To recap: 1. Internet platforms use hands-off approach to regulating speech 2. Hate speech thrives 3. Mass killing plans get egged on online
10
127
153
I’m all for taking a carefully considered, non-kneejerk approach to curbing speech, but it’s been years. How many lives could’ve been saved?
4
15
17
@KuraFire Censorship is not an answer, we've been there, done that, and lives are lost because of it too. We need to rewrite the platform.
2
1
@mollydotcom If someone in a crowd says they’re going to shoot the person next to them, we don’t have the crowd go “Yeah, do it!” after all.
2
1
@KuraFire @mollydotcom Bystanders like that are terrible, but US law seldom imposes bystander liability if no assistance provided
2
1
Replying to @TimSEsq
@TimSEsq @KuraFire Do you think liability sends a strong enough message to inspire individual change of thought and action in such people?

Oct 1, 2015 · 10:49 PM UTC

1
Replying to @mholzschlag
@mollydotcom @KuraFire I think criminal penalties would change their behavior on the margins. But criminal penalties WOULD be censorship.
1
1
@TimSEsq @KuraFire Kinda my point. It's one of those loop-sans-escape problems. Again I advocate a rewrite of the Human Platform. And soon!