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

161–170 of 189 posts

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#161

Post by whatshisface »

TheCleric wrote: post #160
whatshisface wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about these cases?: - A company cuts you off from their service, but you can't get it elsewhere because it is patented. - Google closes your @gmail.com address, which you can't obtain elsewhere because they own gmail.com - You build up a following on YouTube, but you end up with three strikes. There are no other long-form video websites with a fraction of the traffic. In all of these cases, you have a limited ab…

This is as foolish as saying "It's not fair that John kicked me out of his sub shop just because he doesn't like me. He's the only one serving my favorite sandwich!" You have alternatives as long as you haven't talked yourself into "I have a RIGHT to use someone's particular business.", because you don't.

How about this?:

- You're on the south pole, and the single supply depot becomes off-limits to you after a personal dispute with the attendant.

Also, I am curious about what you'd suggest as an alternative to YouTube for the content creators that thrive there presently. TikTok doesn't do long form videos.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#162

Post by somenameforme »

wredcoll wrote: post #157
somenameforme wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not a particularly fair recounting of WW1. The entire world was at fault for that war. A Bosnian Serb, probably with state backing, assassinates the heir of Austria Hungary. Serbia then refuses Austria Hungary's terms for settlement of the affair, so Austria Hungary decides to invade Serbia. This then drives Serbia's ally Russia to intervene. But Germany had a military alliance with Austria Hungary which then…

> Serbia then refuses Austria Hungary's terms for settlement of the affair, so Austria Hungary decides to invade Serbia And you talk about fair recounting? First off, every single war decision is made by humans. People seem to gloss over this when talking about history and countries, but even if you have a treaty with another country, you're still making a choice to declare war. You can argue that its always the mora…

And you're glossing over the initial catalyzing event here. Austria Hungary just had their leader in waiting assassinated, with state backing from Serbia. Many wars, if not most, are started under false pretext, or with false evidence. Another state participating in the assassination of your heads of state is one of the most just, reasonable, and textbook causes for war imaginable. Austria Hungary invading Serbia was just, even moreso after giving a Serbia a diplomatic way out, even if the terms were indeed harsh. Russia moving to defend Serbia was just. Germany moving to defend Austria Hungary was just. Everything following the assassination was just and reasonable from near to everybody involved.

As for inflation, "shortly" after isn't doing any work there. Hyperinflation began in the Weimar Republic in 1921 [1]. The Nazi party had only been formally formed in 1920 and had exactly 0 power. The hyperinflation is one of the means they managed to recruit as many people as they did. It created a large base of premium recruits: young, drunk, unemployed, and angry. But to claim they created said economic circumstance is, let's say, you perhaps mixing up this moment in history with something else.

Had Austria Hungary won, then a parallel dimension you could well be here arguing that the consequences e.g. Russia (or France or whomever else) faced were perfectly just and reasonable. You might say that it's one's choice to come to the defense of an ally, and choosing to defend an ally under assault for assassinating another nation's leader speaks bounds of your own integrity, or lack thereof. When looking at history (and the present and future) I endeavor to try to take a position that I think I would hold, regardless of who won and who lost.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_R...

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#163

Post by TheCleric »

whatshisface wrote: post #161
TheCleric wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is as foolish as saying "It's not fair that John kicked me out of his sub shop just because he doesn't like me. He's the only one serving my favorite sandwich!" You have alternatives as long as you haven't talked yourself into "I have a RIGHT to use someone's particular business.", because you don't.

How about this?: - You're on the south pole, and the single supply depot becomes off-limits to you after a personal dispute with the attendant. Also, I am curious about what you'd suggest as an alternative to YouTube for the content creators that thrive there presently. TikTok doesn't do long form videos.

I would suggest finding another job aside from "content creator". If the only way you can have a certain career is by the whims of a single company, then you have two choices: become comfortable with the fact that you may not have that career for long and/or do everything you can to keep that company happy.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#164

Post by vaidhy »

somenameforme wrote: post #53
vaidhy wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same holds true for the other side, right? Everyone's speech has consequences and only some can afford to silence others through the power of money, law, personality or just being an asshole.

I'm not sure there is an other side on this? There are a limited handful of legal exceptions to free speech including for unlawful or criminal acts such as defamation, libel, and fraud. I think relatively few people would oppose strengthening these. Where people diverge is when people want to censor, hurt and ideally destroy people who make unpopular but otherwise completely kosher comments. For instance Martin Kulld…

I do not know if you will see this reply.. but you are 100% correct. There is a price to pay to social cohesion and I am not sure if I can draw the line correctly. Let us get a few strawman arguments out - freedom of speech is not a fundamental value for centuries. Like all other things, it is an evolving principle and what was true a few decades ago might no longer be kosher.

People who are part of LGBTQ community had to self censor themselves for multiple centuries. Victims of sexual harassment had to self censor themselves. Being a free mason means you cannot talk about it public.

As a society, we make rules and norms all the time about what is acceptable and what is not. Unfortunately, we are in midst of a massive cultural change and you can see its effects across all of the society. Eventually, one group will die out and we will have peace of mind again :)

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#165

Post by mindslight »

b112 wrote: post #116
mindslight wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 destr…

I just think it's vital to not even mention the two in the same sentence. You seem to agree with me, in one respect, for you cite how you wish to focus on control. I'm all for that. But each of these two controlling aspects of our lives, are different entities, with different ways to address, rebuke, curtail, and prevent that control. And the control they each exert is unique. This is why I replied, for even though y…

I said 'sufficiently coercive', because the equivalence is in the limit. Even just one corporation that you can opt out of is a step up from government in many regards. But it can also be a step down in other regards if there are fewer ways to influence that corporation, and the consequences of opting out are significant.

