7 ms·

Freedom of Speech Is Now Largely an Illusion

20 points by gukov 10y ago

trappist 10y ago
He said, unafraid.
- gydfi 10y ago
  He is unafraid. He's rich and his livelihood is not threatened. He's got an audience already and being banned from twitter wouldn't affect his livelihood much. And he doesn't live in Berkeley so he's unlikely to get his head smashed in, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's had to increase his security measures anyway.
hackuser 10y ago
Scott Adams has some pretty crazy, extremist things to say. Recently someone else quoted a couple of them and was flagged and criticized by a moderator for provoking a flame war (the only inflammatory comments in the post were Adams'). I think the credibility of the speaker is very important to any topic, but I'm not sure how to address it here.
- candiodari 10y ago
  Extremist is ... not useful. Yes he supports (not 100% even) Trump, but extremist ? Be serious. I think the point of the article is that twitter is randomized shadowbanning (visible to 1% or so of people who explicitly look at his account actually see his posts) based on political viewpoints.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    He is extremist. Again, it's clear from the moderators that quoting his extremist statements is undesireable, but it limits our conversation. You can find the quotes in this discussion if you know how to look: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13604551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13604551
    - grzm 10y ago
      Quotes can be used for different purposes. I suspect that you can use a quote in a civil, constructive way as an example, though it might just be better to find a reference to point to. In the case you're referring to here, the commenter was intentionally bringing up an inflammatory quote to discredit the parent comment, taking the thread completely off track from what had been a relatively civil discussion, which is what the mod pointed out (as did other commenters in the thread).
- r00fus 10y ago
  If I'm ever unsure about the source, I just go down to the comments to see the bias and signal/noise ratio.
- koonsolo 10y ago
  Funny how supporting the democratically elected president is considered extreme.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    Not what I meant. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13647807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13647807
milcron 10y ago
Hmm, I've seen this phenomenon before. I wonder if it has to do with popularity and tweet load?
vacri 10y ago
> Best of all, it makes people like me look like conspiracy nuts. ... I won’t ask you to believe me about Twitter’s backdoor assault on the First Amendment. You are a conspiracy nut, Mr Adams. Twitter is a private company. Repeat: Twitter is a private company. It's not even nominally working in your name (like a democratic government is). The First Amendment says nothing about private entities. Just because every TV news show uses it as a lazy source of react quotes does not make it a neutral public service. Again, twitter is not a public service. Twitter owes you nothing; you haven't paid it fees/taxes. It's also a terrible place to discuss nuanced concepts (which is most concepts). Twitter is also not the only place you can express yourself. The more I read of Scott Adams' recent murmurings, the more respect I lose for him.
- gydfi 10y ago
  Strictly true in the context of "first amendment". But what I've realised recently is that "free speech" is more than just a legal right conferred by the government, it's a social climate. The climate of free speech is even more important than the government right, because if the climate is lost then people will start demanding that the government abolish the legal right too. A social climate of free speech means a society in which people are accustomed to hearing things they find disagreeable, and don't flip out every time they do. It means that although people hypothetically can punish each other for views they find disagreeable by means such as boycotting their businesses or shouting at them when they try to speak, they manage to refrain from doing so in all but the most egregious half a percent of cases, and generally tolerate disagreement. This is what we're in danger of losing at the moment, and if this is lost then the legal right can't be far behind.
  - vacri 10y ago
    If that's the argument, then I still say "fuck Adams". He's defending someone for whom there's multiple video evidence of him stomping on people's rights to speak freely and ask questions. Yesterday someone showed me a video of a man being removed from the room for asking a question. And looking over Adams' backlog, he's faking news: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156711454356/president-trump-and-the-other-countries http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156711454356/president-trump-an... > "I don't know what was in those phone calls, but Australia and Mexico were lecturing Trump, and Trump let them know who was king, booyah!". Actually, no. The Australian PM went to Trump cap-in-hand, asking him to maintain an existing bargain. He couldn't afford to get Trump offside because the call was about a very explosive issue back home, and the existing bargain was his 'out' from it. He was pilloried here at home because he didn't stand up to Trump when the content of the call was made public. But no, Adams just makes shit up and decides "fuck those guys", defending a demagogue who does the same. Free speech does not include a right to lie about others (see libel/slander). The climate of erosion of free speech is not most threatened by Twitter, it's the current US administration and their fact-blind supporters like Adams that's the real risk.
riffic 10y ago
Walled garden platforms are a joke. If you need to get your messaging out reliably you would host your own infrastructure (Gnu social/mastodon, et cetera).
- obstinate 10y ago
  If you can solve the problem of getting an audience onto GNU Social . . .
  - flukus 10y ago
    Pointing out the problems of closed platforms and some alternatives is a good start. The likes of Scott Adams, Stephen Fry and Richard Dawkins would be well placed to help attain critical mass.
d--b 10y ago
"we cant say anything anymore" blah blah blah. Try and post a anti trump comment on breitbart.com
- gydfi 10y ago
  Breitbart makes no claim to be a general platform for discussion. It is openly a place with a particular bent. Nobody is complaining about conservatives being banned from Democratic Underground, they're complaining about conservatives being banned from twitter and facebook.
  - ouid 10y ago
    Correlation is not causality. The people getting banned from twitter are Republicans, but that is not necessarily why they are being banned. I'm sure you can find lots of alternative correlates with the kinds of profiles which are banned from twitter. Whereas on Breitbart you are explicitly banned for dissent, on twitter, there is only correlation.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - vixen99 10y ago
      I'm curious. Presumably 'you' implies that dissenting comments are banned? Is there evidence to suggest this is an editorial policy? If it is, senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos has some difficult questions to answer. On the other hand, any publication with an angle will favor comments supporting that view simply because this is good for circulation and thereby survival. As an exception to this, I might mention WUWT, the sceptical climate site. You can find many (or at least a reasonable showing of) comments dissenting strongly from a pro-sceptic article.
      - gydfi 10y ago
        Usually dissenting comments wind up banned on many sites for "trolling". Here on HN they tend up being banned with the excuse of "starting flamewars".
obstinate 10y ago
For some definition of freedom of speech, this is and has always been true. You've never had the right to be heard, only the right to speak.
- maverick_iceman 10y ago
  Would you have said the same thing to Martin Luther King in the 60s? Or to the abolitionists during the 19th century?
  - r00fus 10y ago
    Where were you when the media was interrupting coverage of Bernie's 20k+ rallies and switching to Trump's random word salad? It's a standard right-wing persecution complex combined with projection.
  - obstinate 10y ago
    Yes, of course! Even MLK in all his excellence did not have the right to have his speeches printed verbatim in every newspaper in the country for free. That's not what free speech is.
draw_down 10y ago
"Now"
maverick_iceman 10y ago
Wow, I'm really depressed by the comments here. Looks like the HN liberals are ready to ban any conservative views. This goes on to confirm my belief that the left hates freedom of speech.
- vorotato 10y ago
  A person looked only for evidence which confirmed their existing beliefs and felt vindicated. Divergent from reality and confident of their unquestioned positions they began to share the delusion with others.
losteverything 10y ago
As a corporate old guy I'll never forget Adams Lucent logo ,er coffee stain. [0] There were many favorites. So can someone give me the 4 lines of what a comic strip millionaire did after electrons took over paper? Is Scott Adams still relevant. I've not heard his name for a decade. [0] http://dilbert.com/search_results?terms=Brown+Ring+Of+Quality http://dilbert.com/search_results?terms=Brown+Ring+Of+Qualit...

