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

Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 789 posts

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#601

Post by tapland »

fao_ wrote: post #589
kristofferR wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are only allowed to speak freely when noone can hear you - are you then allowed freedom of speech?

You need to rephrase this to: "If you are only able to speak freely when no one is forced to listen to you - are you then allowed freedom of speech?" This isn't some guy shouting in the street or some other public place (who, funnily enough, everyone usually agrees with their removal), but someone shouting on what is effectively private property.

I fail to recognize the 'forced to listen' part. I very rarely see political opinions at all on twitter or youtube, because I don't follow those topics. Also isn't filter bubbles a thing?

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#602

Post by kristofferR »

fao_ wrote: post #589
kristofferR wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are only allowed to speak freely when noone can hear you - are you then allowed freedom of speech?

You need to rephrase this to: "If you are only able to speak freely when no one is forced to listen to you - are you then allowed freedom of speech?" This isn't some guy shouting in the street or some other public place (who, funnily enough, everyone usually agrees with their removal), but someone shouting on what is effectively private property.

Shouting is a horrible analogy since shouting is forcing itself on others wether they want to listen or not. "Being available to be spoken/listened to" is more accurate.

You also need to remember that the places we're talking about are de facto public spaces due to their practical monopolies on speech. They are private spaces legally and the companies who own them can be as discriminatory as they want in regards to who they allow to speak from a legal standpoint, but they shouldn't abuse their power to do so.

If they do discriminate too much, they should be regulated to be neutral places for speech, considering their excessive clout. A future where a select group of companies control what people hear, discuss and think is scary.

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#603

Post by heyjudy »

coffeemug wrote: post #338
zamalek wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand, at what point do we accept that we have different viewpoints and live and let live? The government, soapboxes, homes and places of business that are happy to have them. Freedom of Speech is not the right to be heard. If people don't like what you have to say, or how you are saying it, they are free to walk away. If you don't like what someone is doing in your place of business, you can also throw…

> Freedom of Speech is not the right to be heard. People keep saying this and repeating it, but as far as I can tell this meme is destructive and wrong. Freedom of speech isn't just a legal assurance that congress shall make no law abridging it. It is also a set of cultural norms rooted deeply in a long lineage of hard won ideas. It is Evelyn Hall's principle "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the de…

Platform businesses aren't public commons, they're businesses, which means they're free to pick-and-choose winners and losers arbitrarily, if they so desire.

OTOH if controversial content creators want the freedom to publish, fundraise and engage audiences, it behooves them to prefer audience-funded, almost-anything-goes platforms that will cater to all forms of legally-protected speech. Otherwise, they're asking for trouble in the form of arbitrary silencing.

Cultural fascism, whereby people are censored because their legal speech is unpopular, is a path towards totalitarianism and civil war.

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#604

Post by FakeComments »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #597
FakeComments wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of those are cases where people tried to suppress movements and legitimate problems via authority. So to me, your comment comes across as “But what about those cases where what GP said is true?”

I don't think almost anyone has faced consequences for being anti-vaccine. That's been extremely free-speech, and it hasn't helped people come to the right conclusions at all.

That’s just not true — consequences for not having their children vaccinated are legislated lots of places; the arguments against anti-vaxers are often appeals to the same authorities that happily over-prescribed opiates and based around shaming them; etc.

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#605

Post by b_tterc_p »

coffeemug wrote: post #425
bunderbunder wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting how this gets framed differently nowadays. 20 years ago, before social media, there was no assumption that everyone has a fundamental right to be able to broadcast their ideas using others' platforms. Since publication was more resource-intensive, the default for most media was to not publish things, and deciding that someone's ideas didn't merit publication wasn't seen as a violation of any great mo…

I just made an argument about that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18765494 , and here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18765509 . > The difference is that the internet has discontinuously more scalable network effects, so technology companies often find themselves in a winner-takes-all dynamic. If some publisher, newspaper, or literary magazine refused to publish Walt Whitman, he could always try and…

I don’t use twitter but this seems purposefully naive. Human attention does not scale like technology. You’re not going to reach the entire user base of twitter with your annoying quirky content. You probably won’t even reach 1/10000th of it.

