[deleted]
Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says
91–100 of 178 posts
Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
When we're considering regulation, it's important to consider the activity we're regulating in context. Here's one extreme: it's legal to light a match. It's not legal to light a match and toss it into a gas pump. We shouldn't regulate speech, but you should own the consequences of your actions -- speech included. If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids. It's certainly not as bad as…
>If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids. That is absolutely nuts if you believe that.
Is it?
If A says to B, "don't vaccinate your kids", B complies, and then B's child dies of a disease it could have been vaccinated against, you would not say A had any culpability?
Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can like Trump or not, but he's probably one of the people in power who'd least care for this sort of censorship. He clearly revels in public debate, perhaps even to an unhealthy degree. It may not be Lincoln-Douglas stuff, but that's how democracy is supposed to work.
Without descending too deeply into American domestic politics, I'm skeptical of that given his stated desire to expand the scope of slander and libel laws. It's really easy to end up in a "speech for me, not for thee" kind of scenario, especially when that reveling is generally more polemical than forensic.
Similar to how for years in the UK you had super injunctions (less so now) that could be requested but they weren't cheap.
Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says
#94>"...the desire to have someone force these companies to remove hate speech or misinformation can backfire. To see how, we need look no further than Singapore’s new “fake news” law, which has already been used to force an opposition politician to modify a Facebook post to include the government’s position on the topic he mentioned in his post, along with a large banner across the original saying “False.” This is so o…
When we're considering regulation, it's important to consider the activity we're regulating in context. Here's one extreme: it's legal to light a match. It's not legal to light a match and toss it into a gas pump. We shouldn't regulate speech, but you should own the consequences of your actions -- speech included. If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids. It's certainly not as bad as…
>Here's one extreme: it's legal to light a match. It's not legal to light a match and toss it into a gas pump.
That's not extreme. It's a perfect example of how when it comes to non-polarized issues we rationally criminalize bad actions (lighting a gas station on fire) instead of conduct that could, if used maliciously, result in bad things (lighting a match in general).
Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says
#95There has been a lot of mixing of concepts in this space lately. There is the legal question of government interference with speech, protected by the First Amendment in the US. Then there is the moral issue of deplatforming by corporations. Then there is the moral issue of groups of people bullying a dissenting viewpoint. These are different issues with different levels of severity and different solutions. Anyone who…
> Anyone who has only been deplatformed and is complaining that the world is becoming authoritarian needs to realize that this has always been the way of the world. Forever. There has never been a time in history when someone could voice an unpopular view or be seen as an unpopular identity and not receive public ridicule, shame, or retribution of some kind, and where companies censored no content whatsoever.
I generally agree that historically we haven't had totally free speech; however, we've been on an upward trend, and some of us are sad to see organizations at the helm of huge channels of speech using their power to prop up certain worldviews, especially somewhat extreme, fringe worldviews with questionable moral credentials (to put it charitably). We should keep the trend going; not reverse it to regress back to "the way things always have been".
> There has never been a time in history when someone could voice an unpopular view or be seen as an unpopular identity and not receive public ridicule, shame, or retribution of some kind, and where companies censored no content whatsoever.
No serious person is asking for the ability to express views without criticism, and regarding corporate censorship, utilities aren't allowed to censor speech--I support regulating social media companies as utilities. This doesn't mean social media has to be a dumb channel either; those companies could curate content so long as it's not on an explicitly ideological basis. For example, it would be fine for Twitter to promote content that is popular, so long as "popular" is determined purely by their users and not dependent upon Twitter's ideology.
> What America, and other nations who value freedom, have is a protection against government interference. Let's keep it that way and accept that people are jerks to each other and not everyone wants to hear what you have to say.
I think social media in its current state is represents a kind of threat to free speech that formerly could only be mustered by governments. Notably, there is a significant concern on both sides of the aisle that social media companies can be used to steer governments, including as an attack vector by foreign governments. These companies have unprecedented control over speech at this volume that it must be dealt with, in my humble opinion.
Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says
#96There's nothing happening in the world.
At least nothing near the scale of what was going on in prior times, nothing to important to say.
We're living so comfortably, so safely, we're so industrialized and digitalized, we get bored. We turn focus to the small trivial things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_difference...
If you're focused on mere syntax of how someone says a word, or has an opinion, maybe it's time to reflect and show gratitude that's your schtick. Not that you're starving, looking for a safe place to live, stability, but merely some stranger with zero connection to you broadcasts an idea.
I love 2019 and thank God for it. I'm grateful we're discussing mere information etiquette on social media rather than being in a world war, a famine, a global disease pandemic, an asteroid hitting us.
