5 ms·

I've noticed some people on Twitter, including Susan Fowler and Kara Swisher, saying free speech is only a protection against government intrusion and doesn't a

I've noticed some people on Twitter, including Susan Fowler and Kara Swisher, saying free speech is only a protection against government intrusion and doesn't apply in the corporate sector. That seems to be mirrored in this article. The only thing I'd say is that those people should think carefully. Denouncing and shrinking rights such as free speech and normalising their role as negative rights when it is convenient to do so will work against their agenda, and is in common with how people like Trump view other rights

hellogoodbyeeee 9y ago
I think you missed the point. Nobody is shrinking or denouncing rights because right of free speech never protected against corporate sector sanctions. You are the one who is trying to expand free speech to protect you in places that no one intended.
- snewk 9y ago
  maybe we need to re-evaluate free speech protections to bring them into alignment with today’s world, where certain corporations can be (arguably) more powerful than governments
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- eelliott 9y ago
  That's arguable. Do you mean the right to free speech as found in the US Constitution doesn't extend to the corporate sector? That's true, SCOTUS agrees thus far. Does some right to free speech not sourced in law, but perhaps morality or elsewhere, or even rooted in democracy, extend anywhere? I think that's well arguable.
senectus1 9y ago
did the author shot gun the manifesto or just send it to a few colleagues? How did it spread so far? The difference is that one is a few people discussing a thought bubble (good for everyone) the other is inappropriate use of company facilities (not good for everyone or the company). the first one is not in itself sack-able... but the other may very well be a sack-able offence.
- throwgoog452 9y ago
  The author was trapped. He shared the document to the "skeptics" internal group asking for feedback. He didn't realize that the skeptics group had been infected by SJWs for years. They swarmed him. It was like dropping a steak in a shark tank.
  - senectus1 9y ago
    yeah ok, this is not really the fault of the author then. sharing idea's on a small scale is good for everyone, sharing controversial or reprehensible is inadvisable but forgivable. Those that went public with it, or spread it in outrage need a damned good talking to at least. but really, I'd say the guy has learned a lot.... it may even make him a better person, isn't that everyone's desire?
  - flukus 9y ago
    > The author was trapped. He shared the document to the "skeptics" internal group asking for feedback. He didn't realize that the skeptics group had been infected by SJWs for years. Sounds like a company sponsored honey pot, even more ammo for an unfair dismissal lawsuit.
badlucklottery 9y ago
The issue is that consequence-free speech quickly bumps up against the paradox of tolerance. I think there can be a debate around where the cutoff line for what's acceptable is but no line at all most likely won't work.
- Overtonwindow 9y ago
  As a general matter, the fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.
  - badlucklottery 9y ago
    It's not about suppressing speech because it's offensive, it's about suppressing intolerance to preserve tolerance.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  Free-speech is pretty well defined in the US - Who is defining "tolerance"?
tzm 9y ago
Free speech is not free of consequence.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  Then on what basis is it free? Can I also fire pro-diversity employees?
c3534l 9y ago
Ironically the primary benefit of free speech was central to the article: you don't just need people who look different from each other, but think different from each other. It's sad to see that we're increasingly putting ourselves in information bubbles at the same time that our culture has decided that we should punish thoughtcrime. But Google can't really tolerate people with controversial opinions because, ironically, the legal environment. If a person says the wrong thing, the courts will say it created a discriminatory environment. And now that even discussing controversial topics is off the table, I don't see how we can really expect things to improve. We'll just wind up with an increasingly divided society with each part living in their own alternate reality.
PKop 9y ago
I think it's hilarious you would bring Trump into this example of Silicon Valley PC-group think run amok. This type of collective mob mentality lashing out at "wrongthink" is why Trump won the election. This is no more common than with people who hate Trump. This is par for the course with Social Justice Warriors who treat a person's well reasoned point of view citing data as unacceptable sexism that must be eradicated, so he gets fired. And then you blame Trump. Boggles my mind..
- eelliott 9y ago
  I think you don't understand my comment. I am saying that the people doing what you describe have similarities with Trump.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > This type of collective mob mentality lashing out at "wrongthink" is why Trump won the election. No, he won with the help of the gutted Voting Rights Act, ridiculously gerrymandered districts, and an electoral college that gives far too much weight to rural racists.

