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

The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

thefire.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 428 posts

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#201

Post by causi »

autoexec wrote: post #16
ceejayoz wrote: post #6

> The popular radio program “On the Media” feared Musk’s support for free speech would lead to a free-for-all environment rife with child pornography. But that’s a strawman: child pornography is illegal. This is itself a strawman. No one thinks Musk will permit it on Twitter. The gutting of the moderation teams who tackle it is the concern. An underenforced rule is often not a very effective one.

All online platforms need to have moderators to prevent things like spam and illegal content. That doesn't mean that they can't also uphold the idea of free speech principles though. Musk really went crazy with cutting staff, but I'm not sure if it was because he wrongly thought he needed to cut the moderation teams in order to support free speech or if he just did it because moderation is expensive.

I think it's a little late to still believe Musk is a fan of the principle of free speech, after events such as his little pissbaby tantrum when people started changing their Twitter name to Elon Musk and their avatar to that photo of him balding.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#202

Post by causi »

This controversy only exists because there's no "public square" of the internet. Every online venue for speech is private. It shouldn't be that way. We should have federal platforms that charge users at-cost and whose only rules are the laws of the US. Every account linked to the real identity of a citizen and violations of the law the same as those in real life: a visit from the cops. You deserve an e-mail address that can't be taken away from you without a court order.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#203

Post by mullingitover »

JetAlone wrote: post #189
curtisblaine wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you choose to not bake a cake for a gay marriage. Freedom of association applies both ways.

Not if you don't want to get downvoted lol. The people in the protected categories get to force you to associate with them, it's really simple.

Everyone is in a protected category. Everyone has an age, a race, etc.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#204

Post by californical »

rhaksw wrote: post #190
snowwrestler wrote: post #149

If you are reading a piece about free speech and content moderation on platforms like Twitter, look to see if it meaningfully engages with the concepts of spam and porn, which are both fully legal speech, and both heavily moderated with little controversy. (This piece does not.) Why does this matter? Because free speech, free expression in general, is a means to express values and beliefs. Our values and beliefs are…

Greg Lukianoff also suggested drawing the content moderation line at legal speech [1]. > Why does this matter? Because free speech, free expression in general, is a means to express values and beliefs. Saying this does not convince people who are concerned about hate speech. Such individuals imagine that the government or the platform will, or can be coerced, to simply remove whatever they do not like. These folks, w…

Thank you for the links! #6 was thought-provoking

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#206

Post by cm2187 »

autoexec wrote: post #16
ceejayoz wrote: post #6

> The popular radio program “On the Media” feared Musk’s support for free speech would lead to a free-for-all environment rife with child pornography. But that’s a strawman: child pornography is illegal. This is itself a strawman. No one thinks Musk will permit it on Twitter. The gutting of the moderation teams who tackle it is the concern. An underenforced rule is often not a very effective one.

All online platforms need to have moderators to prevent things like spam and illegal content. That doesn't mean that they can't also uphold the idea of free speech principles though. Musk really went crazy with cutting staff, but I'm not sure if it was because he wrongly thought he needed to cut the moderation teams in order to support free speech or if he just did it because moderation is expensive.

If I had to guess what is in Musk mind, I would bet that he thought he wouldn't go anywhere with an organisation full of employees who actively hate and resist him, so this was a way to shake the tree hard, to have a chance of a fresh start. Doesn't mean a lot of those teams won't be restaffed, just not restaffed with the same political activists.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#208

Post by kube-system »

jimbob45 wrote: post #167
snowwrestler wrote: post #149

If you are reading a piece about free speech and content moderation on platforms like Twitter, look to see if it meaningfully engages with the concepts of spam and porn, which are both fully legal speech, and both heavily moderated with little controversy. (This piece does not.) Why does this matter? Because free speech, free expression in general, is a means to express values and beliefs. Our values and beliefs are…

Porn’s sometimes less than legal if children are able/likely to view it, no? Your spam argument is spot-on though. Someone might argue that posting cooldowns paired with URL filters and a well-tuned voting system fairly and effectively combat spam though. Might have a better argument with gore instead of porn.

I think it is reasonable to assume that for the purposes of free speech, we’re talking about people who are of age to engage in the discussion.

“What is your name?” can be illegal speech when directed to a 12 year old on the internet in the US.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#209

Post by njharman »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #139
jchw wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trolling is a pretty vague word, it doesn't really mean anything. So it's hard to really reply to this with any degree of seriousness, if it even was serious to begin with. That said, on properly moderated forums, trolling would usually be moderated, by a human that proactively moderates discussions. Social media can't really do that because the scale of the moderation team they'd need to do it would be literally unt…

Trolling is online speech used to deliberately upset others. That's it. That's what it means. It has a clear definition. You might have wanted to say that no one can agree on what speech is trolling and what speech isn't, but that's not because the word is vague. It's because people disagree on the deliberate and the upset part.

I wouldn't define it as limited to online speech. And most trolling I'm familiar with is calling out asshats and holier than thou types in sarcastic and funny manner.

No definition is as concrete, unmallable, and unchanging as you seem to imagine.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#210

Post by kube-system »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #139
jchw wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trolling is a pretty vague word, it doesn't really mean anything. So it's hard to really reply to this with any degree of seriousness, if it even was serious to begin with. That said, on properly moderated forums, trolling would usually be moderated, by a human that proactively moderates discussions. Social media can't really do that because the scale of the moderation team they'd need to do it would be literally unt…

Trolling is online speech used to deliberately upset others. That's it. That's what it means. It has a clear definition. You might have wanted to say that no one can agree on what speech is trolling and what speech isn't, but that's not because the word is vague. It's because people disagree on the deliberate and the upset part.

It may be clear but it is also broad. The law is more narrow: there are forms of trolling that are illegal speech and there are some that are legal.

There may be a good moral argument to draw that line differently when the consequence is a ban from a commercial platform vs being locked in a prison.

Post reply on HN