4 ms·

I think this xkcd comment is relevant, though free speech wasn't mentioned specifically. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ My personal system of e

by wlll 10y ago

I think this xkcd comment is relevant, though free speech wasn't mentioned specifically. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ My personal system of ethics is such that were I to run a service I would specifically ban some groups, organisations or uses from it, eg. peddlers or enablers of child pornography, Nazis, people engaging in deceitful propaganda to the detriment of society etc. Organisations such as the daily mail, breitbart, anyone describing themselves as "alt-right" and more would be included in this. I'm not preventing you from doing the thing you want to do, I'm just not allowing it on my platform.

striking 10y ago
Whenever someone posts that link, I post this rebuttal. http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/ http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/ Sometimes the people who speak the loudest are actually the wrong ones. And if we only let the loudest speak, we won't find out when they're wrong. Is there an example of a platform like the one you describe with a large audience?
- wlll 10y ago
  I would be interested to see what some of the people that were quoted in that rebuttal would say now. Speech is dangerous, speech is a weapon, that's why it needs to be protected, because people want to have the weapon only for themselves. But the weapon of 1859 is a hatchet and the weapon of 2016 is a virus. > Is there an example of a platform like the one you describe with a large audience? I think the real platform is the Internet. Losing access to an advertising service is hardly denying platform access. I believe in net neutrality and believe that ISPs and IP providers should have common carrier status, and if someone wants to air an argument of prejudice and hate they can buy the IP connection and set up a web server. No-one is stopping them, but we're not amplifying fringe voices to the same volume as everyone else.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  It's not much of a rebuttal. Its crucial argument: Free Speech means giving minority opinions the same access to infrastructure and audience that the majority has is at best, highly problematic (and ultimately, basically a straw man).
  - striking 10y ago
    Okay. What part of it is problematic? You've expressed what you feel, but not why you feel it. You're okay with letting corporations set the limits of our discourse, even as that flies in the face of the numerous quotes presented? And the author actually presents a sort of rebuttal to what I think (I assume?) you're trying to get at, which I'll quote here: > I’m not advocating that as a matter of law companies should be forced to allow dissenting opinions on their platform. [snip, for brevity] Rather, I am suggesting it is our duty as platform operators to allow the widest possible dissent on our platforms, and our duty as Internet citizens to hold our platforms to a high standard. We should decide ourselves what we do and don't want to hear. Sometimes that takes the form of community moderation, like on Reddit and HN. Sometimes that takes the form of (on 4chan/8chan) only moderating to the degree that it fits within the law. There are plenty of people on Twitter that use automated blockbots and word filters to broadly block things they don't want to hear. But all these people have set their own constraints. On HN, we give away our liberty to be gratuitously negative in the hopes that we might find a higher-quality discourse. And that's it. As long as we're nice to each other, we're allowed to hold just about whatever opinion we'd like, without even the minor repercussion of losing a lot of karma. That ad exchange does not speak for me. Those running it don't give a shit about me. They shouldn't be the ones setting the limits of our discourse. It might be a pie-in-the-sky, ideal concept, but I think we should try our very best to hold ourselves to it.
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      Because "free speech" is generally understood (in the U.S. at least) to be in the First Amendment sense -- that is, "the government shall not prohibit". What your rebuttal refers to is (exactly per xkcd 1357) an expected right to be "hosted" by mainstream sources -- an entirely different kettle of fish. And where it becomes a straw man is where it (implicitly) conflates "minority views" with either (1) irredeemable hate space or (2) puerile garbage (a.k.a. the bread and butter of sources like Breitbart). We should decide ourselves what we do and don't want to hear. Yup, that's what we already do. When we decide to spend time on sites like 4chan or Reddit, or FB or HN, or CNN or RT, we make, therewith, a decision to consume content as they've chosen to filter it. And I don't know about you, but I don't have much difficulty choosing sources from the above list to focus my attention resources on. They shouldn't be the ones setting the limits of our discourse. They're not. By visiting sites that certain guidelines (or make use of ad networks enforcing certain guidelines), you're choosing to accept those constraints. That ad exchange does not speak for me. Then... it's within you power to not spend quality time on sites that make use of those networks. Main point being, the policies applied by ad networks can't meaningfully be called "censorship". Nor is what's happening to Breitbart anything really new (if anything, it's just a recalibration of long-existing policies to a changing media landscape).