hellogoodbyeeee 9y ago

I think you missed the point. Nobody is shrinking or denouncing rights because right of free speech never protected against corporate sector sanctions. You are the one who is trying to expand free speech to protect you in places that no one intended.

snewk 9y ago
maybe we need to re-evaluate free speech protections to bring them into alignment with today’s world, where certain corporations can be (arguably) more powerful than governments
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
eelliott 9y ago
That's arguable. Do you mean the right to free speech as found in the US Constitution doesn't extend to the corporate sector? That's true, SCOTUS agrees thus far. Does some right to free speech not sourced in law, but perhaps morality or elsewhere, or even rooted in democracy, extend anywhere? I think that's well arguable.

senectus1 9y ago

did the author shot gun the manifesto or just send it to a few colleagues? How did it spread so far? The difference is that one is a few people discussing a thought bubble (good for everyone) the other is inappropriate use of company facilities (not good for everyone or the company). the first one is not in itself sack-able... but the other may very well be a sack-able offence.

throwgoog452 9y ago
The author was trapped. He shared the document to the "skeptics" internal group asking for feedback. He didn't realize that the skeptics group had been infected by SJWs for years. They swarmed him. It was like dropping a steak in a shark tank.
- senectus1 9y ago
  yeah ok, this is not really the fault of the author then. sharing idea's on a small scale is good for everyone, sharing controversial or reprehensible is inadvisable but forgivable. Those that went public with it, or spread it in outrage need a damned good talking to at least. but really, I'd say the guy has learned a lot.... it may even make him a better person, isn't that everyone's desire?
- flukus 9y ago
  > The author was trapped. He shared the document to the "skeptics" internal group asking for feedback. He didn't realize that the skeptics group had been infected by SJWs for years. Sounds like a company sponsored honey pot, even more ammo for an unfair dismissal lawsuit.

badlucklottery 9y ago

The issue is that consequence-free speech quickly bumps up against the paradox of tolerance. I think there can be a debate around where the cutoff line for what's acceptable is but no line at all most likely won't work.

Overtonwindow 9y ago
As a general matter, the fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.
- badlucklottery 9y ago
  It's not about suppressing speech because it's offensive, it's about suppressing intolerance to preserve tolerance.
Chris2048 9y ago
Free-speech is pretty well defined in the US - Who is defining "tolerance"?

tzm 9y ago

Free speech is not free of consequence.

Chris2048 9y ago
Then on what basis is it free? Can I also fire pro-diversity employees?

c3534l 9y ago

Ironically the primary benefit of free speech was central to the article: you don't just need people who look different from each other, but think different from each other. It's sad to see that we're increasingly putting ourselves in information bubbles at the same time that our culture has decided that we should punish thoughtcrime. But Google can't really tolerate people with controversial opinions because, ironically, the legal environment. If a person says the wrong thing, the courts will say it created a discriminatory environment. And now that even discussing controversial topics is off the table, I don't see how we can really expect things to improve. We'll just wind up with an increasingly divided society with each part living in their own alternate reality.

PKop 9y ago

I think it's hilarious you would bring Trump into this example of Silicon Valley PC-group think run amok. This type of collective mob mentality lashing out at "wrongthink" is why Trump won the election. This is no more common than with people who hate Trump. This is par for the course with Social Justice Warriors who treat a person's well reasoned point of view citing data as unacceptable sexism that must be eradicated, so he gets fired. And then you blame Trump. Boggles my mind..

eelliott 9y ago
I think you don't understand my comment. I am saying that the people doing what you describe have similarities with Trump.
zimpenfish 9y ago
> This type of collective mob mentality lashing out at "wrongthink" is why Trump won the election. No, he won with the help of the gutted Voting Rights Act, ridiculously gerrymandered districts, and an electoral college that gives far too much weight to rural racists.