5 ms·

You reap what you sow: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ "Twitter and Facebook aren't violating your free speech rights. They just think you are an

by ythl 10y ago

You reap what you sow: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ "Twitter and Facebook aren't violating your free speech rights. They just think you are an ahole and are showing you the door."

mooseburger 10y ago
No-platforming is an excellent way to produce an echo chamber though. Is that what we want our online spaces to be?
- st3v3r 10y ago
  Considering most of this is talking about rape/death threats, I don't think we'll have a problem with echo chambers quite yet.
alva 10y ago
Except that isn't the case here. The EU has declared, arbitrarily defined "hate speech" illegal. This isn't just the big name volunteering their services.
- unlinker 10y ago
  The definition: https://i.imgur.com/ebUSkDE.jpg https://i.imgur.com/ebUSkDE.jpg
  - alva 10y ago
    Again, arbitrary > public incitement to violence or hatred ...
striking 10y ago
I see your image macro and raise you another. http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/ http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/ "With the right of free speech comes the responsibility to extend that right to others. Because if we leave who is heard to simply 'who can speak the loudest'... we won't find out when we're wrong."
- st3v3r 10y ago
  No, it doesn't. No one is required to listen to your drivel, or give you a forum to post it.
  - striking 10y ago
    You're right that no one is required to listen or allow posting anywhere. But you should, or you'll miss out. I feel like this is covered in the link I posted!
    - MollyR 10y ago
      its a good link. thanks for it. I always felt like something was wrong with the original xkcd one.
Zikes 10y ago
Having watched both of the available trailers for the new Ghostbusters movie, I think I will very much dislike it and have no intentions of watching it. By the measure of many prominent online media publications and verified Twitter users, this alone makes me a misogynist, hate mongering, intolerant man-child [1]. https://heatst.com/entertainment/angry-video-game-nerd-james-rolfe-will-be-right-about-ghostbusters-being-terrible/ https://heatst.com/entertainment/angry-video-game-nerd-james... But Twitter et al. support that sort of hate speech, while my opinion would be happily suppressed because of all of the hate people would stamp onto it.
- ythl 10y ago
  That's because if you dislike the trailer, it's obviously because you dislike women (or at least movies empowering women), which makes you misogynistic.
  - cuckcuckspruce 10y ago
    Not liking something that has women in it is not the same as not liking something because it has women in it, but thank you for trying to tell me what I'm thinking. For example: Not liking a gathering of wives of KKK members is not the same as not liking all women.
    - ythl 10y ago
      I was being sarcastic. I didn't think I needed the "/s" but apparently I was wrong.
      - arprocter 10y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
- MBCook 10y ago
  Saying you don't like a movie isn't hate speech. The first trailer was terrible. I think almost objectively terrible. It's clearly a ghostbusters movie, but it didn't seem to give me any reason to want to see the movie. It made it look like a cash-in-remake. The later trailers have looked much better and give me some hope. We'll see what reviews say. The original movie is a pretty great film, and I enjoyed it. I loved the cartoon as a kid, so I'm interested in seeing what happens with the franchise. If you're not interested in the movie because you don't want a remake, or you thought the trailer didn't look good, that' fine. If you're expressing that you hate the movie only because they changed the cast for this iteration... then you start to fit into the 'angry-man-boy' category. Same if you fit in the previous category but use lots of sexist terms and slurs to describe the new movie. And then there is group three, the worst of the groups. These are the people sending hate messages, death threats, rape threats, etc. You can call for a boycott for whatever reason you want, people will probably think you're childish. But if you're sending death threats because someone changed a fictional character in a movie you haven't even seen yet? Yeah, you've earned that label. As for AVGN, I haven't watched the video. Given everything that's happend around the movie it certainly immediately raises my "angry-man-boy" suspicions, but again I haven't watched it. At this point the nutcases are getting so loud over this (and every other topic) that it gets really easy for people with more reasonable viewpoints (especially if not presented well) to end up lumped in. Solution? Ban the nutcases. No one needs to be able to send death threats via Twitter. No one needs to be able to receive them. Death threats aren't free speech, they're already exempted (assuming they are in any way reasonable). There is plenty of room for subtlety in discussions of this kind of stuff. Can white people use the n-word? What if group X suddenly decides that phrase Y is evil? I don't care. We can decide that later. For now, let's just ban the death threats, physical abuse threats, etc. and see where that gets us. I bet it improves things a ton. I'd say I want to see someone make a good case for allowing death threats but this is the internet and I really don't, because someone will try and I'll think that much less of humanity.
venomsnake 10y ago
Those kind of corporations are utilities. Your electricity provider cannot stop your supply for using said electricity to post racist shit on the internet, so should not be able Facebook and Twitter.
MBCook 10y ago
Thank you. It's nice to see a post here that isn't trying to conflate "things people don't want to hear" with "death and rape threats" and assume they have to be dealt with the same way.

