3 ms·

Respectfully, I disagree. Social media is not the best nor the only place to share your opinions, political or not. In fact this is the exact danger that thes

Respectfully, I disagree. Social media is not the best nor the only place to share your opinions, political or not. In fact this is the exact danger that these networks pose - people start thinking that it's the only place where we can express our right to free speech. But this is not what social networks were designed for. They were designed to distribute advertising; all the rest of the features are just clever ways to disguise the real purpose of the SN. Even people who work at these companies are delusional about their company's real purpose. The place to express our right to free speech is 'the Internet'. Distributed, resilient, no central control. Plenty of space for anyone to shout as loud as they like and 'share' it with their friends, without selling their soul.

AnAnonyCowherd 10y ago
I know my personal views about sexuality and proclivity, expressed on my personal web site, cost me at least one possible job, and maybe a couple others as well, over the years. If my views on these issues were to be discovered on the internet, either on a personal site, or some social network, by someone in the HR department of the Fortune 150 I work for, I would probably be summarily dismissed. So, the "chilling effect" has already happened, and it's only working against one side of the ideological spectrum. Oh, sure, we still have "freedom of speech" in the US, but only if it's politically correct. Otherwise, you'll also be exercising your "freedom to be out of work."
- manyxcxi 10y ago
  It sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. I believe our right to free speech is the most important thing we have. However, if someone reads a post they don't like why should they HAVE to hire you? As an employer if I read something that genuinely offended me (I have no idea if that's even possible) I wouldn't hire them. I hire people I think are going to make the team better and that I think we would want to work with. So, yeah, if that hot take you wrote on the internet was a tad incendiary, why is it bad that people passed on you? I'd like to think that I'm evolved enough that I could disagree with someone's opinion and work just fine with them- but if what they said struck a chord, I can't say that I wouldn't pass on them. At the end of the day your freedom keeps you out of jail and my freedom gives me the ability to say no thanks. What you say in the public square isn't consequence free.
  - AnAnonyCowherd 10y ago
    I believe I specifically said that I understand my free speech has a cost. Now, I don't know if you'll get this, since my original comment seems hidden or shadowbanned from the main discussion now, which just goes to prove the point brilliantly. What I had originally written on my personal web site was standard, old-fashioned Christian teaching about homosexuality, based on the Bible. Hate the sin; love the sinner. That sort of thing. (No, it wasn't incendiary calls to violence against people.) If I'm not allowed to say what I want to say, by being fired by my employer and blackballed from further employment, or by being downvoted to oblivion or filtered or shadowbanned by Ycombinator or Facebook or Reddit, or having my account cancelled at the web host provider I use, what good are my Constitutional rights of freedom of speech and religion? You may find this situation wonderful because you hate what I have to say, but I think everyone should find the trend alarming. Maybe you really are arguing that freedom of speech and religion only grants someone the right to not being jailed when all they have left is to stand, homeless, on the street corner with a sign, shouting at passerby -- and then they'll be jailed for not having a permit, or something -- but I would have thought that the Constitution meant the First Amendment for more protection than that. And, furthermore, if it's only Christians that are being affected by these discriminations, then hasn't the government declared a side? All this talk on the left about how the US government is prejudiced against anything other than Christianity, and, yet, I have no doubt that my company would LOVE foreign nationals to preach their religion to people in the work place, when I would be fired for it, if overheard. I'm saying the consequences are one-sided.
    - infinite8s 10y ago
      You do realize that the 1st Amendment only applies to government restrictions of free speech and not restrictions by private entities?
      - AnAnonyCowherd 10y ago
        I believe both of my comments make it evident that I'm perfectly clear on this. In fact, I don't see how it would be possible to argue what I WAS saying without understanding this. But, hey, I've been wrong before; I will be again.

AnAnonyCowherd 10y ago

I know my personal views about sexuality and proclivity, expressed on my personal web site, cost me at least one possible job, and maybe a couple others as well, over the years. If my views on these issues were to be discovered on the internet, either on a personal site, or some social network, by someone in the HR department of the Fortune 150 I work for, I would probably be summarily dismissed. So, the "chilling effect" has already happened, and it's only working against one side of the ideological spectrum. Oh, sure, we still have "freedom of speech" in the US, but only if it's politically correct. Otherwise, you'll also be exercising your "freedom to be out of work."

manyxcxi 10y ago
It sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. I believe our right to free speech is the most important thing we have. However, if someone reads a post they don't like why should they HAVE to hire you? As an employer if I read something that genuinely offended me (I have no idea if that's even possible) I wouldn't hire them. I hire people I think are going to make the team better and that I think we would want to work with. So, yeah, if that hot take you wrote on the internet was a tad incendiary, why is it bad that people passed on you? I'd like to think that I'm evolved enough that I could disagree with someone's opinion and work just fine with them- but if what they said struck a chord, I can't say that I wouldn't pass on them. At the end of the day your freedom keeps you out of jail and my freedom gives me the ability to say no thanks. What you say in the public square isn't consequence free.
- AnAnonyCowherd 10y ago
  I believe I specifically said that I understand my free speech has a cost. Now, I don't know if you'll get this, since my original comment seems hidden or shadowbanned from the main discussion now, which just goes to prove the point brilliantly. What I had originally written on my personal web site was standard, old-fashioned Christian teaching about homosexuality, based on the Bible. Hate the sin; love the sinner. That sort of thing. (No, it wasn't incendiary calls to violence against people.) If I'm not allowed to say what I want to say, by being fired by my employer and blackballed from further employment, or by being downvoted to oblivion or filtered or shadowbanned by Ycombinator or Facebook or Reddit, or having my account cancelled at the web host provider I use, what good are my Constitutional rights of freedom of speech and religion? You may find this situation wonderful because you hate what I have to say, but I think everyone should find the trend alarming. Maybe you really are arguing that freedom of speech and religion only grants someone the right to not being jailed when all they have left is to stand, homeless, on the street corner with a sign, shouting at passerby -- and then they'll be jailed for not having a permit, or something -- but I would have thought that the Constitution meant the First Amendment for more protection than that. And, furthermore, if it's only Christians that are being affected by these discriminations, then hasn't the government declared a side? All this talk on the left about how the US government is prejudiced against anything other than Christianity, and, yet, I have no doubt that my company would LOVE foreign nationals to preach their religion to people in the work place, when I would be fired for it, if overheard. I'm saying the consequences are one-sided.
  - infinite8s 10y ago
    You do realize that the 1st Amendment only applies to government restrictions of free speech and not restrictions by private entities?
    - AnAnonyCowherd 10y ago
      I believe both of my comments make it evident that I'm perfectly clear on this. In fact, I don't see how it would be possible to argue what I WAS saying without understanding this. But, hey, I've been wrong before; I will be again.