As a content creator, the fear of being randomly banned / blacklisted by the platform I use is all too real. It happened to a friend of mine with a decent sized YouTube channel for 0 legitimate reason.
Carlson picked the twitter platform not because it’s the best tool to host a show (YouTube or twitch would be better), but because it’s the place least likely to ban him.
That might be the beginning of a new MOAT for twitter, if they survive long enough to make something from it. And politics aside could be beneficial to everyone.
Twitter is least likely to ban him due to the temporary chaos and incompetence of the "leadership". As lawsuits & losses pile, Musk will have to step down and then the "free speech" honeymoon is over. Also, I doubt Twitter has money for Carlson's show, the kind that'd justify him doing it, and paying his staff and himself enough to cover his costs and basic life's needs.
I don’t agree, and it appears to me that those who embrace the facade of free speech absolutism always turn out to provide forums for blocks, bans, and threats of political violence against their opponents. Look at the demise of any so-called free speech forum on the right for any numbers of examples. The right has been at this for more than a century while the left has staked their entire ideology on protecting free speech. Musk and Carlson have repeatedly shown that they value "free speech for me (protected class), but not for thee." The entire history of human rights is based on this dispute. One side wants free speech for the rich and powerful, while the other side wants it for everyone without threats of political and physical violence. Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, so by its very nature demands that free speech only applies to those with wealth and means.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
I abhor all banning and blocking from any source. It is an effrontery to getting to the truth and used as a weapon to shield wrongdoing. I don't like the message of the KKK for example but so what. Their numbers were declining without any censoring online...meh. The people can figure this out. We can't figure it out though banning people who might help us figure things out that's for sure.
Like anything else free speech has to have some caveats, being an absolutist paints you into a corner and doesn’t allow you to see the full range of issues. From the old shouting fire in a crowded theater to inciting genocide, words can absolutely have real world consequences, and can be manipulated by outside forces that individuals are not equipped to fight against.
I used to be a big believer of “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Then my friend told me that logic falls apart when we start to tolerate intolerance. Now I don’t know what to think.
Why can't you tolerate intolerance. Between being the bigger person and not trying to go tit for tat with people whose views you despise, and the whole idea that sunlight is the best disinfectant, it's by far the least bad policy.
'Sunlight is the best disinfectant' requires other users to do the disinfecting for you. It's saying that you have no strong convictions against users that end up harassing other users off your platform.
It's the paradox of tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance), where by showing tolerance to the intolerant, the intolerant will eventually keep pushing and eventually destroy the tolerant.
Seems a lot like what's happening with the modern left, honestly.
But I think there's a way around that, especially on platforms, it's just to separate opinion from personal attack.
HN does that pretty well, though not perfectly. But in society people have gotten away with promoting this pretend idea that ideas can be the same as violence (or variation on that) and want to pretend that some general claim someone makes is the same as a personal attack. If we can have platforms that are mature enough not to get caught in that, I think it's possible for different views to be aired and repugnant ones to be called out.
except echo chambers usually lock out dissenting voices and prevent repugnant views from being called out. they can also be breeding grounds for disinformation and indoctrination, so allowing them to propagate (and become normalized) doesn't really work. this becomes especially bad when say, a young person goes online and is gradually convinced that their own failings are actually because of some external force which is taking all the jobs, or taking over the country, or some other falsehood which leads them to real life violence.
So don't tolerate intolerance. It's an easy solution, I have no idea why there is a paradox about it. If you allow shitty behavior to persist it will. If you don't tolerate shitty behavior in people it tends to diminish. You'll never get rid of all of it but you have to correct toxic mentalities and behaviors.
The nuance of what is “intolerance” is very subjective.
The prime example is Germany that forbids any mention of Nazism. There are some that say removing all mentions of Nazism will doom us to replay a similar tragedy. Others say that mentioning it will draw followers. It’s not only important to draw the line, but to know who’s drawing that line. And are they drawing that line now, to further discriminate against views that don’t support theirs in the future.
> he prime example is Germany that forbids any mention of Nazism
False. Not "any" use is forbidden. Forbidden is for example the use and display of symbols of certain organisations. The exceptions are then when these symbols are for example used in context like art, science or to explain historic contexts.
"Das Zeigen von "Kennzeichen verfassungswidriger und terroristischer Organisationen" ist in Deutschland verboten. Das regelt §86a des Strafgesetzbuches. Die Verbote gelten allerdings nicht, wenn die Verwendung der Kennzeichen "der staatsbürgerlichen Aufklärung, der Abwehr verfassungswidriger Bestrebungen, der Kunst oder der Wissenschaft, der Forschung oder der Lehre, der Berichterstattung über Vorgänge des Zeitgeschehens oder der Geschichte oder ähnlichen Zwecken dient", zum Beispiel dieser Text."
A memorial site of a Nazi concentration camp, like the one which is just 10km away from my home, for example can show Nazi symbols. The context there is the former concentration camp, where of the ca. 100000 prisoners around 50000 died. It's quite important to know about theses crimes, so the memorial site can and does display Nazi symbols.
> The prime example is Germany that forbids any mention of Nazism.
AFAIK, German law does not forbid “any mention of Nazism”, it forbids “Dissemination of propaganda material of unconstitutional and terrorist organisations” and “Use of symbols of unconstitutional and terrorist organisations” including, but very much not limited to, the propaganda and symbols of the Nazi Party. But this does not – for instance, as controversies in 00s established, prohibit incorporation of Nazi symbols in contexts that, taken as a whole, are directed against them. The issue isn’t mention but promotion of Nazism, etc.
