Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020) • Hacker News Board

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#221

Post by bigbasedwolf » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 5:58 PM UTC

OrangeMonkey wrote: post #76

bigbasedwolf wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure when you think this shift happened. HN intellectuals migrated from here almost 10 years ago. I don’t think the atmosphere has changed it’s always been a young loudmouth group. Dang is a recent entry in the compendium. HN has never really been a highly intellectual place simply because a number of key subjects, viewpoints are off limits. Inability to at will gracefully discuss sensitive subjects basically mea…

Where did the intellectuals from 10 years ago migrate to?

Not sure. We had a period of “goodbye HN” posts. You can hopefully find them in the search results unless they got purged somehow. Those have stopped, haven’t seen one in many years. Basically people could sense they were in an unhealthy bubble and decided to cut ties. Good for them.

That fellow who would regularly post graphs of HN traffic/topic patterns at us to disprove peoples theories hasn’t posted it in many, many years. I guess he either woke up to reality or shrugged and moved on.

A few old timers remain here and there. I think we just got tired and fatigued of the bullshit.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#222

Post by michaelmrose » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 5:58 PM UTC

slavik81 wrote: post #136

cortesoft wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not heard any group calling for free speech to be blocked. Who is calling for people to be arrested for what they say? Or to be blocked from being able to say it out loud? I think what you mean is that people are calling for internet platforms to kick out certain groups. This is in no way a call against freedom of speech. I am not sure why people suddenly believe that being for 'free speech' means that other p…

> Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionar…

Persuasive and well written. It certainly seems applicable for example to the anticommunist fervor that the US dealt with in decades past for example. On the other hand that passage seems uniquely inapplicable to our modern times which are more free of societal oppression than almost any time previously.

Neonazis, communists, would be anarchists, followers of 1000 cults and political groups many mutually offensive to one another can all be heard at least by millions of like minded individuals even if the rest of society isn't interested. You can even maintain a presence on public social media while advocating for evil and crime so long as you maintain a public face where you keep within bounds and talk about the obvious illegality in private.

It is the lack of societal suppression indeed that is so disturbing to conservatives that they agitate for the large scale restructuring of society to restore the "proper order" greatly to the disadvantage of many.

Their speech is dangerous. It's not a given that they will be defeated. Establishing some standards on platforms to deny them a mass audience while still keeping the wide open internet free for anyone to use seems virtuous.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#223

Post by uoaei » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 5:59 PM UTC

azeemh wrote: post #195

Freedom of speech is the freedom to vocalize, share, and evaluate thoughts. Thought Policing is quite un-American yet it is championed by authoritarian neofascists and neoliberals alike...

Freedom to vocalize extends to both sides. You are free to vocalize your opinion, and dissenters are free to vocalize theirs.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#224

Post by sejje » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 5:59 PM UTC

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #175

BurningFrog wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2022, most speech happens on the internet, so if that's outside the ever shrinking "free speech zone", free speech is practically dying. Also, it's easy to be smug about this when it's only nazis and other despicables from "the other side" being silenced. But once these tools exist, whoever is in power will gleefully use them against those who cheered when they were being "deplatformed".

> In 2022, most speech happens on the internet, anybody can use the internet to communicate. social media companies are not the internet.

Domain registrars and webhosts are canceling accounts based on content, so no, not anyone can use the internet to communicate.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#225

Post by Jensson » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 6:00 PM UTC

Twistyfiasco wrote: post #61

illuminerdy wrote: post #40

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-...

Similarly biology teachers aren't allowed to teach intelligent design unless it is a part of the curriculum, you can't just teach whatever theory you want without the school boards permission.

I don't think that biology teachers should teach intelligent design, and I don't think that is a free speech violation.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#226

Post by ellen364 » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 6:00 PM UTC

Dig1t wrote: post #55

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…

Two theories of change:

(1) An increasing number of Americans see free speech as a positive rather than negative right. In other words, “Facebook must host whatever I want to say”, not just “The government can’t arrest me for insulting the president.” That’s a controversial expansion of the right to free speech, creating a lot of debate and disagreement.

(2) The internet means Americans are more exposed to non-Americans. At least some of those people come from countries where free speech is seen as a right that should be balanced against other rights, like privacy. That makes it seem like fewer people support free speech than in the past.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#227

Post by TheMightyLlama » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 6:01 PM UTC

There’s a lot of discussion here on the topic of cancel culture, deplatforming and the responsibilities of private entities.

It may be useful to clarify in our responses if we mean the above or our ability to express ourselves free from persecution by the government.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#228

Post by uoaei » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 6:01 PM UTC

taway345 wrote: post #133

hotpotamus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you really want to scramble your noodle, look at the recent spate of state laws placing restrictions on speech and notice the lean of the parties that control those states.

[dead]

The media and the Democratic party more broadly is controlled by liberals, not the left per se. Liberals are essentially centrists who espouse moral claims that nominally align with left ethics, but who do not engender the conditions necessary to materially satisfy those claims (including providing accurate information about the issues being discussed), on the basis of radical individualism (ie neoliberalism).

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#229

Post by bandyaboot » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 6:03 PM UTC

cies wrote: post #198

MichaelCollins wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have not heard any group calling for free speech to be blocked. Who is calling for people to be arrested for what they say? The way it works is: "Sure I support free speech, but saying X is not free speech and saying it should be against the law because its offensive and might incite violence or something." If you object, they trot out Popper quotes about tolerating intolerance.

> they trot out Popper quotes about tolerating intolerance. Yup, that's me. What's wrong with that according to you? If your expression is promoting violence, especially violence against a vulnerable group (children, minorities, I'd say even animals), I'm okay with drawing up laws against such things. Thereby reducing freedom of expression. Advertising for instance. If every building/land owner or municipality could…

Could someone explain to me why the mass downvoting of the above comment is not hypocritical? I believe it is, but would be interested in hearing opposing thoughts.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#230

Post by hirsin » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 6:03 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #202

slg wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People on HN and in this thread in particular have such a one sided view of this issue. For some reason people here only think the left is attacking free speech when the truth is that free speech is under attack from both the left and right. One of those two has been much more effective translating these attacks into laws which I would expect to be the most concerning for proponents of free speech and yet it is alway…

While I agree-ish, I can list a litany of people deplatformed. All of them are on the right. It could just be only the left has power at the moment. A common question is why the Ayatollah is on Twitter (and I think Facebook) calling for death, but Alex Jones isn’t allowed to question events. We can argue both are reprehensible, but only one is banned. Beyond that I haven’t seen anyone on the right truly call for limi…

Book banning is the right's equivalent of deplatforming, with the bonus that they are getting the government to do it, not just a private company. They do take it further though, with banning of talking about how to get an abortion, banning of talking about LGBT topics in school.

I can't say that allowing those topics, or even pushing them, is targeting the right. By definition it's about some other group being supported. Maybe you meant triggering them, not targeting them?