Re: Cressida Dick
It's all very well to blame companies whose business models allow users to broadcast their racist etc. views more easily, especially when they make a profit out of that broadcast, but the problem is still with the users.
Ideally, I would like anyone to be able to express an opinion however they like, and not be limited by whether a publisher wishes to restrict publication. And they should not have to put themselves at risk by publicising their personal details. Again, I hate to defend facebook, but don't they attempt to have their users use their real names ? Unlike most others.
I accept that this causes a problem when the opinion offered is inflammatory and the person hides behind anonymity. But it's the essence of free speech, isn't it ? The problem with filtering at the publisher level is that most publishers - like the right-wing newspaper proprieters of the past - have their own agenda.
I'm all for finding a way to make people responsible for their foul views. This is what happens face-to-face : in a mob, racist views get echoed, but in normal society the minority is shouted down. I honestly don't know what the solution to this is, but am sure that having commercial agents filter it is a bad idea.
I'm honestly quite surprised that I've got downvotes for that posting. Thank you for posting your argument : I'd be glad to hear arguments from all the downvoters. As I understand it, it's that people should not be allowed to express their opinions openly but should have to go through a gateway operated by an unelected operator. I agree that that would reduce the output but I can't agree that it's a good solution. Even if you accept that free speech should be restricted to 'acceptable' speech, I can't agree that either commercial operators or the government are fit for the purpose of defining 'acceptable'.