5 ms·

This pretty much sums it up: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

by nirav72 10y ago

astrange 10y ago
This argument doesn't work when private companies have more power in your life than the state. I'm sure you can think of a better one if you try!
- astrodust 10y ago
  If you think that's true you've got some serious problems. Facebook doesn't have a militarized police force.
  - emp_zealoth 10y ago
    Yet it played a big role in swinging several important democratic events so far: Brexit and Trump
    - astrodust 10y ago
      Newspapers like The Daily Mail also played a part. They don't have a police force either, and nobody's forced to read them. You are, however, forced to live under whatever government gets elected.
  - astrange 10y ago
    It doesn't matter what I think is true. It matters what the people being banned think is true. If you delete their account they won't learn anything or cease to exist, they'll just be angry at you somewhere else and come back later. BTW: https://twitter.com/kthorjensen/status/798959676855455744 https://twitter.com/kthorjensen/status/798959676855455744
    - astrodust 10y ago
      Banning people isn't for the benefit of those getting banned. It's for the other people that are tired of their bullshit. It's about controlling the tone and civility of discussions. Communities die when they're overrun by jerks.
      - nailer 10y ago
        You can choose the discussions you participate in, or should be able to (and yes Twitter should make this easier). And you should be able to express yourself even if people think you're a jerk. Alternatively, others should be able to choose the discussions they wish to participate in, which may involve people you think are jerks.
        astrodust 10y ago
        Twitter makes it easy for anyone to say anything about anyone, and it also pushes those comments to that person. This is both the amazing thing and the Achille's heel of that system. You can block someone, but that's too late, it's retroactive. If their goal was to insult you, mission accomplished, no obstacles. In the case of Milo he'd encourage people to go and harass others which meant you'd spend hours and hours blocking people, they'd basically DDOS your Twitter account. Is this acceptable behaviour? Is this something to be encouraged by not punishing it? I don't think you realize what a lightning rod some people become through no fault of their own. That you've never been struck is simply a matter of luck or not being one of the common target groups. Remember: Not having a Twitter account doesn't mean you can't express yourself. You didn't get kicked off the internet. You're not barred from making sites or publishing your thoughts on innumerable other places.
        nailer 10y ago
        > Twitter ... also pushes those comments to that person. Yes. They should fix that (if these recent changes haven't yet done that). I've had one of the worst mornings of my life in the last year when I criticised a new browser API and the author of the API refused to stop mentioning me for an hour despite being asked repeatedly to stop. Having to turn off your phone because a high profile person is angry at you is awful. Having people threaten you or publish your contact details is much worse. Who draws the line between criticising someone and 'pushing others to harass'? Would you block people on the left who have criticised people on the right who were subsequently harassed? Milo had syringes sent to his house and his mobile number published, Totalbiscuit and his wife received a bunch of death threats. We shouldn't ban all the people who criticised them because they were subsequently harassed - I'm sure you wouldn't support that and I'd be right there with you. We should ban people who actually make credible threats, publish non-Twitter contact info on Twitter as a way of harassing others, and similar behaviour. > Not having a Twitter account doesn't mean you can't express yourself. Yes, just that you can't express yourself on one of the few places for discussion, and more to the point, that other people who want to hear you (and in Milo's case that was a lot of people) can't do so. > You're not barred from making sites or publishing your thoughts on innumerable other places. But due to Metcalfe's law none of those other places have any worth. As one of the grandparent comments says, we don't trust the free market to protect other values, we shouldn't trust it to protect freedom of expression.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
caylus 10y ago
And a more nuanced counterargument: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centrali... TLDR: > We don’t trust the free market to necessarily preserve racial equality – that’s what anti-discrimination laws are for. We don’t trust the free market to necessarily preserve worker safety – that’s what OSHA and related regulations are for. [...] Whenever we think something is important, we regulate the hell out of it, rights-of-private-companies to-set-their-own-policies be damned. But free speech? If you don’t trust the free market to sort it out, the only possible explanation is that you just don’t understand the literal text of the First Amendment.
- npiazza83 10y ago
  Let's see the alt-right turn up to peacefully protest and enact change through hard fought legislation and community action then. They don't need anyone's help. Let their movement fail and maybe they'll protect yours next time. I don't agree with conservatives on much, but we can sure agree on this: Stop giving "participation awards" to people who clearly have lost.
  - emp_zealoth 10y ago
    You mean like SJW crazies "peacefully protest" any event that tries to dispute what they are selling by trying to get it banned, sabotage it, block people from attending, disrupt it?
- tawpKek 10y ago
  I think its worth asking here: Why do we value free speech? Is it because we would like a variety of ideas to be heard, even if some of them are unsavory in the current social landscape? That we do better when we are open to a more diverse range of influences? If this is the case, I think we can't simply think of free speech in an active sense. I think the case could be made that the language of these accounts is designed to devalue the voices of particular people, thereby limiting their speech. I don't really have a solution here. I'm made extremely uncomfortable by this, but my current line of thought is that if an actor initiates the limitation on another's right to expression, then they are the one whose speech should be limited. Think of it sort of like free speech self-defense. Kind of tangential, but this Mark Ames piece on censorship is really good: https://pando.com/2015/02/04/the-geometry-of-censorship-and-satire/ https://pando.com/2015/02/04/the-geometry-of-censorship-and-... [edit] just took a closer look and I'm not really familiar with those accts aside from RV, so I can't really speak on harassment here
hnsucks2 10y ago
It's rather glib, actually. There is a legitimate question of whether companies like Twitter should operate with neutrality on these issues, regardless of how poorly the issue is broached.

