[ SECRET POST #3353 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3353 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Beverly Hills Cop 3]


__________________________________________________



03.
[New Tricks]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Lord of the Rings]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Splatoon]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Tessa Stone/Not Drunk Enough/Hanna is not a Boy's Name]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Actor Frank Kelly, playing Father Jack Hackett in Father Ted]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Frasier]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Jem and the Holograms comic]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 022 secrets from Secret Submission Post #479.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: The Triggering

[(Anonymous)]

That's a really stupid way of thinking about free speech and censorship. Here's an essay from a libertarian conservative about why!

https://popehat.com/2016/02/20/freestacy-but-from-what-in-defense-of-free-speech-legalism/

Re: The Triggering

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT - confused on how that's so different from what I'm saying. Notice how I said "people paying for the servers"? I'm not arguing that there's some lofty moral ideal to be protected in this case. That would be stupid indeed since Twitter is a private entity. I'm pointing out what I think #TheTriggering is about: calling out ideological censorship. Yes, Twitter has the right to censor. Just as the userbase has the right to close their accounts and investors have the right to pull their financial support for said censorship - since, you know, Twitter's whole claim to fame was providing a platform for free speech.

What I would like to see is a social media platform that operates on donations, like Wikipedia or AO3. That's the only way freedom of expression can be maintained, and even then it can't be guaranteed.

Now the question is are you up for debate on the topic, or are you going to dismiss these views as stupid, too, and give me another link so you don't have to explain it in your own words? Because you know who else uses tactics like that, right?

Re: The Triggering

[(Anonymous)]

I think, from a business point of view, this is clearly the correct decision. And I wouldn't expect investors to pull support on account of it. If users want to delete their accounts, I think that's the proper response.

From an ideological point of view, I would argue that it's becoming increasingly clear that there is no way for a single platform to provide meaningfully free speech without any kind of political bias. I think that's just a fantasy. Because there's a trade off between the lack of restrictions and the actual ability to communicate. I think the question has to be whether there's an ecosystem that allows freedom of speech (which I think there clearly is). And so to me talking about whether Twitter provides a venue for totally free expression isn't just wrong in a legalistic sense; it's also very much besides the point.

If you think you can build and sustain a communication medium that doesn't have any kind of bias, good luck to you, I don't think it's possible. It's not clear to me that there's a reason to expect any single entity to do that or to consider it censorship when they do. That's like the whole reason we have networks and distributed information and shit.

(i do think - for the record - that there is something to be said about free speech in terms of people's attitude toward speech they disagree with. But twitter is not the villain there)