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

341–350 of 428 posts

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

#341

Post by pixl97 »

unethical_ban wrote: post #132
autoexec wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So me and my buddy Tim are going to come to your house and talk about how much you suck. My house isn't a global social media platform. It's a private residence. Different rules. It's not that small private online groups shouldn't exist either, but we absolutely should expect major social media platforms to uphold free speech ideals and allow people to speak without excessive censorship. We should seek out and supp…

I hope conservatives that use the "social media is a public square" argument will finally approach logical consistency and call for a publicly-owned, federally managed Mastodon site that upholds all the free speech they think people should have. I think morally, social media platforms should work to stomp out nation-state disinformation campaigns, tell professional trolls to fuck off, and can spam and illegal content…

> think morally, social media platforms should work to stomp out nation-state disinformation campaigns, tell professional trolls to fuck off,

If you think about this for a bit you'll realize how impossible this actually is. The professional chaos monkeys are going to play both sides so you always loose.

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

#342

Post by glyphosate »

Amezarak wrote: post #31
glyphosate wrote: post #18

"I cannot contemplate human affairs, without laughing or crying. I choose to laugh. When People talk of the Freedom of Writing Speaking or thinking, I cannot choose but laugh. No such thing ever existed. No such thing now exists: but I hope it will exist, But it must be hundreds of years after you and I Shall write and Speak no more." -John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1817 https://founders.archives.gov/documen…

This is particularly ironic since Adams famously was responsible for the Alien and Sedition Acts and had people imprisoned for criticizing him.

Freedom of speech is an ideal - as such it is not easily achieved or maintained, even by the "best" of us - or those who claim to believe most in it.

If you read Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media you'll find this "irony" repeated throughout history. It's a problem of human nature, and that's what ideals arduously seek to overcome.

https://www.amazon.com/Free-Speech-History-Socrates-Social/d...

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

#343

Post by freejazz »

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…

"Irrelevant speech is noise"

And who judges the relevancy?

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

#344

Post by valeness »

naasking wrote: post #339
valeness wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, and America hasn't become a country of hate speech Hate speech spewed by the likes of Tucker Carlson caused a mass shooting like a week ago...

I'm sure that's one interpretation. And yet Tucker is the most watched cable news show last I checked, so clearly most Americans don't agree with your characterization of his speech. Furthermore, drawing a causal link between Tucker and the shooter is speculative at best.

"Most watched cable news show" does not equal "most americans"; let's just clear that up before we move on...

Also, the people who watch his show agree with his speech and probably don't consider it stochastic terrorism because they also want to genocide trans people. It's not a hard concept to grasp. It's a hate-hour for a very specific slice of the population. And that slice is committing more and more acts of violence.

Do I think Tucker is DIRECTLY responsible for the shooting? Maybe not, like you said it's speculative. But do I think there is a casual link between the entire "Trans people are evil" rhetoric crowd and the shooting? Absolutely, I think it'd be difficult to argue the other direction, we have studies and statistics on trans hate crimes already.

And then do I think Tucker Carlson is part of the "Trans people are evil" rhetoric crowd? yes, hard to deny that imo. And you said it yourself, he's the largest voice out there in that crowd. So I think he definitely shoulders some blame.

Also, speculation turns out to be more and more true each time. conservative talk show hosts are cited in conservative domestic terrorists manifestos all the time. This "hour of hate" is absolutely directly contributing to violence.

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

#345

Post by seanw444 »

andsoitis wrote: post #311
efitz wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is the dangerous opinion that led us down the censorship path that the article is decrying. “Pro-social” and “anti-social” are subjective, not objective. To a religious conservative, it would be pro-social to say “marriage should only be between one man and one woman”. To many progressives, this would be “anti-social”. Here’s a conundrum. Is “we should kill all nazis” pro-social or anti-social? On its fa…

AFAIK Musk has also characterized himself as a free speech absolutist but has now re-suspended Ye. I’d be curious to hear whether you think that this suspension is compatible with free speech absolutism? Put differently, was Musk simply marketing himself as an absolutist (to win over following) but is in reality a pragmatist, willing to bend his stance when he views it in his own or society’s best interest?