20 points by gukov 10y ago

trappist 10y ago

He said, unafraid.

gydfi 10y ago
He is unafraid. He's rich and his livelihood is not threatened. He's got an audience already and being banned from twitter wouldn't affect his livelihood much. And he doesn't live in Berkeley so he's unlikely to get his head smashed in, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's had to increase his security measures anyway.

hackuser 10y ago

Scott Adams has some pretty crazy, extremist things to say. Recently someone else quoted a couple of them and was flagged and criticized by a moderator for provoking a flame war (the only inflammatory comments in the post were Adams'). I think the credibility of the speaker is very important to any topic, but I'm not sure how to address it here.

candiodari 10y ago
Extremist is ... not useful. Yes he supports (not 100% even) Trump, but extremist ? Be serious. I think the point of the article is that twitter is randomized shadowbanning (visible to 1% or so of people who explicitly look at his account actually see his posts) based on political viewpoints.
- hackuser 10y ago
  He is extremist. Again, it's clear from the moderators that quoting his extremist statements is undesireable, but it limits our conversation. You can find the quotes in this discussion if you know how to look: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13604551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13604551
  - grzm 10y ago
    Quotes can be used for different purposes. I suspect that you can use a quote in a civil, constructive way as an example, though it might just be better to find a reference to point to. In the case you're referring to here, the commenter was intentionally bringing up an inflammatory quote to discredit the parent comment, taking the thread completely off track from what had been a relatively civil discussion, which is what the mod pointed out (as did other commenters in the thread).
r00fus 10y ago
If I'm ever unsure about the source, I just go down to the comments to see the bias and signal/noise ratio.
koonsolo 10y ago
Funny how supporting the democratically elected president is considered extreme.
- hackuser 10y ago
  Not what I meant. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13647807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13647807

milcron 10y ago

Hmm, I've seen this phenomenon before. I wonder if it has to do with popularity and tweet load?

vacri 10y ago

> Best of all, it makes people like me look like conspiracy nuts. ... I won’t ask you to believe me about Twitter’s backdoor assault on the First Amendment. You are a conspiracy nut, Mr Adams. Twitter is a private company. Repeat: Twitter is a private company. It's not even nominally working in your name (like a democratic government is). The First Amendment says nothing about private entities. Just because every TV news show uses it as a lazy source of react quotes does not make it a neutral public service. Again, twitter is not a public service. Twitter owes you nothing; you haven't paid it fees/taxes. It's also a terrible place to discuss nuanced concepts (which is most concepts). Twitter is also not the only place you can express yourself. The more I read of Scott Adams' recent murmurings, the more respect I lose for him.

