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

Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

thenewhumanitarian.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 299 posts

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#141

Post by throwayyy479087 »

salt-thrower wrote: post #117
hunglee2 wrote: post #35

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…

Freedom of speech is literally just “the government can’t throw you in jail for expressing an opinion.” It’s always been only that. Media companies (TV, newspapers, radio, now social media) have always “deplatformed” people who they disagree with or consider dangerous. There is nothing new in any of your examples. If you agree with the views of deplatformed influencers, you can start your own blog about it. That’s fr…

Freedom of speech is also a social principle - not just the First Amendment. That's been lost in the debate and is much more important than the legalese.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#142

Post by throwayyy479087 »

phillipcarter wrote: post #123
RobotToaster wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is corporate censorship more tolerable than government censorship? Why is censorship by the bourgeoisie more tolerable than censorship by the government bureaucrat? When corporations control de-facto monopoly platforms by nature of the network effect, they become censors, this shouldn't be a controversial statement. (not to mention the idea that corporations are people is one of the dumbest legal constructs since…

> Why is corporate censorship more tolerable than government censorship? Because that's the free market? Places like YouTube or whatever being a de facto place for expression only exist because they've been remarkably balanced (as per how the market sees it) in how they handle speech on their platforms. As we've seen with how new social networks pop up so quickly, it doesn't take very long for a company/product to lo…

I'd buy this argument so much more if the people making it didn't _also_ dislike the free market. That just seems like a short-circuit way of avoiding that they don't want that speech to exist at all, because they believe it's equivalent to violence.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#143

Post by wikitopian »

wikitopian wrote: post #102
kitsunesoba wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess what I’m getting at is that if we’re to eliminate all traces of censorship, other actions must be taken in parallel to not allow the negative effects of doing that spiral out of control. A starting point might be to restore Fairness Doctrine and other policies that help prevent traditional media from becoming hyper-polarized Nielsen-rating-chasing entertainment rather than legitimate news sources, as well as…

But what if you're incorrect? What if bots and bad actors aren't really the driving force behind the existential divorce? What if Americans are going in different directions by their own volition? What if using the state to ensure your side wins is unwise and harmful?

I still disagree with your perspective, but appreciate your thoughtful replies. I agree it's a scary and serious situation.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#144

Post by CJefferson »

wikitopian wrote: post #73
kitsunesoba wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is, there’s been an active war against critical thought across multiple fronts for a while now, which includes campaigns in social and traditional media and attacks on the education system. Youth and unwitting adults alike are being trained to stay angry and act on impulse rather than address situations as thoughtful, well-rounded members of society would. I won’t claim to have a solution, but there are clear…

I understand you believe there's a compelling case for placing your hand over my mouth. I'm sure you earnestly believe your case, and think placing your hand over my mouth is the moral, right, and just thing to do. Time will tell if you're capable of holding it there.

So what exactly is the type of thing you want to say that kitsunesoba is forbidding you from saying?

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#145

Post by [deleted] »

dleslie wrote: post #47
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#146

Post by paisawalla »

russdill wrote: post #80
colechristensen wrote: post #3

"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…

That's a super broad brush. Throwing in the "exactly" makes this particularly overbroad. It's perfectly OK to think that people with certain views are intolerable and that isn't some path to fascism. There are people I don't want to associate with because of views I deem intolerable. I think the necessary addition is "and they need to be stopped".

Eliminating the word fascism from discourse, and replacing it with a description of the thoughts and attitudes you find intolerable, would clarify your claims are here. It's not an invitation to argue about those views mind you, but if you had said "whoa, it's totally fine if we don't have racism, sexism, transphobia, islamophobia, etc expressed anywhere in polite mainstream society" then suddenly it becomes clear

1. you expect us all to have about the same definition of those terms (yours), and

2. you expect/condone zealous policing of those boundaries, (because these are by definition intolerable and one does not lightly oppose the intolerable)

Taken together, it's pretty clear how good intentions lead to puritanically speech-constrained society. The real tolerance paradox is that even the intoler (-ant/-able) speech must be tolerated.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#147

Post by josephh »

phillipcarter wrote: post #128
salt-thrower wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech is literally just “the government can’t throw you in jail for expressing an opinion.” It’s always been only that. Media companies (TV, newspapers, radio, now social media) have always “deplatformed” people who they disagree with or consider dangerous. There is nothing new in any of your examples. If you agree with the views of deplatformed influencers, you can start your own blog about it. That’s fr…

There's an influx of right-wing people who are trying to rebrand "free speech" as being able to say reprehensible things with zero _social_ consequences. So you're unfortunately trying to reason with the wrong person. Their belief is that all speech in all forms should be free from any consequences, social, legal, or otherwise.

And what is your point? Let them face consequences. That is not a justification for suppressing such speech.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#148

Post by lp0_on_fire »

debacle wrote: post #79

Backsliding on free expression on Hacker News needs to end. The amount of political posts that just turn into light gray on light gray are awful. I don't like much of the political content, but it seems there are many with a clear agenda on HN.

I'd prefer to see fewer political posts here, period. It's too easy to get caught up in emotion and nonsense.

Anonymous internet forums open to whoever wants to sign up just aren't suited for (productive) political discussion, no matter how hard people try to moderate it.

Re: Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end

#150

Post by [deleted] »

colechristensen wrote: post #108
russdill wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a super broad brush. Throwing in the "exactly" makes this particularly overbroad. It's perfectly OK to think that people with certain views are intolerable and that isn't some path to fascism. There are people I don't want to associate with because of views I deem intolerable. I think the necessary addition is "and they need to be stopped".

To be fair, I am not red-teaming my comments or spending hours agonizing over each word. But to a second point, it should be clear that "exactly" isn't meant in a mathematical sense of "literally every single thought". I don't think the people shouting about social justice and similar morality or other hot political issues want to go to war over whether or not you like poppyseed muffins, there's no reason to take wor…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN