81–90 of 287 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you care at all about free speech? You are willing kill this beautiful freedom we have for that?
Free speech refers to the freedom to not be thrown in jail by the government for things you have said that fall under protected speech. It has nothing to do with being allowed to post anything on any website you’d like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
""Debate"" needs to have a minimum legitimacy requirement to be taken seriously. You can't just make up a string of provably false stuff and use it as a pretext for harassment, Sandy Hook passim.
Sure, by the private individual. The problem is many things that were major moments in world history didn't pass the ruling-class's "minimum legitimacy requirement" at the time. Top-of-my-head examples: the Magna Carta, the Protestant Reformation, Indian Independence, anybody else's independence, Snowden, etc.
There's a weird balance where just saying "hey we don't want to censor things" doesn't seem to make you seem very neutral when you're hosting something that is hateful towards others or just straight false information.
There's a weird balance where just saying "hey we don't want to censor things" doesn't seem to make you seem very neutral when you're hosting something that is hateful towards others or just straight false information.
Apple doesn't host any podcasts in iTunes - it's just a directory. And you can still use iTunes or the iOS Podcasts app to subscribe to the podcast via it's RSS feed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social science research indicates that it isn't about "hiding" hate directed speech, but rather to consider the impact on the victims of such speech. That is, when one is able to say the word "hiding", it is spoken from the position of privilege; it is a very real existential threat to those impacted. Constricting hate speech has a notable impact on the dignity and well-being of those impacted[1]. [1] EG: https://www…
Do you care at all about free speech? You are willing kill this beautiful freedom we have for that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My main peeve with this is Google Podcasts which still doesn't allow you to subscribe to an RSS podcast. It solely allows you to listen to podcasts which Google is granted permission to upload to their own servers. As a podcast owner, I'm not comfortable agreeing to Google's terms, and have opted not to participate. To which I sometimes get complaints. I don't understand why Google refuses to accept standard podcasti…
That's weird considering you submit the podcast as an RSS feed. I didn't know they uploaded the audio to their own servers.
But to be listed on Google Podcasts, they consume your RSS feed and upload it. The terms include the standard granting Google irrevocable worldwide royalty-free rights to your intellectual property and includes highlights like their ability to use your podcast content even if you remove it from your feed later.
Since most other podcast apps don't do anything but help others find your RSS feed, I've never had to agree to terms and prove my ownership to be listed anywhere else, Google's demand of IP rights seems unique in this space. I've actually found my podcast listed on all sorts of sites I've never heard of with no such terms required.
I agree with the comments that it's their store and they can do what they want with it, and Jones actively uses his platform to bully individuals so I'm not disappointed to see it diminished. That said, the trend of centralization of Podcasts worries me a bit. Podcasts were one of the few real success stories of an open syndication format that allowed an ecosystem of podcast apps to flourish. I've noticed a trend whe…
The fact that private stores can do what they want does not mean that they should do what they want or that consumers shouldn't demand otherwise. More generally, not all bad behavior is or should be illegal. The fact that the first amendment only legally applies to the government does not mean that free speech as a concept doesn't have moral force on other organizations. For instance, we expect universities to act as…
Public universities. I wouldn't dream of asking the same thing of Liberty University. The difference being, the one is a branch of government, and the other is not.
Free speech is narrowly intended to be something that limits the government's ability to impose restrictions on non-government entities for good reason. Asking private organizations (e.g., Liberty University) to follow the same limitations would undercut free speech by preventing ones with a particular point of view (e.g., a conservative Christian one) from actually being able to express that point of view.
Now, if we all wanted to agree that Facebook needs to be granted common carrier status for publicly arguing with your family about politics, that would be different.
I’ve never listened to an InfoWars podcast, so I don’t know what I’m missing. But from what I gather Alex is an entertaining quack who is ultimately harmless except in the sense that his message is subversive to the “wrong” groups. We’ve come a bit further along the slope from banning Daily Stormer now haven’t we?
The more interesting contrast which I’ve been watching the last few days is between how NYT handled Quinn Norton’s firing for old tweets which actually used banned words in an positive context versus NYT claiming hundreds of racists tweets by Sarah Jeong amount to the same thing and now that’s a reason not to fire her.
I don’t know anything at all about Jeong, other than some highly... erm... problematic old tweets. I knew a bit about Quinn and was very disappointed to see her fired for what I thought were highly misconstrued old tweets... but I think the contrast between how they were each handled really demonstrates how poorly companies tend to handle these matters, and specifically how much it matters which group is apparently being slighted.
And so it all just makes me wonder. When we selectively censor or fire people for specific views, when these views dont actually cross red lines into illegal speech (inciting to violence), how the decision really comes down to a political one. Companies are of course free to make political choices about who works for them or what content they host, but they’re only lying to themselves if they think it’s about morales or ethics.
Various campaigns have been trying to downrank, delist, or demonetize sites like InfoWars or Breitbart. This is no doubt a form of asymmetric information warfare trying to limit the audience for contrary messages. Personally I find the drive toward censorship all extremely concerning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social science research indicates that it isn't about "hiding" hate directed speech, but rather to consider the impact on the victims of such speech. That is, when one is able to say the word "hiding", it is spoken from the position of privilege; it is a very real existential threat to those impacted. Constricting hate speech has a notable impact on the dignity and well-being of those impacted[1]. [1] EG: https://www…
Do you care at all about free speech? You are willing kill this beautiful freedom we have for that?
You realize which country has some of the more effective and stringent hate speech laws in the world? If you do, did you stop to ask yourself why?
This is an interestingly coordinated move. It seems a most like each of the platforms was waiting for one of the others to make the first move at wiping InfoWars off their platform entirely instead of just censoring specific episodes, and then the dominoes fall. I’ve never listened to an InfoWars podcast, so I don’t know what I’m missing. But from what I gather Alex is an entertaining quack who is ultimately harmless…
That's the power of a smear campaign, right? Planting a negative perception in people who previously had no attitude about a person. I recommend researching a bit before repeating the message of the campaign ("racist tweets"). Jeong is okay.