This pretty much sums it up: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

by nirav72 10y ago

This pretty much sums it up: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

This argument doesn't work when private companies have more power in your life than the state. I'm sure you can think of a better one if you try!

astrodust 10y ago
If you think that's true you've got some serious problems. Facebook doesn't have a militarized police force.
- emp_zealoth 10y ago
  Yet it played a big role in swinging several important democratic events so far: Brexit and Trump
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Newspapers like The Daily Mail also played a part. They don't have a police force either, and nobody's forced to read them. You are, however, forced to live under whatever government gets elected.
- astrange 10y ago
  It doesn't matter what I think is true. It matters what the people being banned think is true. If you delete their account they won't learn anything or cease to exist, they'll just be angry at you somewhere else and come back later. BTW: https://twitter.com/kthorjensen/status/798959676855455744 https://twitter.com/kthorjensen/status/798959676855455744
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Banning people isn't for the benefit of those getting banned. It's for the other people that are tired of their bullshit. It's about controlling the tone and civility of discussions. Communities die when they're overrun by jerks.
    - nailer 10y ago
      You can choose the discussions you participate in, or should be able to (and yes Twitter should make this easier). And you should be able to express yourself even if people think you're a jerk. Alternatively, others should be able to choose the discussions they wish to participate in, which may involve people you think are jerks.
      - astrodust 10y ago
        Twitter makes it easy for anyone to say anything about anyone, and it also pushes those comments to that person. This is both the amazing thing and the Achille's heel of that system. You can block someone, but that's too late, it's retroactive. If their goal was to insult you, mission accomplished, no obstacles. In the case of Milo he'd encourage people to go and harass others which meant you'd spend hours and hours blocking people, they'd basically DDOS your Twitter account. Is this acceptable behaviour? Is this something to be encouraged by not punishing it? I don't think you realize what a lightning rod some people become through no fault of their own. That you've never been struck is simply a matter of luck or not being one of the common target groups. Remember: Not having a Twitter account doesn't mean you can't express yourself. You didn't get kicked off the internet. You're not barred from making sites or publishing your thoughts on innumerable other places.
        nailer 10y ago
        > Twitter ... also pushes those comments to that person. Yes. They should fix that (if these recent changes haven't yet done that). I've had one of the worst mornings of my life in the last year when I criticised a new browser API and the author of the API refused to stop mentioning me for an hour despite being asked repeatedly to stop. Having to turn off your phone because a high profile person is angry at you is awful. Having people threaten you or publish your contact details is much worse. Who draws the line between criticising someone and 'pushing others to harass'? Would you block people on the left who have criticised people on the right who were subsequently harassed? Milo had syringes sent to his house and his mobile number published, Totalbiscuit and his wife received a bunch of death threats. We shouldn't ban all the people who criticised them because they were subsequently harassed - I'm sure you wouldn't support that and I'd be right there with you. We should ban people who actually make credible threats, publish non-Twitter contact info on Twitter as a way of harassing others, and similar behaviour. > Not having a Twitter account doesn't mean you can't express yourself. Yes, just that you can't express yourself on one of the few places for discussion, and more to the point, that other people who want to hear you (and in Milo's case that was a lot of people) can't do so. > You're not barred from making sites or publishing your thoughts on innumerable other places. But due to Metcalfe's law none of those other places have any worth. As one of the grandparent comments says, we don't trust the free market to protect other values, we shouldn't trust it to protect freedom of expression.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

caylus 10y ago

And a more nuanced counterargument: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centrali... TLDR: > We don’t trust the free market to necessarily preserve racial equality – that’s what anti-discrimination laws are for. We don’t trust the free market to necessarily preserve worker safety – that’s what OSHA and related regulations are for. [...] Whenever we think something is important, we regulate the hell out of it, rights-of-private-companies to-set-their-own-policies be damned. But free speech? If you don’t trust the free market to sort it out, the only possible explanation is that you just don’t understand the literal text of the First Amendment.

npiazza83 10y ago
Let's see the alt-right turn up to peacefully protest and enact change through hard fought legislation and community action then. They don't need anyone's help. Let their movement fail and maybe they'll protect yours next time. I don't agree with conservatives on much, but we can sure agree on this: Stop giving "participation awards" to people who clearly have lost.
- emp_zealoth 10y ago
  You mean like SJW crazies "peacefully protest" any event that tries to dispute what they are selling by trying to get it banned, sabotage it, block people from attending, disrupt it?
tawpKek 10y ago
I think its worth asking here: Why do we value free speech? Is it because we would like a variety of ideas to be heard, even if some of them are unsavory in the current social landscape? That we do better when we are open to a more diverse range of influences? If this is the case, I think we can't simply think of free speech in an active sense. I think the case could be made that the language of these accounts is designed to devalue the voices of particular people, thereby limiting their speech. I don't really have a solution here. I'm made extremely uncomfortable by this, but my current line of thought is that if an actor initiates the limitation on another's right to expression, then they are the one whose speech should be limited. Think of it sort of like free speech self-defense. Kind of tangential, but this Mark Ames piece on censorship is really good: https://pando.com/2015/02/04/the-geometry-of-censorship-and-satire/ https://pando.com/2015/02/04/the-geometry-of-censorship-and-... [edit] just took a closer look and I'm not really familiar with those accts aside from RV, so I can't really speak on harassment here

hnsucks2 10y ago

It's rather glib, actually. There is a legitimate question of whether companies like Twitter should operate with neutrality on these issues, regardless of how poorly the issue is broached.