131–140 of 287 posts
I'm not familiar with Infowars, or the podcast. That said, I think we have to be very very cautious about allowing corporations, especially corporations as powerful as Twitter, Facebook, Google and Apple, to act as gatekeepers on speech. It's hard to get the balance right on speech issues, and that's when the determination is being governed by a democratic government. Apple, Facebook, Google and Twitter are in no way…
Anyone of average intelligence who spends 30-60 seconds listening to Alex Jones will quickly realize that Jones suffers from some kind of mental illness or personality disorder, and that there is nothing of interest or value to learn from his rants. Those who ignore the obvious signs and still choose to listen to it do so for their own, identity-driven or emotional reasons. This is the same process that causes humans…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
deleted.
It’s also factually true that human violence has enabled certain bloodlines the opportunity to advance, while hindering others. I’m leery of people who cite one scientific data point alone. It smells like an appeal to authority. And you’re throwing up a strawman with your rhetoric about blocking a communist podcast. Alex Jones himself has said in court it’s an act and he’s just an entertainer. Sometimes the act gets…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated. It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole and they're showing you the door.
I guess I am worried that as the societal norm for allowing ideological differences to be expressed degrades that it will leak into politics in the form of hate speech laws. We are starting to have fully private struggle sessions on Twitter, using such tools to sick the mob on opponents. A new sort of bully pulpit. I am not sure any populist politician has quite realized this power. Trump has to an extent but he has…
Anyone of average intelligence who spends 30-60 seconds listening to Alex Jones will quickly realize that Jones suffers from some kind of mental illness or personality disorder, and that there is nothing of interest or value to learn from his rants. Those who ignore the obvious signs and still choose to listen to it do so for their own, identity-driven or emotional reasons. This is the same process that causes humans…
This is the sort of principled belief I used to hold that I’m no longer sure holds up to scrutiny.
There's always been a fringe that was willing to believe anything. But how do you call something like Infowars “fringe” when it’s on the same “network” as NPR and CNN podcasts? Placement like that legitimizes Infowars. That “light shining” on Infowars was a spotlight.
You’re probably right that this will galvanize the true believers, but what was going to turn their beliefs around? The flipside is that this move may cauterize a growing infection.
Reposting this here since just after I posted in the Ars version of this that got marked as a dupe: I consider myself an extremely strong First Amendment advocate and "free speech absolutist" when it comes to government force, and I am also uncomfortable about where the line should be for "private entities" that manage to achieve quasi-governmental levels of power, though I do not think that any level of non-violent…
I think the answer is fairly easy. If someone is an asshole online, you ban or ignore them. Free speech is the right to speak your mind without being prosecuted by the government, it’s not the right to force your opinion on people who don’t want it.
As it stands though, within current speech norms and ideals of debate dating back to Athens at least, there are lot of people very angry about bans. And that matters to commercial entities in particular, which means banning isn't "easy" (even ignoring the lack of any time equivalency token system to deal with the economics of suspensions or bans better).
>Free speech is the right to speak your mind without being prosecuted by the government, it’s not the right to force your opinion on people who don’t want it.
You don't need to tell me that, I covered in the first paragraph of my post. But it's not unreasonable to talk about wider concepts for the "marketplace of ideas" as it serves society beyond the critical foundation of the 1A. I think we may need better norms and tools to help private entities in determining where lines should be and how to go about that. And I also think it's disingenuous to not address private entities that achieve levels of societal power that approach modern government even if they don't have armies of their own, particularly when there is in fact subtle government backing down the chain somewhere (DMCA for example).
I may disagree with what you say but I'll defend with you the right to say it. Apple's wrong here.
so wrong. Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction. - Wikipedia
Freedom of speech isn’t the right to be heard, mind you. If you came by my house wanting to sell Jesus and I shut the door on you, you’d still have free speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What is the major moment in this Infowars topic?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would never support the government throwing Alex Jones in jail espousing his views (Assuming we're not talking about edge cases where freedom of speech does not apply). But I also fully support the property rights of Twitter, Facebook, etc to exercise control over the content of their platforms. You wouldn't permit someone setting up camp on your front lawn, passing out, say, NAMBLA literature would you? It's unlik…
My point is Foolrush would.
There is a correlation between the support of freedom of speech and gender / race, unsurprisingly.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1559-1816....