7 ms·

That fact is, there are no more trolls than before. No really. There aren't. Not even since the time of Socrates, and we all know what happened to him. There a

by kebman 10y ago

That fact is, there are no more trolls than before. No really. There aren't. Not even since the time of Socrates, and we all know what happened to him. There are however a lot of people who'd like to silence pesky individuals and organizations who have recently started winning even more pesky debates, such as all those anti-establishment rednecks, patriots, anti-immigrationitsts and right wingers who got Trump into power. Can't have that. Must put pressure on Google and Facebook to censor (wait, I'm trying to come up with something suitable - hm... Yes, let's call it...) "hate speech" and "fake news". Yeah, that's it! Now we have the means to shut them up once and for all. Let's softly censor all people saying bad words on YouTube with things like (hm find new ideas here) demonetization and restricted mode, and let's cow these people once and for all so our narrative can win. Meanwhile let's use our corporate power for, let's say on behalf of the people, to put pressure on the governments to back down on the things that they were voted in for in the first place. There's only one problem. When you make peaceful dissent impossible, you make violent opposition inevitable. Not my words. JFK's. We absolutely must have democracy and freedom of speech. One doesn't work without the other. If you can't win an argument, then accept it and move on. Or try to find another angle. Limiting free speech to win debates is not the answer.

fao_ 10y ago
> We absolutely must have democracy and freedom of speech. You're conflating "Freedom of speech" with "The right to be listened to" and "The right to have a platform". The government isn't going to hunt these people down because they have expressed Foo views, nor is, for example, Google. Google, YouTube, Facebook, etc. as private companies are allowed to decide what they do and do not want on their platform (Excluding certain illegal materials, of course). When they do this, they are not violating the freedom of speech of the individuals whose views they remove. EDIT: "anti-establishment rednecks, patriots, anti-immigrationitsts and right wingers who got Trump into power." Would you really call those people anti-establishment? They voted in favour of the corruption of the political system and the succumbing of the tattered remains of it to the forces of lobbying and large businesses. That certainly doesn't sound "anti-establishment" to me. Usually the term "anti-establishment" is used to refer to people who are opposed to large corporations, rather than the demographic who voted the CEO of several of them into office.
- kebman 10y ago
  A monopoly is not a private company. That is all. Anti-trust or freedom of speech. Take your pick.
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  Private companies are the current gatekeepers to free speech, to propaganda, to censorship, to surveillance. They can not disregard human rights and principles of free society any more than a government can - just as they can not violate human rights. Just because its an oligarch and not a politician, the rules of a free and just society don't suddenly change. Private companies have some property. Their property rights do not supercede human rights. Then, another solution would be to dismantle the oligarchic model of economic management and provide the mass of people with the property rights of the platforms of their own free speech. But I suspect that our society isn't ready for anything that radical and must in the meantime merely hold private property accountable for its partnership with government to circumvent sovereignty restrictions.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  You're conflating "Freedom of speech" with "The right to be listened to" and "The right to have a platform". Those concepts are inherently fuzzy and related in messy ways. Back in the day, AT&T claimed that it had built its long-distance network, and that it was in its rights to exclude others from using it. The effect of this was monopoly, however, so regulators stepped in and new laws were passed. If "de-platforming" has the effect of censorship, then it might as well be censorship. If de-platforming resulted in no-one wanting to listen to certain speakers, then it would be private citizens convincing other private citizens in a way consistent with democratic values. But in actuality, de-platforming as practiced on college campuses often results in a group of people too intimidated to talk and too intimidated to attend, contrary to their desires. It's not convincing people. It's threatening and bullying them while just avoiding running afoul of law enforcement. (Or, in some cases, showing up in large enough numbers to frustrate law enforcement.) Would you really call those people anti-establishment? They voted in favour of the corruption of the political system Do you actually believe that all of them knew that's what they were doing? I know for a fact that some subset of them want the system to get more corrupt, so it will collapse sooner. David Pakman recently interviewed an ex-white supremacist who claimed that subgroup voted for Trump so the system would fail sooner.

by kebman 10y ago

fao_ 10y ago

> We absolutely must have democracy and freedom of speech. You're conflating "Freedom of speech" with "The right to be listened to" and "The right to have a platform". The government isn't going to hunt these people down because they have expressed Foo views, nor is, for example, Google. Google, YouTube, Facebook, etc. as private companies are allowed to decide what they do and do not want on their platform (Excluding certain illegal materials, of course). When they do this, they are not violating the freedom of speech of the individuals whose views they remove. EDIT: "anti-establishment rednecks, patriots, anti-immigrationitsts and right wingers who got Trump into power." Would you really call those people anti-establishment? They voted in favour of the corruption of the political system and the succumbing of the tattered remains of it to the forces of lobbying and large businesses. That certainly doesn't sound "anti-establishment" to me. Usually the term "anti-establishment" is used to refer to people who are opposed to large corporations, rather than the demographic who voted the CEO of several of them into office.

kebman 10y ago
A monopoly is not a private company. That is all. Anti-trust or freedom of speech. Take your pick.
jwtadvice 10y ago
Private companies are the current gatekeepers to free speech, to propaganda, to censorship, to surveillance. They can not disregard human rights and principles of free society any more than a government can - just as they can not violate human rights. Just because its an oligarch and not a politician, the rules of a free and just society don't suddenly change. Private companies have some property. Their property rights do not supercede human rights. Then, another solution would be to dismantle the oligarchic model of economic management and provide the mass of people with the property rights of the platforms of their own free speech. But I suspect that our society isn't ready for anything that radical and must in the meantime merely hold private property accountable for its partnership with government to circumvent sovereignty restrictions.
stcredzero 10y ago
You're conflating "Freedom of speech" with "The right to be listened to" and "The right to have a platform". Those concepts are inherently fuzzy and related in messy ways. Back in the day, AT&T claimed that it had built its long-distance network, and that it was in its rights to exclude others from using it. The effect of this was monopoly, however, so regulators stepped in and new laws were passed. If "de-platforming" has the effect of censorship, then it might as well be censorship. If de-platforming resulted in no-one wanting to listen to certain speakers, then it would be private citizens convincing other private citizens in a way consistent with democratic values. But in actuality, de-platforming as practiced on college campuses often results in a group of people too intimidated to talk and too intimidated to attend, contrary to their desires. It's not convincing people. It's threatening and bullying them while just avoiding running afoul of law enforcement. (Or, in some cases, showing up in large enough numbers to frustrate law enforcement.) Would you really call those people anti-establishment? They voted in favour of the corruption of the political system Do you actually believe that all of them knew that's what they were doing? I know for a fact that some subset of them want the system to get more corrupt, so it will collapse sooner. David Pakman recently interviewed an ex-white supremacist who claimed that subgroup voted for Trump so the system would fail sooner.