91–100 of 170 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By “public space,” I meant the predominant avenues for public discourse (maybe not the best choice of words). Mainstream media, tech platforms, and universities are the specific things I had in mind.
We usually call that whole complex "the Cathedral". It fits with progressives' historical origin in the gradual politicization of new religious movements of all sorts.
The fundamental problem is the near monopoly powers enjoyed by a select few social media and tech companies. If Facebook and Twitter's social networks were federated like email, it wouldn't matter whether they refuse to propagate one opinion or another. Unhappy users or anyone who feels silenced could simply switch to a different provider. The problem isn't that Facebook or Twitter are allowing or not allowing free s…
The fundamental problem is the near monopoly powers enjoyed by a select few social media and tech companies. If Facebook and Twitter's social networks were federated like email, it wouldn't matter whether they refuse to propagate one opinion or another. Unhappy users or anyone who feels silenced could simply switch to a different provider. The problem isn't that Facebook or Twitter are allowing or not allowing free s…
open up their networks to interact with other services using an open protocol such as Mastadon or Matrix And here is where the two camps of Facebook-haters will go to war with each other: * The decentralization mavens want open protocols and distributed control. * The privacy mavens want to control information as it flows through the network, preventing friends from oversharing "your" data. These two camps are mortal…
The fundamental problem is the near monopoly powers enjoyed by a select few social media and tech companies. If Facebook and Twitter's social networks were federated like email, it wouldn't matter whether they refuse to propagate one opinion or another. Unhappy users or anyone who feels silenced could simply switch to a different provider. The problem isn't that Facebook or Twitter are allowing or not allowing free s…
open up their networks to interact with other services using an open protocol such as Mastadon or Matrix And here is where the two camps of Facebook-haters will go to war with each other: * The decentralization mavens want open protocols and distributed control. * The privacy mavens want to control information as it flows through the network, preventing friends from oversharing "your" data. These two camps are mortal…
It's quite funny how stereotypical American Ben's blog is. The most important idea that is made explicit in the post (but not justified) is that of the marketplate of ideas, or that 'connecting people' (Zuckerberg) provides meaning, and that speech and an increase in information is a means to mount resistance against the powers that be. one alternative view was presented by Baudrillard in 1985, talking about the 'unc…
Some of the details around how best to protect freedom of speech seem complex. That it is either an absolute ideal or near enough, seems rather obvious to many.
One thing you can always count on is some portion of people who, when their ideas and values are status quo, will argue for undermining speech in some way. I suppose it's a natural enough of a thought. Some people, it seems, would much prefer a world where they constantly preach to the choir (regardless of how mind-numbing that would be).
It's quite funny how stereotypical American Ben's blog is. The most important idea that is made explicit in the post (but not justified) is that of the marketplate of ideas, or that 'connecting people' (Zuckerberg) provides meaning, and that speech and an increase in information is a means to mount resistance against the powers that be. one alternative view was presented by Baudrillard in 1985, talking about the 'unc…
This sort of bullshit is exactly why people despise post-modernism. Because most speech doesn't accomplish anything, it's ok if people aren't allowed to speak at all?
This is where the Internet blurs international borders, meaning netizens are mingling with a mix of individuals and organizations that do not possess freedom or liberty.
Unless we know the source or the origin of any said content online, its just as easy to disregard the information/context, rather than parroting data placed on social media by bots, international PR firms, foreign governments or other unknown individuals.
When it comes to social media, it should be no surprise that compliance, filtering content and policing users will lean towards the lowest common denominator, since there are fewer individuals with liberty than without.
Perhaps we'll see a localized or domestic addition to the Internet in the future where, for example in America, it is assumed that an individual has not forfeit their liberty, freedom or privacy, meaning they have not had their rights compromised when using public platforms. Unfortunately, it seems like many US citizens have forfeit their basic rights for a few hand-outs and unfulfilled promises, so local platforms may be just as tainted.
A powerful and provocative article. I love the quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out." I am a bit of a libertarian when it comes to civil liberties -- I flinch at any circumscription of speech, even when it is noxious. Still, for a v…
You're describing Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance > I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force;…
No more free speech for communists?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I realize that. I was merely addressing the first sentence: "Alexander Hamilton was against the Bill of Rights.... This famous xkcd comic explains why:"
Oh, apologies for misreading you then! On that point, I think the problem is just that Thompson doesn't understand this context. He's treating Hamilton's objection to an amendment prohibiting speech as if it arose from a desire for broader protection of speech, rather than from a desire for no specific protection of speech at all. Hamilton's argument that a specific protection for speech would be counterproductive st…