What about a situation like this https://www.popehat.com/2017/07/09/texas-attorney-jason-l-van-dyke-fraudulent-buffoon-violence-threatening-online-tough-guy-vexatious-litigant-proud-bigot-and-all-around-human-dumpster-fire/ As a small business owner I fear the social media mob. I have even felt fear that someone on Hubski with a vendetta would attack my lively hood on social media from afar. At the same time I'm willing to own my speech and am would never cry like a cowardly piece of shit about the unfairness if I had to pay the consequences of looking in the mirror of my own words.
Why would they close over such a ridiculous article? I say they should own and embrace the label, rename it as cultural appropriation burrito and have all sorts of SJW named menu items. The outcry would be enormous but it would be a huge advertising boost for a totally unknown burrito cart. Im sure there are tons of portlandians that secretly hate all this hurt feeling bullshit.
What if internet culture changes in five years, and the journalist loses her job because of this? Sure, you can delete a tweet, but people are backing up Twitter at least daily, and they can even run a weekly "diff" comparing the latest version to the database file from 7 days ago, sort the results by popularity of user, and boom. You have a product. Yes, there are all sorts of tricks you could use to expedite the computation process, I don't care about implementation (publicly). I feel like anonymous and encrypted online interaction is becoming increasingly incentivized. Encryption: meh, a little inconvenient, but there are some serious drawbacks to incentivizing anonymity, including losing the pseudonymous space we enjoy here, maybe. Pretty good comments below the article.
Twitter is the biggest cancer on the internet. They have passed Tumblr. THEY PASSED TUMBLR, which as a website has driven people to suicide over fucking fan art. How in the hell is this journalist still employed? Then again after the CNN nonsense what the hell is a journalist any more? I'm getting the thoughts that all they teach in journalism school is internet trolling.
Likewise, the goal of being pro-free-speech isn’t to make a really liberal-sounding law code. It’s to create a society where it’s actually possible to hold dissenting opinions, where ideas really do get judged by merit rather than by who’s powerful enough to shut down whom. Having free speech laws on the books is a necessary precondition, but it’s useless in the absence of social norms that support it. If you win a million First Amendment victories in the Supreme Court, but actively work to undermine the social norms that let people say what they think in real life, you’re anti-free-speech.If you’re a very stupid libertarian strawman, you might ask whether that town had any anti-gay laws on the book – and, upon hearing they didn’t, say that town was “pro-gay”. If you’re not a very stupid libertarian strawman, you hopefully realize that being pro-gay isn’t about boasting how progressive your law code looks, it’s about having a society where you it’s possible to be gay. Not having laws against locking up gay people is a necessary precondition, but it’s useless on its own. You only get good results if good laws are matched by good social norms.