There are of course differences in the ways you can "address, rebuke, curtail, and prevent that control" based on the specific details of the entity - just as there are stark differences between democracies versus dictatorships, and publicly traded corporations versus privately held. And when we're talking about pushing back, those details should certainly be mentioned.

But my point of emphasizing the similarities between the two large categories is to preempt this all too common pattern of people justifying corporate oppression by framing it in terms of voluntary association, while turning a blind eye to the actual coercive dynamic. I'm sure we do agree on a lot of things, but honestly your first comment is ripe with laying the groundwork for such type of justification. Corporations can certainly prevent you from speaking your mind - for example a geographic-monopoly Internet provider that censors based on content. The next step in the argument is of course "you can still speak your mind, just not using their infrastructure", but given that the sheer majority of speech is online today, that reasoning is specious - it's deliberately ignoring the power the company is actually wielding.

Or coming at it from the other direction - if it's definitionally impossible for corporations to exercise coercive power, then why is accumulating such power one of the tenets of business ("build a moat"), and why are so many people so damn interested in having certain corporations perform censorship?

An uncomfortable truth is that the main thing preventing corporations from having their own full-blown armies is the bona fide government. This circular dynamic is why I've come around to viewing freedom as a kind of logical reduction yin-yang rather as a unidirectional gradient - if the bona fide government disappeared tomorrow, the net effect would actually be the loss of much freedom, as those other aggressors would no longer be kept in check. Big-L Libertarianism sidesteps this by just asserting that having a singular military is one of the few necessary functions of government, but it's not clear why such an exception should only apply to one single topic when that same circular dynamic applies at other levels of abstraction.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#166

Post by wredcoll »

somenameforme wrote: post #162
wredcoll wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Serbia then refuses Austria Hungary's terms for settlement of the affair, so Austria Hungary decides to invade Serbia And you talk about fair recounting? First off, every single war decision is made by humans. People seem to gloss over this when talking about history and countries, but even if you have a treaty with another country, you're still making a choice to declare war. You can argue that its always the mora…

And you're glossing over the initial catalyzing event here. Austria Hungary just had their leader in waiting assassinated, with state backing from Serbia. Many wars, if not most, are started under false pretext, or with false evidence. Another state participating in the assassination of your heads of state is one of the most just, reasonable, and textbook causes for war imaginable. Austria Hungary invading Serbia was…

> And you're glossing over the initial catalyzing event here. Austria Hungary just had their leader in waiting assassinated, with state backing from Serbia. Many wars, if not most, are started under false pretext, or with false evidence. Another state participating in the assassination of your heads of state is one of the most just, reasonable, and textbook causes for war imaginable.

I guess we'll just have to agree to differ on that one. Murder is a crime and the perpetrators should be punished... which they were. Many members of the groups involved in the assassination were tried and several were sentenced to death. Invading another country afterwards and calling it "just and reasonable" is more than a bit ridiculous.

Also, just for the record, franz ferdinand wasn't anyone's leader, he was the son of the current emperor of austo-hungary, and to be honest, most of the political elite who led the effort to start a war didn't particularly like or care for him anyways. Somewhat ironically, a large part of this dislike is because ferdinand was generally arguing in favor of peace.

As for "regardless of who won and who lost", my consistent point is condemning the invaders, regardless of whether they won or lost. Again, for example, france invaded germany a few decades earlier, lost, and had to pay reparations, and basically no one has ever brought it up again as some kind of excuse for starting a world war.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#167

Post by whatshisface »

TheCleric wrote: post #163
whatshisface wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about this?: - You're on the south pole, and the single supply depot becomes off-limits to you after a personal dispute with the attendant. Also, I am curious about what you'd suggest as an alternative to YouTube for the content creators that thrive there presently. TikTok doesn't do long form videos.

I would suggest finding another job aside from "content creator". If the only way you can have a certain career is by the whims of a single company, then you have two choices: become comfortable with the fact that you may not have that career for long and/or do everything you can to keep that company happy.

There are many countries in the world, and most of them allow citizens to leave. Why not emigrate if your government is oppressing you? The truth is that the costs of leaving are what attach people to governments and make their interactions not entirely voluntary. The same principle applies to companies.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#168

Post by vacuity »

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…

I think cancel culture tends to be somewhat more grounded in sane principles of equality, but the mechanism does make it comparable to far-right mobs. Targets can't really defend themselves and things may escalate into real life. I don't think it's a great loss to discourage cancel culture along with far-right equivalents. A more measured style of discussion is adequate to call out people for being unreasonable or hateful.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#169

Post by felixgallo »

somenameforme wrote: post #155
felixgallo wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Fascist Germany and Hitler weren't at fault -- the Jews made him do it. Amazing.

My friend, straw men are rarely the sign of a literate mind, but you took it to a bold new level here. WW1 was in 1914. The Nazi party did not exist, and Hitler was a 24 year old low ranking dispatch runner of no note, volunteering in the Bavarian army.

speaking of bold new levels of misdirection and Nazi apologia, I was, and clearly, referring to your nonsensical implications about Nazis really not being to blame in your third para.

Re: My Free Speech Means You Have to Shut Up

#170

Post by pyvpx »

zmgsabst wrote: post #49
pyvpx wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

bad_understanding_of_racism

Many racists proclaim people “misunderstand racism” when their different standards for different races are denounced for being racist. After 160 years of the same political party fighting to rebuild racism, generation after generation, people are done hearing the moralizing excuses for why this time Democrats have the magic formula for virtuous bigotry.

you can’t be racist against white people. the definition of racism centers on power not the tone of dermis. read some different books and open up that independent thinking some.
Post reply on HN