This article discusses annoyances mostly about internet speech, then it goes:
> In 2018, 99 journalists were killed—21 more than in 2017. At the end of 2018, more than 250 journalists were in prison (also up from the year before) and more than 10 percent of those were being held on “false news” charges.
That's a huge leap. I don't think it's helpful to lump them together! Wow! Very dramatic though. Caught my attention!
Has anyone here ever tried meditation? I've been pondering mindfulness. Thinking deeply of what I'm grateful for.
We should close our eyes and breath. Think of how far we've come as a society. We're better than we've ever been. We should be celebrating and having parades and deeply introspecting ourselves for can we can cooperate better with each other.
Maybe we just need to give each other a big hug!
Maybe we're just one step away from peace on Earth, forever? The proof is in the pudding - we're focused on squabbles over social media. We're comfortable, organized, educated, and highly developed - just bored. I look forward to us building a space elevator.
Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know perfectly well I’m not talking about “my right to call some black guy the N word”. I’m talking about careers destroyed by certain vocal minorities that many if not most people are secretly tired of, yet won’t speak out against because of the fear of being lynched next. Anyway, how’s your comment even relevant to what I replied to? GP: (implying) Twitter mobs can silence or even destroy people just like gover…
I'm refuting the obligation of other people to listen or associate with you. That's all implicit in the first. Freedom of Speech. Freedom to Ignore. Freedom of Association. All of it. NO. Your company is under no obligation to maintain your employment. Why? Because the owner of your company has rights too. You're not the only person who has rights. That's the whole point here. The First is for everyone . And they can…
Again, where the hell did I say I’m the only person with rights? Could you please stop putting words into my mouth?
And again, in the cases I was alluding to, people were only terminated because of supposed “public outcry”. Without “public outcry” the companies wouldn’t have done anything. You think they actually enjoy disassociating with employees because they made some remarks on Twitter that are completely irrelevant to what they’re hired for? Think again.
So, Twitter mobs have no obligation to listen to or associate with the individuals I was talking about. Exactly. It would have been great if they disengage and left well enough alone. But nope, they’re out for blood.
Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but at the same time you need to understand that you're devaluing the rights on the other side of that. The guy whose company you work for, or the company whose platform you're using, or whatever the case may be, shouldn't be obliged to have their revenue take a hit solely in support of your right. I mean, if it's not going to cost your boss' company any money? Yeah OK, I can see where they should probably keep…
More like: - You have a successful GitHub project. - One of your key contributors voted for Trump - PC police come and demand you kick said contributor off of your project for violating CoC because they went digging through his Twitter history and found a tweet with him wearing a MAGA hat - You disagree and say it's his right to vote for whoever he wants - PC police do everything they can do destroy you and your proj…
My argument is so what?
That's what living in a nation with the First means. People can protest you, even for frivolous reasons. I could go organize an online protest against Mattel because I want a Malibu Barbie with stripper heels and poles.
The Constitution doesn't dictate how I use my rights, it only says that the government can't interfere with them. That's the line that can't be crossed.
Now if Twitter finds my request for Malibu Barbie Stripper Heels and Poles ridiculous and wants to get rid of me, that's their right.
Why? Because Freedom of Association is implicit in the First. And Twitter may decide that my request for Malibu Barbie Stripper Heels and Poles crosses a line that it isn't comfortable with.
Finally, I fully realize that Malibu Barbie Stripper Heels and Poles is obviously a ludicrous and trivial idea that Twitter would not even bother banning me for, but you get the idea. Some social justice warrior might come along and be offended by it and go on a crusade etc etc etc. But that's their right is the point.
Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
More like: - You have a successful GitHub project. - One of your key contributors voted for Trump - PC police come and demand you kick said contributor off of your project for violating CoC because they went digging through his Twitter history and found a tweet with him wearing a MAGA hat - You disagree and say it's his right to vote for whoever he wants - PC police do everything they can do destroy you and your proj…
you can make up any scenario you want. does this actually happen?
Re: Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can like Trump or not, but he's probably one of the people in power who'd least care for this sort of censorship. He clearly revels in public debate, perhaps even to an unhealthy degree. It may not be Lincoln-Douglas stuff, but that's how democracy is supposed to work.
Without descending too deeply into American domestic politics, I'm skeptical of that given his stated desire to expand the scope of slander and libel laws. It's really easy to end up in a "speech for me, not for thee" kind of scenario, especially when that reveling is generally more polemical than forensic.
I understand why public figures have no recourse to slander and lies, but it doesn’t make it fair. It’s only just in that protecting the powerless against armies of lawyers from the powerful, is the best we can do. But allowing damaging lies to go unpunished is certainly a black eye for justice.