9 ms·

Agree with everything you said. Especially that what is acceptable speech is dynamic and it’s hard to define. I view the boundaries of acceptable speech as a r

Agree with everything you said. Especially that what is acceptable speech is dynamic and it’s hard to define. I view the boundaries of acceptable speech as a resource. And like other resources in which we need to allocate in society, we use the power of markets to come to the “fairest” allocation that we can. I believe Elon could implement a “free speech market” on Twitter where Twitter creates an asset which gives the owner the right to ban or allow a particular controversial user. This asset is then auctioned off (providing revenue for Twitter) and then the users get the ultimate control over who is or isn’t allowed on the platform. This also has the benefit of taking the decision making out of the hands of Elon and those at Twitter and giving power directly to the people.

airza 4y ago
I sort of admire the clarity of vision to take the current decade’s political subtext of “people with money should be allowed to dictate the values of society” and turn it into the supertext.
- finspeech 4y ago
  I’m just making the implicit, explicit. At least this way it’s not done in back rooms by power brokers, but out in the open in which everyone can participate. Also, the People have money too. They can organize. I just want to give them a chance to organize and have a seat at the table.
anigbrowl 4y ago
Two points on this.. 1. It sort of is that insofar as advertisers (the actual customers) are free to stop buying ads, but when they do so Musk throws a conniption fit and says not giving him money is a step away from tyranny 2. If there's a tradable 'right to offend' asset then it will either be bought up by wealthy people who are assholes or assholes who raise money from other assholes on the promise that they will be bigger assholes (see also politics, US) I mean, why not have a market for murder, and just limit the number of permits to 10% less than the current homicide totals? The government makes tax revenue and homicide falls by 10%, (almost) everybody wins! Vote for me in '24! do not vote for me
- finspeech 4y ago
  1. Yeah I agree, it is, albeit a bit more indirect. By making it more direct and explicit then content moderation can be more granular and have a tighter feedback loop and ultimately controlled by users—which I think is a win 2. If there’s one thing I know about wealthy people, it’s that there’s wealthy people on both sides of any given politcal/social issue. So for every one that wants to allow certain speech there will be one that wants to ban it. Also people can organize from the grassroots to form large pools of capital and have their voice heard if the issue is important enough. 3. Although your hypothetical is a bit sensationalist and off topic, I’ll entertain it. If the outcome of such a scheme really did lower the homicide total by 10%, then it’d be hard to argue against it vs. the status quo as it is an objectively better outcome.

airza 4y ago

I sort of admire the clarity of vision to take the current decade’s political subtext of “people with money should be allowed to dictate the values of society” and turn it into the supertext.

finspeech 4y ago
I’m just making the implicit, explicit. At least this way it’s not done in back rooms by power brokers, but out in the open in which everyone can participate. Also, the People have money too. They can organize. I just want to give them a chance to organize and have a seat at the table.

anigbrowl 4y ago

Two points on this.. 1. It sort of is that insofar as advertisers (the actual customers) are free to stop buying ads, but when they do so Musk throws a conniption fit and says not giving him money is a step away from tyranny 2. If there's a tradable 'right to offend' asset then it will either be bought up by wealthy people who are assholes or assholes who raise money from other assholes on the promise that they will be bigger assholes (see also politics, US) I mean, why not have a market for murder, and just limit the number of permits to 10% less than the current homicide totals? The government makes tax revenue and homicide falls by 10%, (almost) everybody wins! Vote for me in '24! do not vote for me

finspeech 4y ago
1. Yeah I agree, it is, albeit a bit more indirect. By making it more direct and explicit then content moderation can be more granular and have a tighter feedback loop and ultimately controlled by users—which I think is a win 2. If there’s one thing I know about wealthy people, it’s that there’s wealthy people on both sides of any given politcal/social issue. So for every one that wants to allow certain speech there will be one that wants to ban it. Also people can organize from the grassroots to form large pools of capital and have their voice heard if the issue is important enough. 3. Although your hypothetical is a bit sensationalist and off topic, I’ll entertain it. If the outcome of such a scheme really did lower the homicide total by 10%, then it’d be hard to argue against it vs. the status quo as it is an objectively better outcome.