THOUGHTS ON CENSORSHIP
1/ Censorship you don’t like always begins as censorship you like.
2/ Allowing censorship assumes that this power can be taken back and that it won't corrupt the censor. Two strong assumptions.
3/ Censorship assumes that your party will stay in charge forever and won't turn against you. Strong assumptions.
Rule of thumb: don't allow censorship if you're not willing to have your enemies as the censors.
4/ The moment you withhold your enemies a right, you open the door from it being withhold from you.
Rights are preserved by giving them to your enemies.
5/ "There's no evidence I'm wrong", said every Censor ever.
6/ When people say “Twitter and Facebook are a private company, they can do what they like” they actually mean “they did what I like.”
7/ When people say that "it was right to censor Trump because he incited violence", they assume that censoring the President is a de-escalatory act. A very strong assumption.
8/ When people say that "it was right to censor X because he incited violence", they assume they will never be ruled by a dictator who needs to be overthrown.
9/ Banning dangerous speech on a ~bipartisan platform assumes that the censored won't move to a ~partisan platform.
If he does, two echo chambers form, and instability increases.
10/ Censorship is not the only recourse to harmful speech. For example, if X insults me, I can sue X and a judge can decide a sentence.
11/ I don't believe in the false dichotomy of the paradox of tolerance.
We can:
– never censor
– consistently condemn violence
– be fair in general & pursue criminals & the corrupt, to remove fertile ground for "dangerous speech" seeds to grow
12/ Cognitive dissonances:
– to believe in the outcome of democratic elections AND censorship
– to believe in fairness AND selective censorship
– to believe of being oppressed AND having the power to censor
13/ Final thoughts:
14/ Many replied, “but Twitter should censor calls for violence.”
Yes, but no censor stops there (exhibit below).
One can’t cherry-pick on the first-order benefits of censorship while ignoring the second-order risks.
Whether we like it or not, it’s a full package.
15/ Some replied. “If Trump were an ordinary citizen, he would have been indicted. Hence the need for censorship.”
First we had a problem.
So we introduced censorship.
Now we have two problems.
16/ A great question (quoted) and my reply:
I don’t know. Perhaps, in extreme cases, censorship is a solution, but it’s a last resort one. Like chemio. We don’t want to try it before having tried everything else, and definitely not as a preventive measure
17/
18/ I've made this into a blog post, in case you want to share it with your friends not on Twitter:
Luca-dellanna.com/censorship
19/
20/ I've been asked, would free speech had survived a coup? Isn't this a reason enough for the ban?
My answer: if we promote the value of free speech, it might survive a coup.
But if we promote the value of censoring the dangerous, then free speech won't survive long.
21/ Common reply: it isn't censorship because Trump has a press room.
Yes, he does, but you don't.
This is not about Trump.
It's about defending future political opponents.
22/
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.