Yes. That much was obvious when he kept Alex Jones banned over an anecdote. It's more of a marketing tactic, not an exercise of morals.

If liberals already hate Elon, then the best course of action is for him to pander predominantly to people on the right. Right now, the best way to do that is by advertising free speech.

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

#346

Post by dcow »

dale_glass wrote: post #330
dcow wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this argument a few times and my response is that I don't think it's that simple in the case of Twitter. Abstractly I agree that the limit of a corporation's tolerance for unsavory content approaches the politically correct mean as time goes on. But I honestly feel that Twitter was nowhere near that mean and their moderation decisions were far to the left essentially excluding over 50% of the population. I…

No need for weird conspiracies. An actual ad executive explained to Musk what problems he had. Musk proceeded to get pissy and block him, which I'm sure the rest of them didn't find very reassuring. So far what I've been hearing is that the ad industry considered Twitter to be a bad place to advertise to start with. Then Musk came in. First thing he does is to shout that there's too many bots on the platform, which I…

You seem to be the one embroiled in conspiracies. Removing bots from the platform will make it more valuable and effective for advertisers in the long run. Firing deadweight will make it more lucrative in the long run. There’s a saying: “when you remove your hand from the bucket of water, the void will fill”.

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

#347

Post by freejazz »

belorn wrote: post #211
jimbob45 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The content of spam is usually illegal since they often promote scams, frauds, and often goes against local advertisement laws.

That's not the case at all.

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

#348

Post by naasking »

valeness wrote: post #344
naasking wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure that's one interpretation. And yet Tucker is the most watched cable news show last I checked, so clearly most Americans don't agree with your characterization of his speech. Furthermore, drawing a causal link between Tucker and the shooter is speculative at best.

"Most watched cable news show" does not equal "most americans"; let's just clear that up before we move on... Also, the people who watch his show agree with his speech and probably don't consider it stochastic terrorism because they also want to genocide trans people. It's not a hard concept to grasp. It's a hate-hour for a very specific slice of the population. And that slice is committing more and more acts of viol…

> Also, the people who watch his show agree with his speech and probably don't consider it stochastic terrorism because they also want to genocide trans people.

This is what happens when you form ideas divorced from any evidence. More Democrats watch Fox News and Tucker Carlson specifically than any of the more liberal-leaning networks. Do most Democrats want to genocide trans people too? Or are you claiming they're watching Tucker ironically?

> And then do I think Tucker Carlson is part of the "Trans people are evil" rhetoric crowd? yes, hard to deny that imo.

It's easy to deny it actually, he has never called for violence against trans people to my knowledge, and in fact has always condemned violence. People are not so circumspect if they think they're legitimately fighting evil.

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

#349

Post by freejazz »

jchw wrote: post #124
drewrv wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is spam always glossed over in these "principled defenses" of free speech? It's legal speech.

Because it's not very interesting because nobody has a good faith reason to argue in favor allowing SPAM. I assume it's being used to demonstrate the arbitrary nature of what speech people would want to allow, but it's a bit pointless. SPAM falls in the category of things that arguably are simply abuse of the system, using it in an unintended way. SPAM is not discourse, or an ideology, or a belief. SPAM is a pattern…

It's more that the SPAM issue shows that "speech people" don't have an actual working methodology of distinguishing 'good' speech from 'bad' speech any more than the very people they complain of being censorious.

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

#350

Post by seanw444 »

valeness wrote: post #344
naasking wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure that's one interpretation. And yet Tucker is the most watched cable news show last I checked, so clearly most Americans don't agree with your characterization of his speech. Furthermore, drawing a causal link between Tucker and the shooter is speculative at best.

"Most watched cable news show" does not equal "most americans"; let's just clear that up before we move on... Also, the people who watch his show agree with his speech and probably don't consider it stochastic terrorism because they also want to genocide trans people. It's not a hard concept to grasp. It's a hate-hour for a very specific slice of the population. And that slice is committing more and more acts of viol…

Tucker disagrees with the extent of some liberal ideas. That does not make him responsible for others taking his beliefs, magnifying them, and committing atrocities.

If bluntly disagreeing with progressivism makes you blame-worthy for mass-murderers, well then we should throw all conservative media hosts in indefinite prison. Or execute them.

Post reply on HN