by wlll 10y ago

striking 10y ago

Whenever someone posts that link, I post this rebuttal. http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/ http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/ Sometimes the people who speak the loudest are actually the wrong ones. And if we only let the loudest speak, we won't find out when they're wrong. Is there an example of a platform like the one you describe with a large audience?

wlll 10y ago
I would be interested to see what some of the people that were quoted in that rebuttal would say now. Speech is dangerous, speech is a weapon, that's why it needs to be protected, because people want to have the weapon only for themselves. But the weapon of 1859 is a hatchet and the weapon of 2016 is a virus. > Is there an example of a platform like the one you describe with a large audience? I think the real platform is the Internet. Losing access to an advertising service is hardly denying platform access. I believe in net neutrality and believe that ISPs and IP providers should have common carrier status, and if someone wants to air an argument of prejudice and hate they can buy the IP connection and set up a web server. No-one is stopping them, but we're not amplifying fringe voices to the same volume as everyone else.
kafkaesq 10y ago
It's not much of a rebuttal. Its crucial argument: Free Speech means giving minority opinions the same access to infrastructure and audience that the majority has is at best, highly problematic (and ultimately, basically a straw man).
- striking 10y ago
  Okay. What part of it is problematic? You've expressed what you feel, but not why you feel it. You're okay with letting corporations set the limits of our discourse, even as that flies in the face of the numerous quotes presented? And the author actually presents a sort of rebuttal to what I think (I assume?) you're trying to get at, which I'll quote here: > I’m not advocating that as a matter of law companies should be forced to allow dissenting opinions on their platform. [snip, for brevity] Rather, I am suggesting it is our duty as platform operators to allow the widest possible dissent on our platforms, and our duty as Internet citizens to hold our platforms to a high standard. We should decide ourselves what we do and don't want to hear. Sometimes that takes the form of community moderation, like on Reddit and HN. Sometimes that takes the form of (on 4chan/8chan) only moderating to the degree that it fits within the law. There are plenty of people on Twitter that use automated blockbots and word filters to broadly block things they don't want to hear. But all these people have set their own constraints. On HN, we give away our liberty to be gratuitously negative in the hopes that we might find a higher-quality discourse. And that's it. As long as we're nice to each other, we're allowed to hold just about whatever opinion we'd like, without even the minor repercussion of losing a lot of karma. That ad exchange does not speak for me. Those running it don't give a shit about me. They shouldn't be the ones setting the limits of our discourse. It might be a pie-in-the-sky, ideal concept, but I think we should try our very best to hold ourselves to it.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    Because "free speech" is generally understood (in the U.S. at least) to be in the First Amendment sense -- that is, "the government shall not prohibit". What your rebuttal refers to is (exactly per xkcd 1357) an expected right to be "hosted" by mainstream sources -- an entirely different kettle of fish. And where it becomes a straw man is where it (implicitly) conflates "minority views" with either (1) irredeemable hate space or (2) puerile garbage (a.k.a. the bread and butter of sources like Breitbart). We should decide ourselves what we do and don't want to hear. Yup, that's what we already do. When we decide to spend time on sites like 4chan or Reddit, or FB or HN, or CNN or RT, we make, therewith, a decision to consume content as they've chosen to filter it. And I don't know about you, but I don't have much difficulty choosing sources from the above list to focus my attention resources on. They shouldn't be the ones setting the limits of our discourse. They're not. By visiting sites that certain guidelines (or make use of ad networks enforcing certain guidelines), you're choosing to accept those constraints. That ad exchange does not speak for me. Then... it's within you power to not spend quality time on sites that make use of those networks. Main point being, the policies applied by ad networks can't meaningfully be called "censorship". Nor is what's happening to Breitbart anything really new (if anything, it's just a recalibration of long-existing policies to a changing media landscape).