5 ms·

A huge chunk of millennials are non longer believe in free speech [0], and everyone seems to agree that Facebook et. al's censorship of objectionable content is

A huge chunk of millennials are non longer believe in free speech [0], and everyone seems to agree that Facebook et. al's censorship of objectionable content is great. Between the insanity of the current government/far right, and the rise of the far/tankie left, I'm not sure that liberalism is long for this world, even in the West. [0] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millen...

pjc50 9y ago
> everyone seems to agree that Facebook et. al's censorship of objectionable content is great Hardly. Especially on the left. Including such issues as the ban on breastfeeding photos, ban on trans people using their names, and widespread failure to ban hate speech. (I'm sure I've seen one case of someone recieving a pile of death threats, reporting them, getting told they were "not offensive", then reposting them as an image to say what sort of garbage facebook tolerates .. and then getting that post deleted by facebook. But not any of the original abuse.)
- ravenstine 9y ago
  Just because they advocate freedom to express those ideas does not mean they advocate freedom of speech as a whole. Talking about anything not in the liberal vogue right now opens one up to a world of hurt that wasn't as prevalent even 10 years ago. Bring up being against draconian gun control and, depending on where you live and how large your social circle is, you might get a reputation for being a bunch of things you're not. I'm often seen as a conservative for bringing up the fact that violent crime in America is down, or challenging misconceptions about GMOs or criticizing Bill Nye the Science Guy(no, I'm not kidding), or even so much as questioning the accuracy of the gender pay gap statistic. Yet I have nothing in common with the kind of "conservatives" people are talking about. In fact I'd argue that almost all of my actual positions are far more liberal and progressive than that of most liberals. The problem is that free speech of any value has to be facilitated by the likes of Facebook and other companies. If companies control who gets banned for saying something, and their goal is largely profit-driven, and the consensus is to make communication habitable for the most consumers(as opposed to actual expression of ideas beyond vapid Instagram photos), we are essentially screwed. The left is at an advantage because they have the facade of being the ones who fight for social injustice and those who are "historically oppressed", which are things that most people, including many conservatives, can't really argue against on face value; when they are handed the keys to media power, they behave just as conservative religious fundamentalists would, just with their own particular set of ideas that are not always congruent. That is why I find the public's support of censorship, and the socially-acceptable level of vexation over "offensive" ideas, to be very disturbing. I find that I cannot even trust a large number of people who I know, and I think many people have discovered the same thing, which is why platforms like Facebook have turned into digital ghettos.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    > world of hurt that wasn't as prevalent even 10 years ago Well this sounds unfortunate ... > might get a reputation for being a bunch of things you're not .. but that's just other people's free speech? > I'm often seen as a conservative for bringing up the fact that violent crime in America is down True, and also free speech. I'm slightly surprised this labels you as a conservative. I'm not really seeing the "world of hurt", just a world of other people's free speech?
    - BearGoesChirp 9y ago
      >.. but that's just other people's free speech? No. That saying "Hey, I want to own my own semi auto rifle." leads to someone thinking you are alt-right has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Their expressing their view of you being alt-right does, but the logical jump itself does not. Now, people are free to think what ever they want. Not exactly given in a single Amendment, but people would agree holding some belief is a freedom. But we can still say that some beliefs being wide spread is a bad thing. >True, and also free speech. Their spreading their view of grandparent as being conservative is free speech. Their actually having this view is not related to free speech at all. Take a comparison, imagine extremely racist views became extremely widespread and people kept bringing them up. Even though this is free speech, we still put limits on it. For example, the notion of creating a hostile work environment and the penalties that can bring.
dalbasal 9y ago
Interesting survey, but political opinion surveys are tricky and I think it's hard to say anything concrete. The ideal "find your words despicable but defend your right to say them" is not all that common in practice, never has been. It's an idealist's position. I'd guess that the results have more to do with political leanings on the underlying issue, than the free speech one. IE, the more concerned with hate speech, the more illiberal they are in the survey. Change "offensive to minority groups" to "spread lies about the President," and I suspect a different spread. It needs to be courts who defend these things and they'll do it, if the laws are there.
cremno 9y ago
So-called tankies are pretty much irrelevant though.
forapurpose 9y ago
> tankie Tankies? I think of that as the Communists who supported Stalin's invasion of Hungary in the 1950s. What does that mean here?
