The particular thing Dave cited <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230> follows nicely with our discussion of forcing a *format* for posts. If it's eliminated or changed such that the hosts of redfish.com become responsible for the posts, then that changes the game quite a bit.
From my interpretation of EricS' part, it's not a bad thing to rely on implicit structure in judging content. So removing 230 would make redfish.com more like a traditional medium that has to take some responsibility for posts. And even strict moderation can be justified, if only based on principles of kindness and people as ends in themselves. From my interpretation of Dave's part, if only deeply resourced agents can *afford* to publish controversial things, then that feeds the oligarchy and risks all the authoritarian circumstances we're afraid of. Even with 230, there are libel laws, revenge porn laws, hate speech laws, etc. that restrict what we can post. But without 230, it would be fairly easy for someone who doesn't like one of us oft-posting blowhards to get redfish.com shut down. I'm not at all concerned with what happens to the individual sh¡tposter. I *am* concerned what happens to the infrastructure on which the sh¡tposter posts. It's an important debate crossing lots of domains and with both practical and ideal issues. It's fine if we don't want to have the debate. But it's myopic to cartoon it away. On 1/27/21 10:57 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I guess I can see why you’d say that. However, I’d argue there is still > social behavior, even honesty and trust, in a world where information is > exchanged in a very cautious way. In the world that I guess Dave is afraid > of, people that mouth off too have bad outcomes. Maybe that policing is not > so bad? > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of > *thompnicks...@gmail.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2021 9:10 AM > *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms > > > > Marcus, > > > > The position you take seems to be radical individualism, i.e., that there is > a me that exists and can be revealed by stripping away the constraints of any > social contact. The contrasting view is that “me” is inevitably social, and > that it is revealed only by social interaction. So the stable me, the naked > me, is actually a fiction, or at most, a statistical average. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