Also, we probably would kick people out of public commons for yelling vile opinions on the grounds of disturbing the peace. if you simply must shout such things, you can apply to do a formal protest- a thing anyone on the web can effectively accomplish by making their own web page.

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#606

Post by Fins »

krapp wrote: post #556
Fins wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the Paradox of Tolerance is that while in theory it is quite correct and rather profound, in practice it's often an explanation trotted out by those in power to silence those they do not like.

Can you give examples of this in practice where those being "silenced" weren't expressing intolerant views?

That's the thing -- if one gets top both define what "intolerant" means AND banish those deemed intolerant, that's a moral hazard right there. Even if those doing the judging sincerely believe that their opponents truly are intolerant.

And as an example, "Paradox of Tolerance" was widely used to justify firing Damore (e.g. Zunger's criticism of the memo just about boiled down to "he's intolerant and bad, because he's bad and intolerant, and us, the tolerant and good people should punch him in the kisser". Even though whatever problems there are with the memo, one has to go on a hunt for something, anything to be offended, to find intolerance as a visible problem with it. But if you scream about the paradox loud enough, it (almost) makes you look like you're in the right...

NB: not expressing any opinions on memo's correctness.

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#607

Post by PavlovsCat »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #235
darkpuma wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak to what's really in the guy's head, but he seemed to be arguing with and insulting nazis.

By saying that they, and I quote Mr. Benjamin here: > "White people are meant to be polite and respectful to one another, and you guys can’t even act like white people, it’s really amazing to me." That sure sounds like someone who espouses a racial ideology to me, even if he hates other people who put on the nazi emblem.

> That sure sounds like someone who espouses a racial ideology to me

"Sounds like", "to me". You do advocate and practice the evil you cannot even show others are guilty of. To you they "sound like" people who "might" want this or other things, so let's remove them.

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#608

Post by chillacy »

toufiqbarhamov wrote: post #551
bunderbunder wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting how this gets framed differently nowadays. 20 years ago, before social media, there was no assumption that everyone has a fundamental right to be able to broadcast their ideas using others' platforms. Since publication was more resource-intensive, the default for most media was to not publish things, and deciding that someone's ideas didn't merit publication wasn't seen as a violation of any great mo…

It’s interesting, and weird when you consider that the people who seem to be railing against this supposed censorship share significant overlap in the Venn diagram of people who complain about a growing sense of entitlement among others. Ironically at some point these same people decided that they deserve to be published wherever they want, and anything else is censorship. Presumably these are people who felt even ha…

Depressingly so much of politics is about coalitions and power instead of principles. What does abortion have to do with fiscal policy and ethnicity? And how come most people line up so perfectly in their beliefs with their peers?

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#609

Post by PavlovsCat »

zimpenfish wrote: post #119
harimau777 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I see it, a functional democracy requires tolerance of unpopular opinions not just by the government but also by society at large. I don't agree with these sorts of statements, but I believe that censoring them is harmful to society.

> a functional democracy requires tolerance of unpopular opinions not just by the government but also by society at large If you insert "some" before "unpopular", I'm with you. If you require "all" before "unpopular", then no, I disagree - e.g. people who believe "LGBTQ people should be done away" with, well, that's an "unpopular opinion" that should not be tolerated and, in fact, should be made anathema for anyone t…

That's because it has other properties besides being unpopular.

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#610

Post by PavlovsCat »

zimpenfish wrote: post #126
darkpuma wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "MasterCard demanded that Patreon kick off another person for political reasons." If true that's disturbing. At a certain point you have to wonder if we're getting close to the spirit of Marsh v. Alabama (e.g the constitutionality of restricting speech in towns that are privately owned by corporations.)

> If true that's disturbing. "Jihad Watch" seems a fairly obvious hate site.

What's a "hate site"? Anything the law would care about? If no, nuff said, if yes, why would anything but the law have to play gatekeeper?
Post reply on HN