241–250 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutism is also dangerous. You're dividing the world into 'good' and 'bad' and giving no quarter to the bad. That can go sideways. You think any of the monsters of history thought they were the bad guys?
Thus, Popper's Paradox of Tolerance.[0] [0] https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/6492090-the-open-socie...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> though it may have some unintended consequences that have not been fully understood yet. I think no one disagrees that it "works" insofar as it stops the bad person from getting their bad ideas out there. Opponents of deplatforming generally argue that the long-term reaction to the deplatforming is worse than the problem the bad person's ideas were causing. Better to counter the bad ideas with good ideas to do long…
Even apart from the Streisand effect, conspiring to suppress crappy ideas gives them undeserved credibility. " They didn't want you to hear this."
Nobody is listening to his ideas enough to give them underserved credibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Free speech does not mean I'm entitled to someone else's platform. You're thinking of the first amendment, there is a nuanced difference between that and the general principle of free speech. I'll assume you happened to not be aware of this, but there are lots of people online who refuse to acknowledge that difference and continue to spout the "entitled to someone else's platform" persuasion meme, which is kind of…
(Edit: I agree with everything else you're saying.) Is the difference between the First Amendment and the moral principle of free speech really that nuanced? It seems to me one has to be thinking strictly in terms of a single country, a single period of human history, a single document in order to conflate the First Amendment with the moral principle of freedom of speech. This is a very narrow view.
It depends if you're trying to win elections or internet arguments, or to ensure a healthy marketplace of diverse ideas exists, because that is the best way we know of to find the best solutions to problems. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube are where modern people "congregate" and get their "information". Cutting someone off of these platforms dramatically lowers the chances that anyone will hear them, that's the entire point of the action. Claims that dismiss this as no problem "because someone else's platform" are not just saying nothing illegal has happened, they are also essentially saying a free marketplace of ideas is not valuable. This is a very new development in western countries, and it's pretty easy to see how far gone most people are already, even on more intelligent forums like this. Partisan politics trump almost everything on certain topics, even one as important as this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because they have privileged positions in society, so hate speech has never been directed at them. Really? As a minority and member of other protected groups, I have had to endure what you characterize as "hate speech" many times and yet I remain in complete opposition to the goals of your movement. The restrictions on speech and thought championed by your movement are contrary to the ideals of classical liberalism…
That's terrific. I'm sincerely happy for you that you're fortunate enough to be in a comfortable enough place in society that hate speech isn't an obstacle in your life. However it seems as though your idea of a free society doesn't extend freedom to people for whom hate speech is a much greater obstacle.
Does extending them freedom from one problem by removing a greater freedom from both them and the rest of us sound like a good bargain? It doesn't to me nor does it seem so, thankfully, to a great many others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you're supporting an attacker's right to denigrate, abuse, or harass other people... Did that person's comment say that they support those things? Weird, I didn't read that... When it comes down to the fundamental rights of an individual you can't pick and choose when something is an unalienable right and when it is not. We can either have free speech (warts and all) or we can live in a world that dictates what…
But you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. And if stoking panic in the easily-panicked is something you ARE okay with forbidding, why is it then ok to stoke hatred in the easily-manipulable? I guess that wart makes this a world you want nothing to do with, because of slope's slipperiness...
Now, if you had clear intent to cause injury, blocked exits to ensure harm, and started the fire you'd be up on several charges related to fire safety codes & arson laws long before you had a prior restraint on speech claim (i.e. 1st amendment).
The original Supreme Court case (Schenck v. US [1]) from which the rhetorical flourish about fires and theaters came [2] has been pretty much abandoned in favor of later rulings like Brandenburg v. Ohio [3].
[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47
[2]: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
[3]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444
One more interesting read on this topic: https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/politics/first-amendment-expl...
Putting aside that it's a slippery and malleable label to apply to undesirable speech, there is an elitism hiding in these ban-hate-speech arguments. The core assumption is that while _I_ am able to see these vile ideas for the lies they are, the unsophisticated masses must not be allowed to hear them, lest they fall prey. This is problematic in ways that used to be obvious to people in free societies, but for some r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. One involves a neutral role, in which subscribed feeds are delivered to users without modification or filtering. The other involves an active role on the part of the platform for any number of reasons: increased engagement, removal of voices that may cause perceived damage or lack of trust in the platform itself, or other, more ideological reasons. I've noticed an intentional avoidance of distinction, lat…
The public wouldn't buy the 'neutral' aspect, as every mechanism that a platform provides, is in some way biasing the type of content that is broadcast. Twitter's RT feature, which requires no curation or modification of actual content by Twitter, still biases content to that, perhaps, which is most divisive or simplistic. Broadcast technology, even without algorithmic bells and whistles, is already a biased technolo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> though it may have some unintended consequences that have not been fully understood yet. I think no one disagrees that it "works" insofar as it stops the bad person from getting their bad ideas out there. Opponents of deplatforming generally argue that the long-term reaction to the deplatforming is worse than the problem the bad person's ideas were causing. Better to counter the bad ideas with good ideas to do long…
How do you define "bad" person? Ungood? Doubleplus ungood?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, nevermind then. Nothing to be done. Thinking about this is too hard! Let's just throw in the towel folks!
Or maybe social media companies get rid of any kind of algorithmic selection. Feeds are completely ordered by date. You can follow/unfollow people who you like or dislike. If you don't want to be offended by jackasses, don't go on the public feeds. That said, you've shot down a lot of people's arguments but I haven't seen you promote a sensible alternative. Given your personal belief framework and given the first ame…
Hate is an absolute. If you're not against it, you're supporting it. EDIT: So, I see I've angered the privileged, white, tech-bro, capitalists. Downvote away. Don't dare speak up about how hate is bad here. Got it.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18285698 . Speaking up is fine, but if you don't make it substantive enough you start a flamewar like this one.