gydfi 10y ago
Strictly true in the context of "first amendment". But what I've realised recently is that "free speech" is more than just a legal right conferred by the government, it's a social climate. The climate of free speech is even more important than the government right, because if the climate is lost then people will start demanding that the government abolish the legal right too. A social climate of free speech means a society in which people are accustomed to hearing things they find disagreeable, and don't flip out every time they do. It means that although people hypothetically can punish each other for views they find disagreeable by means such as boycotting their businesses or shouting at them when they try to speak, they manage to refrain from doing so in all but the most egregious half a percent of cases, and generally tolerate disagreement. This is what we're in danger of losing at the moment, and if this is lost then the legal right can't be far behind.
- vacri 10y ago
  If that's the argument, then I still say "fuck Adams". He's defending someone for whom there's multiple video evidence of him stomping on people's rights to speak freely and ask questions. Yesterday someone showed me a video of a man being removed from the room for asking a question. And looking over Adams' backlog, he's faking news: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156711454356/president-trump-and-the-other-countries http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156711454356/president-trump-an... > "I don't know what was in those phone calls, but Australia and Mexico were lecturing Trump, and Trump let them know who was king, booyah!". Actually, no. The Australian PM went to Trump cap-in-hand, asking him to maintain an existing bargain. He couldn't afford to get Trump offside because the call was about a very explosive issue back home, and the existing bargain was his 'out' from it. He was pilloried here at home because he didn't stand up to Trump when the content of the call was made public. But no, Adams just makes shit up and decides "fuck those guys", defending a demagogue who does the same. Free speech does not include a right to lie about others (see libel/slander). The climate of erosion of free speech is not most threatened by Twitter, it's the current US administration and their fact-blind supporters like Adams that's the real risk.

riffic 10y ago

Walled garden platforms are a joke. If you need to get your messaging out reliably you would host your own infrastructure (Gnu social/mastodon, et cetera).

obstinate 10y ago
If you can solve the problem of getting an audience onto GNU Social . . .
- flukus 10y ago
  Pointing out the problems of closed platforms and some alternatives is a good start. The likes of Scott Adams, Stephen Fry and Richard Dawkins would be well placed to help attain critical mass.

d--b 10y ago

"we cant say anything anymore" blah blah blah. Try and post a anti trump comment on breitbart.com

gydfi 10y ago
Breitbart makes no claim to be a general platform for discussion. It is openly a place with a particular bent. Nobody is complaining about conservatives being banned from Democratic Underground, they're complaining about conservatives being banned from twitter and facebook.
- ouid 10y ago
  Correlation is not causality. The people getting banned from twitter are Republicans, but that is not necessarily why they are being banned. I'm sure you can find lots of alternative correlates with the kinds of profiles which are banned from twitter. Whereas on Breitbart you are explicitly banned for dissent, on twitter, there is only correlation.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - vixen99 10y ago
    I'm curious. Presumably 'you' implies that dissenting comments are banned? Is there evidence to suggest this is an editorial policy? If it is, senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos has some difficult questions to answer. On the other hand, any publication with an angle will favor comments supporting that view simply because this is good for circulation and thereby survival. As an exception to this, I might mention WUWT, the sceptical climate site. You can find many (or at least a reasonable showing of) comments dissenting strongly from a pro-sceptic article.
    - gydfi 10y ago
      Usually dissenting comments wind up banned on many sites for "trolling". Here on HN they tend up being banned with the excuse of "starting flamewars".

obstinate 10y ago

For some definition of freedom of speech, this is and has always been true. You've never had the right to be heard, only the right to speak.

maverick_iceman 10y ago
Would you have said the same thing to Martin Luther King in the 60s? Or to the abolitionists during the 19th century?
- r00fus 10y ago
  Where were you when the media was interrupting coverage of Bernie's 20k+ rallies and switching to Trump's random word salad? It's a standard right-wing persecution complex combined with projection.
- obstinate 10y ago
  Yes, of course! Even MLK in all his excellence did not have the right to have his speeches printed verbatim in every newspaper in the country for free. That's not what free speech is.

draw_down 10y ago

"Now"

maverick_iceman 10y ago

Wow, I'm really depressed by the comments here. Looks like the HN liberals are ready to ban any conservative views. This goes on to confirm my belief that the left hates freedom of speech.

vorotato 10y ago
A person looked only for evidence which confirmed their existing beliefs and felt vindicated. Divergent from reality and confident of their unquestioned positions they began to share the delusion with others.

losteverything 10y ago

As a corporate old guy I'll never forget Adams Lucent logo ,er coffee stain. [0] There were many favorites. So can someone give me the 4 lines of what a comic strip millionaire did after electrons took over paper? Is Scott Adams still relevant. I've not heard his name for a decade. [0] http://dilbert.com/search_results?terms=Brown+Ring+Of+Quality http://dilbert.com/search_results?terms=Brown+Ring+Of+Qualit...