the article is an example of orientalism, presenting the case as if there is no urgency on the matter in the Western world. Cancel culture, de-platforming, algorithmic dampening, account mislabelling, brigading on-platform, account suspension and deletion - all of these things are happening in the Western world, on US platforms. I used to have sympathy with the the argument that 'private company's can do what they li…
None of those examples are explicitly violent. Although vigorous we are still having that debate. You're not entirely wrong, but heads of state start assassinating journalists is a different spectra.
It took 40 years for growing antisemitism in Europe to lead to the Holocaust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance 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. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
I wish people would do more than read the name of that paradox. >In this formulation, 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 most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily…
the article is an example of orientalism, presenting the case as if there is no urgency on the matter in the Western world. Cancel culture, de-platforming, algorithmic dampening, account mislabelling, brigading on-platform, account suspension and deletion - all of these things are happening in the Western world, on US platforms. I used to have sympathy with the the argument that 'private company's can do what they li…
I see these complaints (generally from the right wing), and I think... so what? No one ever seems to have any action tied to resolve their complaints, presumably because it would ironically require creating laws that restrict speech - what is cancel culture other than a reflection of free speech in its own right after all? Of course, if you start talking about boycotting Israel, they'll be happy to send the law after…
No action? There's been plenty of laws written and even passed in red states to address these complaints.
Seeing the UK score an 82 on the freedom scale, whatever that means, next to the United States' score of 84, is enough to discredit whatever wacky measure they've created for "freedom" in this article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance 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. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
Popper also sets the limit fairly clearly in his description of the paradox, and it's: > But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer argu…
I don't think the limit is as clear as you seem to think, especially in the age of modern social media and their effect on discourse - filter bubbles, using outrage for engagement, amplification of otherwise-marginal beliefs, etc. Is an organized disinformation campaign (even if not state sponsored) "willingness to engage"? It rather seems like an attempt to prevent or disrupt rational argument, even though it doesn't involve physical violence. The line for "engaging in rational discourse" needs to be as clear as the one for when suppression might be justified, because they're inextricably linked. Popper's ideas are very useful as a framing device, but sorely need update and elaboration to become applicable in the real modern world.
"I find people who don't think exactly like me to be intolerable" is the bread and butter for controlling a population. People look at the past and think to themselves "those people in the past were wrong, that's why the one acceptable way to think being enforced with power was immoral, on the other hand, my opinions are right, so the ends justify the means". Intolerance is intolerance, regardless of how morally just…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance 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. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance 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. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
Popper also sets the limit fairly clearly in his description of the paradox, and it's: > But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer argu…
Popper is literally talking about Soviets and Nazis marching into your country and killing dissidents.
It's ridiculous to extend his thinking to our modern and relatively mild transgressions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance 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. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
This gets thrown around frequently as though it's some ironclad rule of nature, but hasn't actually been corroborated by any empirical evidence. In fact, the way that it's phrased, it's essentially unfalsifiable. What is the limiting principle? If I find "backsliding of free expression" a form of intolerance, should we be tolerant of the Paradox of Tolerance? The empirical data is very mixed, to the extent that it's…
Based on the light grey font, it would seem this style of thinking is not to be tolerated.
The article, and its data, is almost specifically about actual authoritarian regimes and actual restriction of speech by governments against citizens. But I predict this thread will very quickly nose dive into "Twitter banned me for saying COVID is a hoax and something something first amendment."
Your prediction came true! Would be cool if reading the article was a requirement before posting a comment. Maybe use a summarizer AI to create a short quiz that people would need to answer before posting?
I feel like that would just eliminate 80% of HN comments.
Step 1 - governments privatises /sells all public squares and large streets in your city Step 2 - private companies that own them hire private security firms Step 3 - if anyone protests, stands with a banner or says anything in convenient anywhere in the city, they get violently removed. Step 4 - folks like you yourself defend it under the guide of 'but it's not a government!' Vioala, no free speech to worry about! Y…
I mean, this is already the case and most people seem ok with it and it seems to be working out. If I go to the mall which is a very public space where people congregate there are limitations that can be put there by the owner of the facility on speech. They can cancel me, deplatform me, ban me, etc.
Just to make clear I'm not advocating for this solution, excessive private ownership of public spaces is a problem that's been known for quite some time and there's a number of laws in place to limit it.