restrict it from Nazis.

@measlytwerp Sometimes, the good that something does outweighs the harm that it does, and the harm should be mitigated in other ways. See invidio.us/watch?v=GiYO1TObNz8

@measlytwerp If we could accurately discriminate and only block direct calls to violence and nothing else, sure, we should do it.

But we can't do that. It's not possible to have a way to get rid of only calls to genocide and nothing else. If you did, you couldn't block Gab, because not all users there are Nazis. On the other hand, if you did block Gab, because some users are Nazis, you'd have to block almost EVERY social media site, because some users there are Nazis, too.

@measlytwerp
I'm not fine with calls to harm others, but they are covered under free speech. Sometimes, you have to take the good with the bad, and the benefits of free speech far outweigh the drawbacks.
@Matter

@measlytwerp
My point is that drawing the line ANYWHERE is a bad idea, because once you draw that line, no matter how reasonable of a place you draw it at, you add the potential for abuse.

People who want to do awful things will do them either way, blocking them in a browser is a minor disruption of their goal.
@Matter

@measlytwerp
What do you mean, "address the genocide thing"? Browsers shouldn't block websites of any ideology, no matter how much I personally disagree with that ideology. If you don't want to access those sites, I'm sure you can find a list of them and add them to your hosts file or something.
@Matter

@measlytwerp
Any browser that I use allows me to unblock malicious sites if I choose to access them. The same should go for any website.

Sure, browsers might not block access to sites you like *now*, but what about if they do it in the future? Setting the precedent that "browsers can block sites based off of ideology" is a terrible idea.
@Matter

mastodon thoughts 

Meta, Sunbeam.city 

mastodon thoughts 

@measlytwerp
That's... awful. Browsers shouldn't block users from visiting websites they want to visit.

The rest of what you've said doesn't make any sense.
@Matter

Show more
LinuxRocks.Online

Linux Geeks doing what Linux Geeks do..