[dead]
My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up
81–90 of 189 posts
Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
The “ideal” of free speech would uphold everyone being able to speak in whatever manner they choose. If you’re an economic loser as a result, that is not a failure of free speech, that is a failure of society to protect you from free speech. You’ve inadvertently stumbled on the exact reason that “free speech absolutism” is absolutely asinine nonsense (Musk’s incoherent/idiotic implementation aside), and why some spee…
> The “ideal” of free speech would uphold everyone being able to speak in whatever manner they choose. If you’re an economic loser as a result, that is not a failure of free speech, that is a failure of society to protect you from free speech. Not even the most repressive societies physically prevent people from speaking - they just impose distinctly unpleasant consequences on those who speak in undesirable things. T…
> The fact that we impose negative consequences for undesirable speech via different mechanisms than the direct actions of government agents does not make what we're doing fundamentally different.
It absolutely does. There is a fundamental difference between "go to jail because of your speech" and "people don't want to do business with you because of your speech". The former is making speech illegal; the latter is the fundamental right of every person to decide who they associate with.
Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You mean when the advertising companies pulled their money from Twitter after its owner said Jews "pushing [...] hatred against whites" was "the actual truth"? Not really, because I specifically stated that my response was not about the Musk situation. "Jewish communities hate whites" does sound pretty antisemitic to me. But so does the equivalent trash of "all whites are racist", which for some reason is a-ok for…
> But so does the equivalent trash of "all whites are racist", which for some reason is a-ok for the advertising companies. Is it okay with them? Any kind of proof to back this up?
The "White fragility" book by Robin DiAngelo brought this message to the main stream. It was carried very widely by ad networks.
Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up
#84Unfortunately, it's a scale. Where do you think criticism ends and censorship begins?: 1. Tweeting that someone is wrong. 2. Tweeting that someone is bad. 5. A corporate Twitter account saying someone is bad. 4. One hundred thousand people tweeting that someone is bad. 6. A company withdrawing advertising from a businessman whose tweets they disagree with. 8. A company withdrawing twitter service from a customer whos…
Unless you're a member of a protected class, the numbered act violates a law, or the numbered act violates contractual terms: 13.
Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The motte is "we're just criticising Musk" while the bailey is "we're systematically contacting all of his advertisers and letting them know that if they continue to support him then we will campaign against them as well". As a free-speech absolutist, I genuinely don’t see any difference between criticizing a person and telling other people (advertisers) that that person did something bad. That’s what criticism is,…
So you'll have no problem if I start digging through your posting history for clues about your identity and contacting your employer to let them know what a horrible person you are, right? .....or is that sort of thing only ok when it's done against enemies of the state?
Don't dig through history, just respond to the current conversation. Advertisers didn't dig through history of posts to decide to leave, they had one final straw and dipped out in near real-time.
Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up
#86> Musk is also a fan of the theory that when he speaks, your criticism of him violates his rights I hate to use such trite debate bro topics, but isn't this a motte and bailey fallacy [1]? The motte is "we're just criticising Musk" while the bailey is "we're systematically contacting all of his advertisers and letting them know that if they continue to support him then we will campaign against them as well". The whol…
I think you've touched on a certain power dynamic. Advertisers, for the most part, are not compelled to continue to advertise their product on a particular platform and would often rather pull advertising than deal with an angry mob. This tends to hold true even if the angry mob is wrong!
It's easy for advertisers to resume spending once the dust has settled than stand by the accused.
Some groups are keenly aware of this power dynamic and will exploit it to their own ends.
Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up
#87Unfortunately, it's a scale. Where do you think criticism ends and censorship begins?: 1. Tweeting that someone is wrong. 2. Tweeting that someone is bad. 5. A corporate Twitter account saying someone is bad. 4. One hundred thousand people tweeting that someone is bad. 6. A company withdrawing advertising from a businessman whose tweets they disagree with. 8. A company withdrawing twitter service from a customer whos…
Unless you're a member of a protected class, the numbered act violates a law, or the numbered act violates contractual terms: 13.
Under civil rights legislation, we are all members of protected classes. A protected class is defined as a property that you aren't allowed to use when making decisions about how to treat people, not a literal class of protected individuals.
Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me divert from Musk specifically for a moment. The "anti woke cancel culture critics" are in fact concerned with the inorganic, overwhelming influence that a specific family of ideologies has today over the means of modern communication. Observe the similarity with the left themselves, who are concerned with the inorganic, overwhelming influence that a specific class of wealthy people have today over the means of…
I'm just sitting here as a small-l libertarian that's in tune with the concept of logical reductions (eg Turing completeness, NP-completeness, etc), wondering when people will wise up to the idea that sufficiently coercive corporations are indistinguishable from government and vice-versa. Arguing over this false dichotomy uses up all the air in the room, when we should actually be focusing on the amount of control be…
> sufficiently coercive corporations are indistinguishable from government and vice-versa
It is the current state of the US, but I think it's not inevitable and more due to the circumstances of the US. Regulating billboard usage and advertising limits reach. I'm not sure if this is necessary, but a better online platform ecosystem with rich filtering capabilities could help. Lobbying is harder to curb, since corruption is corruption, but it can probably be done. I think then the big issue is if the corporations amass a private military or something, since they can't artifically extend their voice that much.
Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
They would and have cover that event if any major user database was leaked. But unless you have some evidence I've not seen any news organisations deliberately reveal PII data.
The first result of the "Parler user data" search for me is this publication https://gizmodo.com/every-deleted-parler-post-many-with-user... containing a direct link to the dump.
Isn't this only public posts? The article mentions a leak that contained private information but doesn't link to it.
Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But so does the equivalent trash of "all whites are racist", which for some reason is a-ok for the advertising companies. Is it okay with them? Any kind of proof to back this up?
The "White fragility" book by Robin DiAngelo brought this message to the main stream. It was carried very widely by ad networks.
Out of curiosity, do you also think critical race theory says that white people are racist?