Against Xkcd 1357

I'm having trouble understanding the point of the article. I can't connect how the XKCD comic has acted for or against the points the author is trying to make.

This comic is reactionary to an existing situation, it hasn't created the situation. Same as the comic that adamnemecek calls out.

quoting the last line of the article: > It is my friend Daniel's observation that tolerance is the experience of suffering through unpleasant ideas. We endure that suffering because the world is dramatically better on balance when we do.

There are limits to this. Unpleasant ideas continually raised by very few people adds nothing. If an idea or point needs to be continually brought up by a small group of individuals then it probably doesn't have much value. Hell, even QAnon has 'caught on', so the bar is low enough that I'd argue there's not much of a problem with the stuff that's getting filtered out. 'Proud Boys' exist, QED.

If you don't like that you're censored on someone else's platform, then build your own. If you're getting jeered while proselytising on your soapbox in public place X, keep moving until you find a more receptive audience.

Having said that, even non-public platform (FB, twitter, etc.) censorship is a situation that requires on-going re-evaluation.

Unless I'm missing the point of the article.

There are so many things wrong with that article, but let's start with this one:

> Yet in many other countries— perhaps still in most of them— mob justice, unethical businesses behavior without complaint, and complete disregard for any rights of criminals is a normal daily occurrence. Their citizens know that far away silly Americans bother with fair trials and non-ironically litigating the temperature of coffee, but it would never occur to them that it may be a reasonable thing to try in their own society.

I hate to break it to you, but the rest of the world does not view the US as some bastion of liberty. Most of the rest of the world has much the same set of rights and protections that US citizens enjoy.

What's truly amazing is that the author fundamentally misses the point of the article, that while you can say whatever you like, you are not shielded from the consequences of saying that.

If you are the public representative of company x, and you post something awful on twitter, then people are allowed use their free speech to say they no longer wish to do business with company x while you are the representative.

I think this is a poorly written article devoid of substantiative argument. The author's substack earned a unsubscribe based on it.

It has become fashionable to argue the "I might disagree with you but I will defend to death your right to express it" to which is appended "in the NY Times, on Facebook, on Twitter, on Youtube and every private channel that exists."

First, the disagreeable opinion part is wrong since every open+democratic society has a section of speech that is curtailed - sedition, libel, incitement to riot, etc. These extents of censorship vary by country. The USA is relatively liberal but the UK has stricter limits on libel. The author demonstrates a poor to no understanding of these limits.

Second he/she conflates the limits on government prohibition on free speech rights to the right on the property of others - i.e. the right to free speech is the the right to publish on privately owned media channels. The Sulzberger family which owns significant equity in the NY Times (>$1B) and controls it has the right to decide what gets published in the NY Times, which you might agree/disagree with. Similarly for Twitter which is privately owned.

However I don't think it should be flagged ;)

His "What if?" book reached the top of the NYT best seller list, so I'd say he has quite a large audience.

The comic was probably chosen as the representative of the enemy idea because xkcd had a reputation among some people of being condescending or contrived, which pre-frames the idea in an already negative context for those people and makes it easier to demonize.