Has the line between mention and promotion been tested? I remember hearing about some cases where the former seemed likely, but the latter was argued. I could be mistaken though.
> Has the line between mention and promotion been tested?
Wikipedia lists some specific cases with regard to symbols where it has, but more generally its pretty clear that Germany has not made any effort to prohibit mention of Nazis [0], even while they prohibit Nazi (and other “unconstitutional and terrorist group”) propaganda.
In this case, Germany is given the benefit of the doubt. In general, do you think tolerating intolerance is right? Another example would be movie studios removing the twin towers from movies and shows just so the "terrorist don't win"? Is that right?
I fully understand kmos17 what you are saying. The problem arises however who gets to decide? This Benson episode from the 80's gets to the apex of the problem at the 16.59 minute mark. Strangely, it's HARD to find this gem online. Now why is that? I do not know but somebody does. Regardless, here it is:
The platform does. This isn't hard. You can go check out Gab or whatever right now and see what happens when a platform prides itself on 'free speech'. A platform turning into a toxic wasteland because it doesn't want to ban or kick people off for being nasty means only the people who thrive in the muck will join.
Getting feelings hurt is not a crime. Harming people physically or financially is a crime. GAB isn't harming anyone. I don't like GAB but end of the day just because I don't like something banning them entirely is a form of evil. They have a right to exist. Most don't like them. They will never be a massive force of reason. Let it go because it's not going anywhere.
What does this have anything to do with what I mentioned? I pointed to Gab as an example of why not curating your site is bad and what it leads to. This is why social media sites ban highly inflammatory content.
You said blacklisting from any source is abhorrent. Then I recommend you post on Gab until you realize why curation is necessary.
When you research the history of the KKK, you will see that they were purveyors of the original blocks and bans; whenever a non-Christian or non-white spoke out about equal treatment under the law or decided to move into their town and live like any other person, they would begin a state-sanctioned campaign of intimidation and harassment against their opponents, sometimes resulting in their intentional injury or deaths and destruction of their private property. I say state-sanctioned because the KKK were part of the establishment, from the police department all the way to the governor’s office. You say we should allow the message of extremists to be heard, but their message is loud and clear: we will destroy the lives and property of anyone who disagrees with us. And this is why I maintain that free speech absolutism is a total charade, a con job to provide cover for political violence and limitations on the free speech of their opponents. The people cannot figure this out if they running for their lives from terrorists who are trying to kill them. And yes, the KKK were the original homegrown terrorist movement, and they were protected and given safe harbor by the government, just as Musk is protecting the same type of people today on Twitter.
I disagree. There is an episode of King of The Hill that mocks the KKK. You know what the KKK did? NOTHING. They didn't say a word. They didn't say a word because their numbers are very weak. It is a joke at this point. The episode actually used the KKK as actual jokes in Bobby's skit. Think about that for a minute. It went from feared to a joke in a cartoon show and nobody said a word because they are a joke.
I spent some time trying to parse your comment, but I’m afraid I just couldn’t do it. Right wing violence is the largest form of extremism in the US today. It is also largely based on the original values of the KKK, but operates on the level of lone wolves at the individual levels of violence (such as mass shootings) instead of the group. Today, the group level focuses on disseminating violent rhetoric from the top down, often from political actors using the cover of free speech through media outlets. It’s also still a major problem with law enforcement, as the ghost skins phenomenon of infiltration shows in FBI reporting on the subject. It’s not a joke, it’s one of the most pressing issues in 2023 America, and is emanating directly from the leaders of the GOP.
Name one. The only controversial thing I said is in the choice of specific terms and descriptions, which I acknowledge below with the following sources. For example, there is a debate over the terms lone wolf, leaderless resistance, and stochastic terrorism. Otherwise, the dispute over terms aside, it is correct.
Right wing violence is the largest form of extremism in the US today.
Today, the group level focuses on disseminating violent rhetoric from the top down, often from political actors using the cover of free speech through media outlets.
Twitter seems ill-suited for long-form video content. It's optimized more for bite-sized interactions, not prolonged viewing.
The lagging, buffering, and poor video resolution reflect this. Platforms like YouTube or Vimeo have honed their infrastructure for stable, high-quality video streaming and created an interface that promotes sustained engagement.
For Twitter to compete in this space, it needs to fundamentally rethink its approach to video content, from infrastructure and compression algorithms to user interface design and balancing social interaction with content consumption.
I have never watched his show but roughly understood it to be more of the kind of low-brow sensational fox-news stuff. I do belive he's a smart man though. I'm very interested to see the direction he goes with this, if he does something principled, or if it's just some tabloid news. I'd love to see an intelligent right wing opinion show, and I think he's up to the task, I don't know if it's the most profitable play though.
It was probably the violent, racist screed that came out during discovery in the Dominion suit on top of the sexist stuff. Even Fox News has standards. Specifically, hosts can't be seen or heard saying the quiet part out loud.
Smart move. No longer restricted to the US and his reach is now globally available and he did NOT choose Truth Social.
Given that, it means that Donald Trump will eventually be back on Twitter to cause chaos once again (and drive up more outrage) which is what the media and Twitter desperately needs to survive on.
Carlson picked the twitter platform not because it’s the best tool to host a show (YouTube or twitch would be better), but because it’s the place least likely to ban him.
That might be the beginning of a new MOAT for twitter, if they survive long enough to make something from it. And politics aside could be beneficial to everyone.