91–100 of 506 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what about monetization. i.e. livelihood, the thing that keeps people from starving etc
That's not new in the digital realm. Speech has always had social consequences: https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is sad that people who believe in real free speech now have to clarify that they are free speech absolutists. When it comes down to it, I don’t think any of those people you are mentioning ever actually supported free speech - just the idea of it before it came to a head.
I think Free speech, Freedom from prosecution for speech and speech without any consequences are all confused with each other. To me, the freedoms to oppose some speech, by way of boycotting, protesting, shunning and shaming is also speech. There’s also the difference between beheading for speech and getting your Twitter account suspended. If someone says absolutely nutty stuff in a town square and the local folks dr…
When I think of somebody who supports free speech, I think of somebody who:
- Speaks in a less filtered way
- Brushes off people saying something offensive about them
- Brushes off people saying something offensive about other people
- Doesn't support the regulation of speech at any official level
I don't see supporting free speech as an inherent good by the way, I see it more as something nessecary to counteract the even larger issue of the "tyranny of the majority", and this is essential on more levels of society than the governmental level. Even amongst a group of peers or colleagues consideration must be given to allowing free speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give some examples? Is it actually speech that's being restricted, or actions, or access to certain types of speech/content (e.g. age restrictions)?
Well, for awhile there was lots of talk about CRT. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/12/02/texas-critical-race-...
There appears to be a recent shift on HackerNews no longer support freedom of speech. I don't know that its just HackerNews either - it seems like its 'internet residents no longer support freedom of speech.' I'm not sure how to interpret this.
I grew up in the US being told that freedom of speech was a virtue, something that our country did very well and I always thought that it was a shared value. It's very surprising to me to see that change in such a short span, or possibly it was not as popular or widespread as I thought it was growing up and I just never noticed. Is it the internet that has caused this uptick in the number of people who think free spe…
It still is a virtue and a right in the US. Freedom of speech is not about giving every idea and every person and equal platform to spread their ideas. It's not about forcing others to host/spread ideas they disagree with. I think the internet has given people a warped sense about what freedom of speech is. We have no less freedom of speech now than we did before social media/internet.
Then again, less people knew you held some alternative view back then. Nowadays it's popular to shout across all the media so everyone in the US knows about that kooky view the old guy in Montana has or that violent group in the middle east holds.
I grew up in the US being told that freedom of speech was a virtue, something that our country did very well and I always thought that it was a shared value. It's very surprising to me to see that change in such a short span, or possibly it was not as popular or widespread as I thought it was growing up and I just never noticed. Is it the internet that has caused this uptick in the number of people who think free spe…
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Attributed to Voltaire but actually from SG Tallentyre 1906. I think the desire to restrict other peoples speech is relatively new because the internet was relatively new. 50 years ago, you didn't see corporations able to effectively silence people as much as you do now. A more accurate quote for todays crowd may be "I disapprove o…
50 years ago nearly all broad platforms for spreading ideas were owned by corporations run by very few individual people. Lacking a platform was the default, the vast majority of people were "silenced" in the sense meant by the modern "free speech" (really compulsory association) movememt.
I grew up in the US being told that freedom of speech was a virtue, something that our country did very well and I always thought that it was a shared value. It's very surprising to me to see that change in such a short span, or possibly it was not as popular or widespread as I thought it was growing up and I just never noticed. Is it the internet that has caused this uptick in the number of people who think free spe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A common thread I see is a lot is people conflating freedom of speech and having a platform (more specifically an online one). Forcing private entities to host speech they don't want to goes against what I define as freedom of speech. Everyone should be entitled to speak and have their own ideas, no individual or company should be force to spread them.
> Forcing private entities to host speech they don't want to goes against what I define as freedom of speech. What if a private entity owns the town square?
I can see how their conclusions play out in real life. One of the common threads I've noticed across many people when trying to explain why defending freedom of speech, and the free and open exchange of ideas in general, is that they're not just defending some "right-wing" person's rights, they're actually defending their own rights. Because the same tactics and rationales that are being used to suppress and silence…
How do you protect the rights of those being bullied, trolled, harassed, doxxxed and revenge-porned.
Harassed - online, tell them to get over it. In person (i.e. someone is actually harassing you in real life), call the police because we already have laws against that.
Doxxed - If someone posts actual protected information, then sue them if you can. If someone just posts public information, then I don't see what the issue is.
Revenge-porned - If someone makes secret recordings of someone without their permission in a situation where that person would reasonably expect privacy, then that should be a crime. If someone makes a sex tape with someone willingly and hands ownership/control of said tape to that person, then you should have to live with the consequences of your actions. Don't make sex tapes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There appears to be a recent shift on HackerNews no longer support freedom of speech. I don't know that its just HackerNews either - it seems like its 'internet residents no longer support freedom of speech.' I'm not sure how to interpret this.
It’s not 1993 any more. The arrival of a globally ubiquitous internet, and the subsequent introduction of social network feeds that insist Helen and Walter encounter five pages of engagement bait if they want to get updates on their granddaughter, have made the consequences of “free speech” less obvious to many people. Speech has qualitatively different impact than it did 50, 100, or 200 years ago. So people are step…