Comment by function_seven | Hacker News Reader

Comment by function_seven | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Who does the pruning, and what is considered repressive?

For purposes of this discussion, let's talk about the origins of Covid-19 and how surgical masks had little effect on the lab-borne virus. Or we can talk about how anti-maskers' rhetoric harmed a vulnerable population, and how discussions of lab-vs-wild distracted us from what should have been our immediate concerns.

Should the government talk to Twitter about my statements to that effect?

What about forcing vaccinated pupils to share a classroom with unvaccinated peers?

Some people will share their (reasonable!) opinion that allowing unvaccinated students presents a hazard to the school population. Others will share their (also reasonable!) opinion that denying education based on vaccination status presents a hazard to the development of our kids.

These are examples! I do not want to actually debate Covid 19 shit. Instead, I'm using it as something concrete to get at the larger ideas about speech "cultivation" and "pruning", and who decides what is "repressive".

So, who's building the garden walls?

> Who does the pruning, and what is considered repressive?

> So, who's building the garden walls?

I'm actually going to choose not to answer these questions because I am exhausted of them being trotted out as if the answer is "it's impossible".

In actuality, better thinkers/writers than I have answered them many times before because they're such obvious problems in anything but the simplest possible set of rules (the one TFA is arguing for: all speech is equal and not harmful).

> Who does the pruning, and what is considered repressive?

Any social media company should be able to prune to whichever degree each company wants to. And the pruning doesn't have to be about whether speech is repressive in X way. It can be as frivolous as "Ban all people who like carrots" to something as serious as "Ban people who think X about Covid". In other words, I personally don't support the Westminster Declaration beyond situations involving government coercion.

> For purposes of this discussion, let's talk about the origins of Covid-19 and how surgical masks had little effect on the lab-borne virus. Or we can talk about how anti-maskers' rhetoric harmed a vulnerable population, and how discussions of lab-vs-wild distracted us from what should have been our immediate concerns.

> Should the government talk to Twitter about my statements to that effect?

"Talk to" is very broad. In my opinion: "Hey, this post might have misinformation" is okay because it's just a heads-up, not a suggestion of an action. By okay, I mean legal under the First Amendment. "We would prefer that you take down the post" is okay because it only suggests an action. "We want you to take down the post, or we will do Y" is not okay because it's coercive. "Take down the post" is not okay because it might have a tone of finality and thus coercion. (I say "might" because determining the tone of a written text is inevitably subjective.)

"Should" the government talk to Twitter? Not necessarily, and it depends on the topic. But at the same time, not every kind of moderation-related communication between a social media company and a government should be frowned upon.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com