3 ms·

No one is talking about curtailing free speech they are talking about a private platform not wanting to promote that speech anymore.

wallace_f 10y ago
I find this comment to be ignorant and not constructive. Edit: This user already had this debate in another thread and conceded, then brought it up here again. Here are some comments from this user to show you what I mean: > It was stuff like idiots accusing everyone that didn't support trump > There is a lot of worthless hate speech in the world. Nothing is learned from it except that the speaker is ignorant > You're not restricting thoughts or ideas you are simply not agreeing to promote it. And finally, when he conceded it really is about free expression: > Reddit stopped claiming to be about free speech years ago. I don't appreciate the ad hominen attacks, and I'm not going to debate whether or not this is about free speech with this user.
- sanswork 10y ago
  I don't see what I conceded exactly? The post I responded to claimed that reddit was claiming to be about free speech when spez has openly stated on many occasions that it wasn't originally and isn't now and that it only became more open to it because they were lazing about policing. That has nothing to do with my other statements nor does it contradict any of them.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    So we are talking about free speech then? It sounds like you have already forgotten that the comment I replied to said "no one is talking about free speech."
    - sanswork 10y ago
      In that specific comment no. It was about reddit's core beliefs. The fact that the word free speech was used in the sentence doesn't make that a central point of that conversation. In the general case also no because a private platform not promoting someones speech isn't a free speech issue.
      - wallace_f 10y ago
        Umm, you're very clearly and plainly talking about censoring speech, and many people in the topic thread are talking about free speech. And you are responding by insulting people? Like I said I can see you argued this same argument with people in the other thread and then quickly conceded it.
        sanswork 10y ago
        I haven't conceded anything. I have maintained the whole time that it isn't a free speech issue because it is a private platform. I've also not responded by insulting people. I honestly have no clue which discussion you're reading but it's not one I'm participating in by your description of it.
        wallace_f 10y ago
        Posts of you insulting people and their ideas: > The idea that the other side has a valid opinion just because they won is stupid. A lot of believes don't deserve any respect at all. > You don't have to give every idiot a platform to believe in free speech. > There is a lot of worthless hate speech in the world. Nothing is learned from it except that the speaker is ignorant. > The stuff people are taking about blocking and removing from their services is far from the best arguments or adversaries. It is the trash. Conceding your argument in the other thread: > Reddit stopped claiming to be about free speech years ago. Let's take a step back. What you responded to was this: > I think that Reddit will be throwing away one of its most essential contributions to the internet if it resorts to servicing just one side of this deba That is about reddit being about free speech. You said: > There is a lot of worthless hate speech in the world. Nothing is learned from it except that the speaker is ignorant. I said: > Historically speaking, moral righteousness has always been the primary argument for curtailing free speech. And you said: > No one is talking about curtailing free speech they are talking about a private platform not wanting to promote that speech anymore. You are trying to redefine the words "Free speech" to have a specific meaning that is taken out of context (the context was plainly a discussion about reddit allowing both sides of the debate, not about government retaliation--your argument against that was today's foremost argument against free speech: that the world already has too much hate speech), and I do not find that argument constructive because (a) free speech being defined as speech without censorship is a perfectly correct definition (it is not necessary for their to be a direct or indirect government actor as you seem to believe--this is why I said it was ignorant), and (b) this is not a direct rebuttal but instead what it does is redirect the debate to be about what exactly free speech is which I do not find that useful in contributing to the conversation thread. This same general idea proceeded in another thread then you conceded in the other thread that the issue was reddit "stopped being about free speech," so there, you use that language with the same definition yourself, substantiating point (a).

wallace_f 10y ago

I find this comment to be ignorant and not constructive. Edit: This user already had this debate in another thread and conceded, then brought it up here again. Here are some comments from this user to show you what I mean: > It was stuff like idiots accusing everyone that didn't support trump > There is a lot of worthless hate speech in the world. Nothing is learned from it except that the speaker is ignorant > You're not restricting thoughts or ideas you are simply not agreeing to promote it. And finally, when he conceded it really is about free expression: > Reddit stopped claiming to be about free speech years ago. I don't appreciate the ad hominen attacks, and I'm not going to debate whether or not this is about free speech with this user.

sanswork 10y ago
I don't see what I conceded exactly? The post I responded to claimed that reddit was claiming to be about free speech when spez has openly stated on many occasions that it wasn't originally and isn't now and that it only became more open to it because they were lazing about policing. That has nothing to do with my other statements nor does it contradict any of them.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  So we are talking about free speech then? It sounds like you have already forgotten that the comment I replied to said "no one is talking about free speech."
  - sanswork 10y ago
    In that specific comment no. It was about reddit's core beliefs. The fact that the word free speech was used in the sentence doesn't make that a central point of that conversation. In the general case also no because a private platform not promoting someones speech isn't a free speech issue.
    - wallace_f 10y ago
      Umm, you're very clearly and plainly talking about censoring speech, and many people in the topic thread are talking about free speech. And you are responding by insulting people? Like I said I can see you argued this same argument with people in the other thread and then quickly conceded it.
      - sanswork 10y ago
        I haven't conceded anything. I have maintained the whole time that it isn't a free speech issue because it is a private platform. I've also not responded by insulting people. I honestly have no clue which discussion you're reading but it's not one I'm participating in by your description of it.
        wallace_f 10y ago
        Posts of you insulting people and their ideas: > The idea that the other side has a valid opinion just because they won is stupid. A lot of believes don't deserve any respect at all. > You don't have to give every idiot a platform to believe in free speech. > There is a lot of worthless hate speech in the world. Nothing is learned from it except that the speaker is ignorant. > The stuff people are taking about blocking and removing from their services is far from the best arguments or adversaries. It is the trash. Conceding your argument in the other thread: > Reddit stopped claiming to be about free speech years ago. Let's take a step back. What you responded to was this: > I think that Reddit will be throwing away one of its most essential contributions to the internet if it resorts to servicing just one side of this deba That is about reddit being about free speech. You said: > There is a lot of worthless hate speech in the world. Nothing is learned from it except that the speaker is ignorant. I said: > Historically speaking, moral righteousness has always been the primary argument for curtailing free speech. And you said: > No one is talking about curtailing free speech they are talking about a private platform not wanting to promote that speech anymore. You are trying to redefine the words "Free speech" to have a specific meaning that is taken out of context (the context was plainly a discussion about reddit allowing both sides of the debate, not about government retaliation--your argument against that was today's foremost argument against free speech: that the world already has too much hate speech), and I do not find that argument constructive because (a) free speech being defined as speech without censorship is a perfectly correct definition (it is not necessary for their to be a direct or indirect government actor as you seem to believe--this is why I said it was ignorant), and (b) this is not a direct rebuttal but instead what it does is redirect the debate to be about what exactly free speech is which I do not find that useful in contributing to the conversation thread. This same general idea proceeded in another thread then you conceded in the other thread that the issue was reddit "stopped being about free speech," so there, you use that language with the same definition yourself, substantiating point (a).