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

301–310 of 428 posts

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

#301

Post by snowwrestler »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #243
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…

There's a lot of porn on twitter, and the fact that so many people use porn as an example of something that twitter has to ban, not knowing that twitter doesn't ban porn and it nonetheless isn't in their face all the time, perfectly illustrates that banning things from a platform such as twitter is not necessary, that people are perfectly able to avoid things that are not banned.

Well, I believe I said “porn is excluded or hidden from some contexts,” which is how Twitter handles it, at least within the U.S.

Anyway, the point is that moderation of porn is widely socially accepted because it aligns with values that are widely held. And if you want to understand why people want hate speech moderated (for example), you also need to look at it through the lens of values and beliefs that people hold.

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

#302

Post by xigoi »

UncleMeat wrote: post #292
xigoi wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is about allowing any idea to be expressed. Spam is not an idea, but a way of expressing something, so it's not inherently against free speech to restrict it.

Is "shut the fuck up, fa***t" an idea? That's precisely the sort of thing that I see people say shouldn't lead to bans on Twitter. This is very clearly not just about "expressing ideas." There is very real behavior that is designed entirely to hurt other people and is 100% legal that is at the center of this discussion of online moderation.

> Is "shut the fuck up, fa**t" an idea? That's precisely the sort of thing that I see people say shouldn't lead to bans on Twitter.

It's not an idea, though I don't see a particular reason to ban it, unless you have a platform like Saidit that generally encourages constructive discussion over baseless insults (which I consider a great idea).

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

#303

Post by watwut »

nonethewiser wrote: post #217
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.

> 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. This isnt cause for concern because they've already caught some longstanding CPU. They are doing a better job now.

I mean, they are actually not doing better job. Nothing like that was demonstrated at all.

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

#304

Post by savingsPossible »

XorNot wrote: post #266
catiopatio wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most interesting thing about your reply is that you are, yourself, parroting misinformation. Children are being subject to surgery, and puberty blockers are not “non-invasive and reversible”. This is trivially verifiable and well-documented, including, most recently, in the New York Times; that you’d label objective, obvious truths as “transphobia” demonstrates exactly why we need robust, open discourse. https://…

> Children are being subject to surgery There is not one single mention of children being subject to gender-affirming surgery in that article. At all. You have been continuously repeating this misinformation and have failed to produce one single shred of evidence to suggest it is anything but.

The question seems to hinge on the definition of child. Totally my fault, I said "should children get access to surgery". The productive way to go is to talk about ages and interventions available.

What we can affirm is that: people in slovenia can have sex reassignment surgery at 15, in scotland at 16. In most EU countries, after 18

https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2017/mapping-minimum-ag...

And the we can ask if those policies are generating more happiness than suffering, or more suffering than happiness.

The NYT article mentions a 16 year old getting a mastectomy, hormones, and then regretting it. I would consider a 16 year old a child, but you might not, and that is fine. The useful question is still: was it too soon? Maybe not! Maybe she is just unlucky, and mastectomies of 14 years old will make the world a better place.

But it is a discussion, and people will not accept that they don't get to ask questions and have opinions.

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

#305

Post by watwut »

upsidesinclude wrote: post #130
ceejayoz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn’t Twitter, one of your “private parties”, also get to pick “who they don't want to do anything with”?

It does but because it has been purchased by a free speech enthusiast, it choses not to. Twitter has been doing exactly what you pointed out for the last several years, shaping public discourse and directing political narratives

Musk is as much free speech enthusiast as he is astronaut. He is systematically and notoriously punishing any speech he does not like. He did that pretty much anywhere he had power.

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

#306

Post by UncleMeat »

xigoi wrote: post #302
UncleMeat wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is "shut the fuck up, fa***t" an idea? That's precisely the sort of thing that I see people say shouldn't lead to bans on Twitter. This is very clearly not just about "expressing ideas." There is very real behavior that is designed entirely to hurt other people and is 100% legal that is at the center of this discussion of online moderation.

> Is "shut the fuck up, fa**t" an idea? That's precisely the sort of thing that I see people say shouldn't lead to bans on Twitter. It's not an idea, though I don't see a particular reason to ban it, unless you have a platform like Saidit that generally encourages constructive discussion over baseless insults (which I consider a great idea).

How does this jive with the claim that free speech is about expressing ideas?

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

#307

Post by ceejayoz »

nickthegreek wrote: post #148
zmgsabst wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We view certain companies that provide essential services as “common carriers” — who aren’t allowed to discriminate based on how you use their product. Common carrier status for essential services is one of the ways we protect freedoms in the US. Examples: power company, phone company, ISP. People are starting to view Twitter et al as similar to phone companies — and hence think they should be bound by common carrier…

I don’t believe ISP’s are common carriers. And they should be way before Twitter would ever get that designation.

They were, briefly, 2015-2017.

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

#308

Post by gus_massa »

machina_ex_deus wrote: post #271
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…

Irrelevant speech is noise. Freedom of speech is freedom to speak to those who might want to hear, not to push ads and spam and porn on those who don't want it. There's no freedom of speech in a night club. If there's noise you can't speak. It doesn't stop with porn, if you're on a social platform to connect with friends and all you see is political things you don't care about, that's noise too. If a social media pla…

What about spam from political parties?

I don't have a link now, but IIRC in last USA election the spam filter of gmail blocks the fundraising or "informational" email form the mayor political parties, and it generated a big controversy.

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

#309

Post by xigoi »

UncleMeat wrote: post #306
xigoi wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is "shut the fuck up, fa**t" an idea? That's precisely the sort of thing that I see people say shouldn't lead to bans on Twitter. It's not an idea, though I don't see a particular reason to ban it, unless you have a platform like Saidit that generally encourages constructive discussion over baseless insults (which I consider a great idea).

How does this jive with the claim that free speech is about expressing ideas?

I'm not saying it goes against free speech to ban this particular sentence. It's just hypocritical if you don't also ban other insults.

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

#310

Post by saint_fiasco »

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…

The article explicitly makes the distinction between law and culture in free speech. Implicitly, that includes your concern about spam and porn, which are legally approved and culturally disapproved.

For example, the article points out that Apple could decide at any point to remove the Twitter app from their store for any reason. Such a reason could be that there is lots of porn on Twitter, and this could encourage Twitter to discourage porn on their platform, kind of like what happened with Tumblr.

As a consumer, I don't mind it if platforms censor spam and porn as long as there is a switch somewhere I can toggle that will let me opt out of it if I want to see spam and porn. That's just my personal preference and if enough other people express that preference then the culture around free speech will change.

Post reply on HN