Narz
keeping it real
I figure it's any speech except speech condoning violence or blocking the speech of others.
Misleading people is a trickier one to quantify. Screaming fire in a theater and causing chaos is easy to understand. Screaming fire online is more complicated & 'fire denial' even more so.
Are digital platforms responsible for the speech of those who use their services? Should they just have a blanket statement on every communication similar to editorial sections 'this person's opinions does not necessarily reflect ours' and 'they may be wrong, possibly dangerous wrong'.
Unlike in the past most people don't get their knowledge of reality from the town square, now the town square is privately owned by billionaire corporations and controlled by their whims and the algorithms programed to filter information based on their whims and profits.
I didn't mention it in the thread 'what are forums good for' but I suppose one thing they're good for is free expression (albeit within forums rules).
Misleading people is a trickier one to quantify. Screaming fire in a theater and causing chaos is easy to understand. Screaming fire online is more complicated & 'fire denial' even more so.
Are digital platforms responsible for the speech of those who use their services? Should they just have a blanket statement on every communication similar to editorial sections 'this person's opinions does not necessarily reflect ours' and 'they may be wrong, possibly dangerous wrong'.
Unlike in the past most people don't get their knowledge of reality from the town square, now the town square is privately owned by billionaire corporations and controlled by their whims and the algorithms programed to filter information based on their whims and profits.
I didn't mention it in the thread 'what are forums good for' but I suppose one thing they're good for is free expression (albeit within forums rules).