Live data from Hacker News

Against Xkcd 1357

defmacro.substack.com

51–53 of 53 posts

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#51

This literally has nothing to do with "free speech." It is about using other people's private property to express your speech. Consider these in degrees: * Allowing anyone to write any message they please on someone else's face. * Allowing anyone at any time to drive through public streets with a megaphone announcing any message they would like. * Allowing anyone to burn a cross on someone else's private yard. * Allo…

If you read down, you'll see that he views Freedom of Speech as a cultural norm, not merely a law that restricts congress. ...and that unpopular speech, should be broadly tolerated even on private platforms, as a matter of culture - not law.

Using "cultural norms" seems .. odd, those are waaaay more restrictive than pure legalistic viewpoints.

I mean, when we're talking about competing cultural norms, now you're including "fire in a theater", "think of the children", "I know it when I see it", "fighting words", taboos, morals, indecency, fighting words, Popper's intolerance of intolerance, "slippery slopes", and all kinds of restrictions on speech that aren't seated in anything but "cultural norms."

Better to stick with the legal arguments.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#52
Most comments against the article and in defense of the comics boil down to the argument, that if you own the channel/media/room you can control what is said in/on it. Fair enough! That's private property, another sacred right in the US constitution.

Where does it lead? If one has "dissident" ideas, he can only express it on channels that allow it. In the end, one can always express it in its own home, without public, or in front of a complacent public. That's technically free-speech, but severely constrained.

Look at the situation. First there is no dialog. Second, it is no different to a dictatorship - bear with me a minute -. In a dictatorship, you can always express your own ideas in your own home in front of a complacent public. At that micro-level, the situations are stunningly similar.

Of course the outcome is different if you try to broadcast dissident or uncommon ideas in a dictatorship, or let's say in the US. In the first case, you risk for your life, in the second, you risk being cancelled. The US government, in most cases, will not limit your speech but powerful groups will do.

At the macro level, the situation is different too. In the US, powerful (understand rich) people control the medias and what is broadcast on them: e.g. Facebook (allows violence but no woman breast), the NY Times (can't find the ref: a conservative journalist who joined then left). Ultimately this leads to the formation of blocks. Of course Facebook in itself is made of several blocks of influence, or blocks of common ideas. I believe all major blocks are created around lobbyists with big money, or influence groups already trained to mute dissidents and shout louder than opposing groups. One or the other, any group of importance defends its territory by showing the door to dissidents. This is free-speech according to XKCD.

In a dictatorship there is only one group. In the US there are several of them. Still no dialog, no nuance, no complexity. Complexity is the devil for a group of influence, because complexity will dissolve the group. There a physical parallel here with ferromagnetism. That's the reason why complex problems cannot find a solution in the US (and maybe in the world). Complexity will usually not tried being understood, and will soon be interpreted as borderline or altogether dissident, or will be dismissed as pedantry.

There is free-speech, but most of it is shouting and territorial behavior.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#53
This comic does not lambast free speech.

It simply shows it's disdain for the selfish idiots who use it as an excuse to showcase their personal ideas and refuse to allow you your own human rights.

Post reply on HN