by ythl 10y ago

You reap what you sow: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ "Twitter and Facebook aren't violating your free speech rights. They just think you are an ahole and are showing you the door."

mooseburger 10y ago

No-platforming is an excellent way to produce an echo chamber though. Is that what we want our online spaces to be?

st3v3r 10y ago
Considering most of this is talking about rape/death threats, I don't think we'll have a problem with echo chambers quite yet.

alva 10y ago

Except that isn't the case here. The EU has declared, arbitrarily defined "hate speech" illegal. This isn't just the big name volunteering their services.

unlinker 10y ago
The definition: https://i.imgur.com/ebUSkDE.jpg https://i.imgur.com/ebUSkDE.jpg
- alva 10y ago
  Again, arbitrary > public incitement to violence or hatred ...

striking 10y ago

I see your image macro and raise you another. http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/ http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/ "With the right of free speech comes the responsibility to extend that right to others. Because if we leave who is heard to simply 'who can speak the loudest'... we won't find out when we're wrong."

st3v3r 10y ago
No, it doesn't. No one is required to listen to your drivel, or give you a forum to post it.
- striking 10y ago
  You're right that no one is required to listen or allow posting anywhere. But you should, or you'll miss out. I feel like this is covered in the link I posted!
  - MollyR 10y ago
    its a good link. thanks for it. I always felt like something was wrong with the original xkcd one.

Zikes 10y ago

Having watched both of the available trailers for the new Ghostbusters movie, I think I will very much dislike it and have no intentions of watching it. By the measure of many prominent online media publications and verified Twitter users, this alone makes me a misogynist, hate mongering, intolerant man-child [1]. https://heatst.com/entertainment/angry-video-game-nerd-james-rolfe-will-be-right-about-ghostbusters-being-terrible/ https://heatst.com/entertainment/angry-video-game-nerd-james... But Twitter et al. support that sort of hate speech, while my opinion would be happily suppressed because of all of the hate people would stamp onto it.

ythl 10y ago
That's because if you dislike the trailer, it's obviously because you dislike women (or at least movies empowering women), which makes you misogynistic.
- cuckcuckspruce 10y ago
  Not liking something that has women in it is not the same as not liking something because it has women in it, but thank you for trying to tell me what I'm thinking. For example: Not liking a gathering of wives of KKK members is not the same as not liking all women.
  - ythl 10y ago
    I was being sarcastic. I didn't think I needed the "/s" but apparently I was wrong.
    - arprocter 10y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
MBCook 10y ago
Saying you don't like a movie isn't hate speech. The first trailer was terrible. I think almost objectively terrible. It's clearly a ghostbusters movie, but it didn't seem to give me any reason to want to see the movie. It made it look like a cash-in-remake. The later trailers have looked much better and give me some hope. We'll see what reviews say. The original movie is a pretty great film, and I enjoyed it. I loved the cartoon as a kid, so I'm interested in seeing what happens with the franchise. If you're not interested in the movie because you don't want a remake, or you thought the trailer didn't look good, that' fine. If you're expressing that you hate the movie only because they changed the cast for this iteration... then you start to fit into the 'angry-man-boy' category. Same if you fit in the previous category but use lots of sexist terms and slurs to describe the new movie. And then there is group three, the worst of the groups. These are the people sending hate messages, death threats, rape threats, etc. You can call for a boycott for whatever reason you want, people will probably think you're childish. But if you're sending death threats because someone changed a fictional character in a movie you haven't even seen yet? Yeah, you've earned that label. As for AVGN, I haven't watched the video. Given everything that's happend around the movie it certainly immediately raises my "angry-man-boy" suspicions, but again I haven't watched it. At this point the nutcases are getting so loud over this (and every other topic) that it gets really easy for people with more reasonable viewpoints (especially if not presented well) to end up lumped in. Solution? Ban the nutcases. No one needs to be able to send death threats via Twitter. No one needs to be able to receive them. Death threats aren't free speech, they're already exempted (assuming they are in any way reasonable). There is plenty of room for subtlety in discussions of this kind of stuff. Can white people use the n-word? What if group X suddenly decides that phrase Y is evil? I don't care. We can decide that later. For now, let's just ban the death threats, physical abuse threats, etc. and see where that gets us. I bet it improves things a ton. I'd say I want to see someone make a good case for allowing death threats but this is the internet and I really don't, because someone will try and I'll think that much less of humanity.

venomsnake 10y ago

Those kind of corporations are utilities. Your electricity provider cannot stop your supply for using said electricity to post racist shit on the internet, so should not be able Facebook and Twitter.

MBCook 10y ago

Thank you. It's nice to see a post here that isn't trying to conflate "things people don't want to hear" with "death and rape threats" and assume they have to be dealt with the same way.