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

My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

popehat.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 189 posts

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#91

Post by spdustin »

motohagiography wrote: post #25

Question I would have for Popehat would be whether a DoS attack is speech or not. If it is, why isn't it protected, because it's inline messaging on the medium it uses and is therefore like any other mediated expression. If it isn't, what is it about attacking the medium and participants that isn't speech? The problem with the cancel culture people is their "working the ref," strategy launches a DoS attack on the par…

A DoS is a theft of computer resources. Since that's specifically a crime in most jurisdictions, it's not protected speech.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#92

Post by threeseed »

bad_username wrote: post #73
threeseed wrote: post #58

Earlier 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.

But that's public post data not PII user data.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#93

Post by eapressoandcats »

zoogeny wrote: post #65
eapressoandcats wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boycotts are unquestionably free speech from a legal perspective and definitional perspective. From a moral perspective, Popehat’s main consistent point is that you need to be very specific about what behaviors cross a line and actually apply that fairly, which Elon pretty clearly does not. He has no problems asking people to boycott companies: https://sfstandard.com/2023/08/28/elon-musk-calls-for-boycot...

I have no interest in legality or even morality on this topic. This is a question of rhetoric. The actions in question aren’t a criticism of the ideas of Musk. They are collective actions to harm him by harming his business. The lawsuit will help determine whether or not those actions were legal.

The actions were almost certainly legal, otherwise boycotts are illegal, which would be insane, and also the tweet from Elonin the article I linked above would be illegal as well.

Criticism and free speech generally includes that the criticism may convince people (including companies!) to change their behavior. Speaking about rhetoric, the point Popehat is making here is that all of the changes in advertiser behavior are in fact criticism. There is no Motte being retreated to, he is in fact standing firm at the bailey with the statement “criticism that results in financial harm and business action is still just criticism”.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#94

Post by vacuity »

Obscurity4340 wrote: post #41

I wonder to what extent we can establish a common dialogue of "just don't be a hateful asshole" where you just don't have any interest about random personal crap you have zero entitlement to be involved in or are not entitled to retain any say in. The same way if I don't pay your electricity bill, I can't tell you what to use your electricity on. If I'm not having sex with you and I don't want to have sex with you, s…

If so many people actually adopted this view or could be convinced to a comment like this, we probably wouldn't be experiencing this. You're not wrong in the least, but I'm just saying, we can't have that dialogue right now. Can't worry too much about designing better rock climbing gear when you're living in the moment of dangling from the cliff face.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#95

Post by smrtinsert »

whatshisface wrote: post #80

Unfortunately, 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…

Well sure, everything sounds awful if you remove the context.

The context is someone is saying anti-Semitic things and others don't have to go along with it or deal with their business.

"Do you believe speech should have consequences" is just the type of spin political parties pay for research to manipulate the masses and will always sound murky or confusing or dangerous.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#96

Post by whatshisface »

smrtinsert wrote: post #95
whatshisface wrote: post #80

Unfortunately, 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…

Well sure, everything sounds awful if you remove the context. The context is someone is saying anti-Semitic things and others don't have to go along with it or deal with their business. "Do you believe speech should have consequences" is just the type of spin political parties pay for research to manipulate the masses and will always sound murky or confusing or dangerous.

I don't think our culture is strong or modern enough to have knives out for antisemitism that won't eventually be used against communism, dissent, pacifism or any of the other things that have been repressed far more stringently at dark times in American history than antisemitism ever has been. Actually, it's more likely that these tools if accepted will be used for antisemitism than against it. I am a little worried by how quickly people forget that antisemitic industrial magnates are a more predictable norm in this country than mysteriously benevolent ones... in fact this whole discussion is about someone who's accused of being one. Who's really going to have their voice cut off in the long run, outvoted minorities or the "moral majority"? It's like a version of "think of the children" with the twist that it's probably going to be used against the people it's claimed to be there to protect.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#97

Post by eapressoandcats »

EarlKing wrote: post #59
medler wrote: post #50

Earlier 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?

I’d argue that while that’s not illegal, that definitely crosses a line and am happy to articulate that line in the way that Popehat requests (something like “don’t take a statement of someone you don’t know made to a small group of friends a long time ago and harass their employer about it to get them fired”). Obviously that behavior is legal but I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s morally bad and speech chilling.

Elon is a public figure who is choosing to be a public figure and the statements he made were recent, so I think that’s fair game.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#98

Post by Obscurity4340 »

vacuity wrote: post #94
Obscurity4340 wrote: post #41

I wonder to what extent we can establish a common dialogue of "just don't be a hateful asshole" where you just don't have any interest about random personal crap you have zero entitlement to be involved in or are not entitled to retain any say in. The same way if I don't pay your electricity bill, I can't tell you what to use your electricity on. If I'm not having sex with you and I don't want to have sex with you, s…

If so many people actually adopted this view or could be convinced to a comment like this, we probably wouldn't be experiencing this. You're not wrong in the least, but I'm just saying, we can't have that dialogue right now. Can't worry too much about designing better rock climbing gear when you're living in the moment of dangling from the cliff face.

UBI + qualified parental rights (u don't "own" your kids if you hurt them) + kids have a say in spending/auditing of child support + emotional iq teaching in school from the start + media literacy classes == problem solved

Edit: converting people to tolerance should take second place to removig their power and abillity to capriciously have any influence in any matter of currency or effect on others but themselves. This is the way. Everyone needs to control and be controlled by nobody other than themself. Lets call it—I don't know—"personal responsibility"...That's catchy enough amongst this crowd of the usual offenders

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#99

Post by mindslight »

b112 wrote: post #76
mindslight wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

people will wise up to the idea that sufficiently coercive corporations are indistinguishable from government and vice-versa I will 100% agree that large-corp is a threat to democracy, and specific freedoms. But indistinguishable? Come on. A government can prevent you from speaking your mind, via legislation and the judicial branch. In terms of raw power, they have the capability to throw you in jail, they can detain…

Ah, here we go with emphasizing the dichotomy. As I said, the important part for comparison is the amount of control being exerted.

Jail is certainly a pretty strong deterrent. But it's actually not as strong as say not being able to eat. Which is contingent upon there being enough competition [0] between providers of food such they can't exercise coercive power. And the surveillance industry has been steadily destroying that open market dynamic we take for granted, for example "the unbanked".

And thinking about coercion in hard discrete terms is fallacious as well. If the government illegalizes some thing, whereas cooperating corporations just make doing that thing such an uphill battle that most people don't do it, the net effect is quite similar. Resist the temptation to think "sure but you can still opt out", because while that can work for a handful of things that really matter to you, this won't actually change much. And conversely, you can actually still do anything the government has declared illegal if you're willing to possibly pay the price.

[0] or more accurately - not too much collusion. these are different measures

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#100

Post by throwayaw84329 »

I agree that "suing journalists" is scary, as the author says. But "media watch" is not "journalists", it's an NGO.

The other side of the story is that this is intimidation and fraud, thus, it's not protected by free speech:

1. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1725771191644758037

2. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1726653530218619018

3. https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1726671127840493811

Post reply on HN