Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

freespeechunion.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 204 posts

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#131

Post by monkeynotes »

imafish wrote: post #118
monkeynotes wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I see it is it's not free speech that is the problem, as such, it's that people who used to gossip to a small audience down the pub now have equal platforms to newspapers. The internet has levelled the playing field and now everyone is a politician with an agenda to push. The 'truth' has been revealed to mean whatever the audience is persuaded and agrees to believe. We are all subject to various cargo cults.…

> people who used to gossip to a small audience down the pub now have equal platforms to newspapers. I'd say they have a bigger audience than newspapers. "Gossip" and "fake news" have higher engagement rates than boring real news, and thus are more likely to show up in the news feed on social advertisement platforms.

And worth noting that major news orgs caught onto this in the 90s. News these days is essentially entertainment. I think as people we are responsible for this, we ask for this stuff and approve of by consuming it. We are most certainly authors of our own demise but for some reason we think this is 'happening' to us.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#133

Post by nickff »

s0l1dsnak3123 wrote: post #132

Free Speech Union is a right-wing libertarian think tank headed by Toby Young, who has a bit of a reputation for being a clown. A good summary here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv_kUE6t7n8

I have no idea who Toby Young is, but why describe FSU as "right-wing libertarian"? Are they just normal libertarians? The vast majority of libertarians do not self-identify as being 'right-wing'.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#134

Post by dfxm12 »

commandlinefan wrote: post #4

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.

Why do you have "free speech" in scare quotes? What does having less of this ideal mean to you?

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#135

Post by 12elephant »

tialaramex wrote: post #108
12elephant wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really that they don't want people to criticize their bullshit? Or is it that they don't want their bullshit to be censored off the face of the planet? Whether or not we agree with their views, should they not be able to express themselves, and how they truly feel? Imagine if your criticism of their viewpoints was being censored instead, so they got to speak un-opposed and un-criticized. I constantly hear that…

> Is it really that they don't want people to criticize their bullshit? Yes. Specifically the idea is to insist on the usual "balance" argument. If this BLM activist can say that police shot the unarmed black man in the back seven times for no apparent reason then a 9/11 Truther ought to be able to say that Jews blew up the Twin Towers using mind control. If you say wait a second, but one of those is a fact about the…

> If you say wait a second, but one of those is a fact about the world and the other is an insane conspiracy theory, then to them you're now a censor, an opponent of Free Speech.

No, if you remove the video from YouTube on the grounds of "removing false information" you're a censor. This is what has happened to e.g. Alex Jones, Milo, and many others for example.

By all means, leave a comment denouncing their idiocy. Make a response video showing why they're wrong. Whatever. But don't remove the video FFS. It just makes them believe it more.

You said it yourself: "the other is an insane conspiracy theory". That's obvious to you, and its obvious to 99% of people. So why do you feel the need to remove it?

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#136

Post by dragonwriter »

nickff wrote: post #133
s0l1dsnak3123 wrote: post #132

Free Speech Union is a right-wing libertarian think tank headed by Toby Young, who has a bit of a reputation for being a clown. A good summary here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv_kUE6t7n8

I have no idea who Toby Young is, but why describe FSU as "right-wing libertarian"? Are they just normal libertarians? The vast majority of libertarians do not self-identify as being 'right-wing'.

> but why describe FSU as "right-wing libertarian"?

I would guess, from everything I've seen about Young and the FSU, because it is.

> Are they just normal libertarians?

Well, right-libertarians are a common subset of normal libertarians (in the US, most—but not remotely all—who identify as libertarians are right-libertarians, non-right libertarians are more likely to identify differently, but I don't think that that soft tendency applies to the UK, at least in the same degree.) So, sure in one sense they are “normal libertarians” but not representative of the broader group, AFAICT.

> The vast majority of libertarians do not self-identify as being 'right-wing'.

So? The FSU is not the vast majority of libertarians, and descriptions of someone's policy position can be independent of their self-identification.

A Nazi doesn't become a moderate just because they self identify as “moderate”.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#137

Post by DanBC »

nickff wrote: post #133
s0l1dsnak3123 wrote: post #132

Free Speech Union is a right-wing libertarian think tank headed by Toby Young, who has a bit of a reputation for being a clown. A good summary here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv_kUE6t7n8

I have no idea who Toby Young is, but why describe FSU as "right-wing libertarian"? Are they just normal libertarians? The vast majority of libertarians do not self-identify as being 'right-wing'.

US context, unsurprisingly, isn't applicable to the UK.

In the UK a bunch of people self-describe as libertarian, but are described by just about everyone else as right wing.

Toby Young is a cunt and I hope he dies[1] a slow and painful death and he's definitely on what the UK would describe as the right.

[1] People may think this is a bit strong but he has repeatedly called for eugenics, so what's good for the goose.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#138

Post by jlokier »

Stupulous wrote: post #81
scarecrowbob wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider the level of crimes that must take place for that defense to come into play, much less the additional levels of magnitude before it ceases to be an actual defense. In our average, every-day life, it's quite possible to illegitimately harm people and escape retribution by using "I was just following orders" as a defense.

Escape retribution perhaps, but not responsibility. If your boss tells you to put a dark pattern in the sign-up page to get more personal data, you don't have to do it. If you do, you are putting getting paid ahead of doing the right thing. If someone points out that you did the wrong thing for selfish reasons, they are right, and "I was just doing what I was told" is no defense.

It's not automatically selfish.

It's not selfish if you have a stronger need to keep the job for a non-selfish reason, and therefore you need to keep a good enough working relationship with the boss, by doing what they ask.

An example of a non-selfish reason to keep the job anyway would be you having a job being essential to the wellbeing of people you care for. Food, shelter, medicine etc. In some situations, someone might die if you refuse to do as told at work, because your income and benefits are paying for their surgery or something.

There's going to be a ethical line beyond which "no" is the right answer, but for many people "put a dark pattern in the sign-up page" doesn't cross the line into selfishness, it only crosses into an ethical dilemma, a balancing act.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#139

Post by dragonwriter »

DanBC wrote: post #137
nickff wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea who Toby Young is, but why describe FSU as "right-wing libertarian"? Are they just normal libertarians? The vast majority of libertarians do not self-identify as being 'right-wing'.

US context, unsurprisingly, isn't applicable to the UK. In the UK a bunch of people self-describe as libertarian, but are described by just about everyone else as right wing. Toby Young is a cunt and I hope he dies[1] a slow and painful death and he's definitely on what the UK would describe as the right. [1] People may think this is a bit strong but he has repeatedly called for eugenics, so what's good for the goose…

> US context, unsurprisingly, isn't applicable to the UK.

Generally true, but...

> In the UK a bunch of people self-describe as libertarian, but are described by just about everyone else as right wing.

...that's also true of the US.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#140

Post by jlokier »

macinjosh wrote: post #10
umvi wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The problem with freedom is that people abuse it and cause harm to others." Edit: (to be clear, I do not personally believe this, just offering a little insight as to how the "not insignificant majority" think)

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Words are just words. One may hear or read words that provoke them to violence or other negative behavior but blaming the speech in whole or in part removes agency from those who choose to react in a negative way.

Words can cause trauma. A lasting, debilitating effect. Even changes to brain structure (PTSD etc) and long term disability.

I regard that as a harm.

Note that "cause harm" does not always imply "blame".

It does imply cause and effect though, suggesting "responsibility".

Post reply on HN