91–100 of 204 posts
Ironic, isn't it? And yes, I'm well aware that Governments should endorse and not stifle free speech, but this message is propagated on social media platforms.
The very systems that enable voice and disable voices because it's a violation of "Terms of Services" or in other words, revenue.
But then again, governments grant rights, and social media tech companies, don't. Right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But it just have very unpleasant experience when it was practiced according to its literal sense. "The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant."
This is exactly why the religion of free speech is nuts. It is always presented as something total and absolute. But free speech is not absolute if you want a decent, humane society. Invoking, hatred, violence, incorrect (medical) advice that can harm people, etc. You have to walk a thin line, find a balance and that's ok. Some people can't deal with that kind of ambiguity. They need absolutes. Fuck them.
Your speech is inciting hatred. Present yourself to the police for immediate relocation to a Reeducation Through Forced Labor Camp.
This would be more concerning if free speech wasn't limited so much already. Screws are already tightened so much you will barely notice difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do think that more people were saved from suicide by having a community where they could just speak freely. That wouldn't necessarily be Twitter though.
The proliferation of online platforms where you can speak freely would explain the declining suicide rates we're seeing in the 21st century.
https://ourworldindata.org/suicide
There might be other issues like depression that doesn't end in suicide that could be induced. But the overall political situation is far more relevant than some utterances of people on the net.
We're okay with social media companies regulating free speech, but draw the line at governments. Ironic, isn't it? And yes, I'm well aware that Governments should endorse and not stifle free speech, but this message is propagated on social media platforms. The very systems that enable voice and disable voices because it's a violation of "Terms of Services" or in other words, revenue. But then again, governments grant…
> Ironic, isn't it?
Not unless you're Alanis Morissette.
The difference is the concept of monopoly: A government has a monopoly on being a government in a given region. That's pretty fundamental to what a government even is, as per Weber and Westphalia. A social media company isn't a monopoly on being a social media company. You can talk online without using Twitter, or Reddit, or Facebook, or even Hacker News.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "I was just following orders" does not defend one's actions I hope you don't take the truth of that statement to mean that the leaders who ordered the Holocaust weren't morally culpable for the deaths of 11 million if they didn't personally kill someone themselves.
The leaders who ordered the Holocaust took substantive action to ensure that their orders would be followed. They took positions of power, which meant their orders existed in a social contract that converted them to actions. They cruelly punished disobedience. And even under those circumstances, we don't absolve the people who actually did the work from blame. If private citizen Hitler had just put an op-ed in a nati…
And this is really where the "but you I just told him to kill that man, I didn't pull the trigger" argument falls apart. Because it's not the telling them which is inducing them to do it, it's that doing it is the only way for the trigger man to get paid or not get fired or killed themselves. And it's the payment, or the expected retaliation, which makes the crime. Not the speech.
What I’m becoming more painfully aware of with each passing year is that “free speech” is actually (sadly) a very unpopular ideal. We haven’t really had it in a long time, and we have less of it with each passing year - cheered on by a not insignificant majority.
"a very unpopular ideal" I thought it is still very popular. But it just have very unpleasant experience when it was practiced according to its literal sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The leaders who ordered the Holocaust took substantive action to ensure that their orders would be followed. They took positions of power, which meant their orders existed in a social contract that converted them to actions. They cruelly punished disobedience. And even under those circumstances, we don't absolve the people who actually did the work from blame. If private citizen Hitler had just put an op-ed in a nati…
> They cruelly punished disobedience. And this is really where the "but you I just told him to kill that man, I didn't pull the trigger" argument falls apart. Because it's not the telling them which is inducing them to do it, it's that doing it is the only way for the trigger man to get paid or not get fired or killed themselves. And it's the payment, or the expected retaliation, which makes the crime. Not the speech…
That's not necessarily even true of many killings by order, nor is it the morally relevant part.
If I tell you to kill someone and tell you I will kill you if you don't follow through, then I am still only using words. Your claim is that if the person I threaten kills the other person, I am not morally culpable because I didn't actually engage in the retaliation I threatened and the threatening was just speech. Absolutely asinine.
I have better things to do than argue with libertarians all day, but honestly, all of these objections have been incredibly weak - it's as if you're taking the hardest possible route to defend freedom of speech.