How is this argument different from "Whichever side shouts loudest and longest wins."?
Volume is not equal to facts or truth.
Yes, censorship is dangerous.
But the article is NOT an argument for censorship.
Everyone knows the sagacious Mark Twain quote: "A lie will fly around the whole world while the truth is getting its boots on".
Social media puts that effect on rocket fuel. When some cohorts are using that to consistently and disproportionally amplify lies, it is very reasonable to add a small amount of friction, or require someone to prioritize what they repost. This does zero to stop posting lies, it only forces them to select the highest quality — to them — set to repost.
It is no different from the restriction on this Hacker News site; if you post too much here, you get a message like "Please slow down, you're posting too fast.", and you cannot repost for several hours. I have not seen anyone crying "CENSORSHIP!!" over that restriction. I also doubt there exists anyone who would think that the discussion on Twitter is better than HN.
So, why are you crying "CENSORSHIP!!" about a similar proposal for other social media (and be sure to address how a restriction on volume has zero restriction on any specific content)?
Volume is not equal to facts or truth.
Yes, censorship is dangerous.
But the article is NOT an argument for censorship.
Everyone knows the sagacious Mark Twain quote: "A lie will fly around the whole world while the truth is getting its boots on".
Social media puts that effect on rocket fuel. When some cohorts are using that to consistently and disproportionally amplify lies, it is very reasonable to add a small amount of friction, or require someone to prioritize what they repost. This does zero to stop posting lies, it only forces them to select the highest quality — to them — set to repost.
It is no different from the restriction on this Hacker News site; if you post too much here, you get a message like "Please slow down, you're posting too fast.", and you cannot repost for several hours. I have not seen anyone crying "CENSORSHIP!!" over that restriction. I also doubt there exists anyone who would think that the discussion on Twitter is better than HN.
So, why are you crying "CENSORSHIP!!" about a similar proposal for other social media (and be sure to address how a restriction on volume has zero restriction on any specific content)?