3 ms·

Freedom means freedom for anyone, including nazi, antifa, 4chan, voat.co and 8chan well sure, but doesn't freedom also mean you're allowed to select whether or

by stinos 9y ago

Freedom means freedom for anyone, including nazi, antifa, 4chan, voat.co and 8chan well sure, but doesn't freedom also mean you're allowed to select whether or not you want to host their websites?

iknow44 9y ago
sure, they can select, that's part of freedom. But if you are saying like google, duckduckgo, wikipedia, other "freedom sites" that you promote freedoom and free speech and then you just ban unpopular or sometimes wrong or nazi views, cutting the discussion and sometimes the chance to explain to other site your views/convince then you don't promote freedoom or free speech.
falcolas 9y ago
The entire internet infrastructure is controlled by private companies. Many of which are incorporated in the US. If you hold to the belief that internet infrastructure companies should be free to censor anything and everything they want to, there is no such thing as free speech on the internet. That future is not one I personally subscribe to; I believe in the basic human right to express one self, and as ubiquitous as the internet is as a means of communication, that means people must be free to express themselves on the internet.
- stinos 9y ago
  that means people must be free to express themselves on the internet If that expression of freedom happens to be not wanting to let certain others express their freedom via your infrastructure then there's a problem. Because there's 2 parties, each having the freedom to express themselves. By your saying A should let B express themselves, but that takes away freedom from A. Likewise I'm advocating that A should have the freedom to not let B express themselves even though, yes, that takes away freedom from B. So this is a tough one, because none of both solutions lets each party have full freedom. In such cases you need to look further. What I see here, is that B spreads hatred and as such, in my opinion, does way more damage to certain groups and humankind in general if you will than the damage done by A. So, since there must be a choice, I'd rather have some freedom taken away from B here.

by stinos 9y ago

Freedom means freedom for anyone, including nazi, antifa, 4chan, voat.co and 8chan well sure, but doesn't freedom also mean you're allowed to select whether or not you want to host their websites?

iknow44 9y ago

sure, they can select, that's part of freedom. But if you are saying like google, duckduckgo, wikipedia, other "freedom sites" that you promote freedoom and free speech and then you just ban unpopular or sometimes wrong or nazi views, cutting the discussion and sometimes the chance to explain to other site your views/convince then you don't promote freedoom or free speech.

falcolas 9y ago

The entire internet infrastructure is controlled by private companies. Many of which are incorporated in the US. If you hold to the belief that internet infrastructure companies should be free to censor anything and everything they want to, there is no such thing as free speech on the internet. That future is not one I personally subscribe to; I believe in the basic human right to express one self, and as ubiquitous as the internet is as a means of communication, that means people must be free to express themselves on the internet.

stinos 9y ago
that means people must be free to express themselves on the internet If that expression of freedom happens to be not wanting to let certain others express their freedom via your infrastructure then there's a problem. Because there's 2 parties, each having the freedom to express themselves. By your saying A should let B express themselves, but that takes away freedom from A. Likewise I'm advocating that A should have the freedom to not let B express themselves even though, yes, that takes away freedom from B. So this is a tough one, because none of both solutions lets each party have full freedom. In such cases you need to look further. What I see here, is that B spreads hatred and as such, in my opinion, does way more damage to certain groups and humankind in general if you will than the damage done by A. So, since there must be a choice, I'd rather have some freedom taken away from B here.