3 ms·

> 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. Y

by 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.
maverick_iceman 10y ago
Then why so much hullabaloo about fake news in Facebook? They are a private company and surely they can show anything to their users? Also I don't think you'd be as nonchalant if Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders were being banned by Twitter.
- fiiv 10y ago
  I thought the big issue with "fake news" (which seemingly a buzzword for an old concept, but that's another discussion) was that people shared them in the first place, therefore distributing them without realising they were not genuine. I hadn't read anything about Facebook themselves being complicit in some sort of syndicate to spread misinformation during the election.
- vacri 10y ago
  Firstly, I would be as nonchalant if Warren or Sanders were being filtered (Adams isn't banned) by Twitter... because... as I say, Twitter is not a public service. If you're going to be angry about Twitter filtering Adams, you should be angry at HN for flagging this article. You should be using this opportunity to educate people about Twitter not being a public service, and how news services that use it for react quotes are doing everyone a disservice (have you noticed now how react quotes these days come from strangers on Twitter, not people near the actual event in question?) As for Facebook - Facebook already filtered your feed, independent of the 'fake news' thing.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Small nit: I'm blessedly largely ignorant of Twitter and all of this hullabaloo, though one difference I suspect in moderation is that any flagging of this submission was the result of user action as opposed to any action taken by a mod.
    - vacri 10y ago
      I don't think that there's all that much difference between a mod doing it and the relatively small number of userbase flags doing it. Hell, if userbase flagging was available in Twitter like on HN, no-one with a household name would ever be able to use it, regardless of whether or not they were even political...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by vacri 10y ago

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.

maverick_iceman 10y ago

Then why so much hullabaloo about fake news in Facebook? They are a private company and surely they can show anything to their users? Also I don't think you'd be as nonchalant if Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders were being banned by Twitter.

fiiv 10y ago
I thought the big issue with "fake news" (which seemingly a buzzword for an old concept, but that's another discussion) was that people shared them in the first place, therefore distributing them without realising they were not genuine. I hadn't read anything about Facebook themselves being complicit in some sort of syndicate to spread misinformation during the election.
vacri 10y ago
Firstly, I would be as nonchalant if Warren or Sanders were being filtered (Adams isn't banned) by Twitter... because... as I say, Twitter is not a public service. If you're going to be angry about Twitter filtering Adams, you should be angry at HN for flagging this article. You should be using this opportunity to educate people about Twitter not being a public service, and how news services that use it for react quotes are doing everyone a disservice (have you noticed now how react quotes these days come from strangers on Twitter, not people near the actual event in question?) As for Facebook - Facebook already filtered your feed, independent of the 'fake news' thing.
- grzm 10y ago
  Small nit: I'm blessedly largely ignorant of Twitter and all of this hullabaloo, though one difference I suspect in moderation is that any flagging of this submission was the result of user action as opposed to any action taken by a mod.
  - vacri 10y ago
    I don't think that there's all that much difference between a mod doing it and the relatively small number of userbase flags doing it. Hell, if userbase flagging was available in Twitter like on HN, no-one with a household name would ever be able to use it, regardless of whether or not they were even political...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]