- JBReefer 9y ago
  Yeah - there's a ton of them around the internet these days. Tankies are the sort of people who defend the Venezuelan and North Korean governments on r/socialism, for example. I have no idea what chunk of the actual population they are, but I know a lot of people in Antifa self identify as tankies. I could be wrong though, usually am.
jliptzin 9y ago
While I agree that it's stunning and alarming if true that 40% of millennials think the gov't should be allowed to arrest people for making racist statements, I don't see where Facebook fits into this situation. They are a private organization and should be allowed to do whatever they feel is necessary to protect their business interests (within legal limits). Personally I don't really use Facebook anymore for a host of reasons. If they want to start filtering all kinds of speech they disagree with, they can go ahead at the risk of losing members. But I don't have a problem with it. Every organization has its skew whether you see it or not.
SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
I don't recall a time in history when publishers (what Facebook et al. are) were required or expected to publish whatever any random person or organizations opinions. Furthermore, the country most in favor of limiting free speech to protect minorities, Germany(70% pro, 29% against, total population) , ironically has the most experience with the dangers of both extremes of allowances on speech. On one hand the Nazi's were able to rise to power partly because they were able to publicly scapegoat groups of people who were eventually slaughtered en mass. On the other hand you have the Stasi who would torture and murder people based on a whiff of being critical of the ruling party. Look, I'm for free speech, but lets not pretend that its an issue that doesn't require a modicum of nuance to approach.
- ntuch 9y ago
  > publishers (what Facebook et al. are) They're not publishers, so your argument falls apart in the very first sentence. I don't recall a time in history when services (what Facebook et al. are) were allowed to police the content of communications made with their service. I don't recall AT&T, when they allow customers to communicate using their telephone lines, being allowed to police the content of those communications. I don't allow printer manufacturers being allowed to police the things people print. Before you reach for the keyboard to type the words, "that's different" - no, no it's not. It's not different at all. Facebook offers a service. They aren't publishers. My analogy is closer to reality than yours. It just so happens that Facebook is technically able to police my speech, and so you've chosen to shrug and say it's okay. If AT&T had been technically capable of listening to my speech and policing it, what argument would you make that they shouldn't be allowed to do that? Whatever argument you come up with, I make the same argument for facebook. > I'm for free speech, but "...but I'm not really for free speech." It's all or nothing. You either accept it as a principle because you understand that it's literally the most important principle, or you don't. In your case, you don't.
  - erikpukinskis 9y ago
    I find this metaphorical argumentation incredibly boring. Either Facebook is a metaphor for the phone company, or it's a metaphor for a publisher. Who cares? Maybe we need a third category. Maybe we need to end common carriers entirely. We're obviously treading new ground here. Let's argue about proposed law, how it works, and cost/benefit analysis. What law you would write and who it should apply to? You think Facebook should be mandated to host all non-illegal content, yes? What about Flickr? What about Gardening.com? What about NoNazisAllowed.com? What would you propose as the legal standard for deciding who is a common carrier and who is not? I don't have a horse in this race, but let's at least start the discussion with something concrete.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
heurist 9y ago
Let's deal with one issue at a time. Our current government actively suppresses minority votes - a step beyond suppressing speech. Get rid of that then redo the survey in 10 years and you'll see a shift back toward freedom of speech. If you're going to uphold a principle for one group then you need to uphold it for all groups. If you don't do that then why should it apply to any group?
guelo 9y ago
> tankie left I had to look that one up. A tankie is a hardline stalinist who defends old USSR policies in all cases. I really have a hard time believing that there is a rise in people like that. The whole "antifa is just as bad"/"hard right and hard left are the same" thing just helps mask the real rise of the alt-right who have amassed a lot of power, they just helped elect a president. The hard-left has nowhere near that much power.

pjc50 9y ago

> everyone seems to agree that Facebook et. al's censorship of objectionable content is great Hardly. Especially on the left. Including such issues as the ban on breastfeeding photos, ban on trans people using their names, and widespread failure to ban hate speech. (I'm sure I've seen one case of someone recieving a pile of death threats, reporting them, getting told they were "not offensive", then reposting them as an image to say what sort of garbage facebook tolerates .. and then getting that post deleted by facebook. But not any of the original abuse.)

ravenstine 9y ago
Just because they advocate freedom to express those ideas does not mean they advocate freedom of speech as a whole. Talking about anything not in the liberal vogue right now opens one up to a world of hurt that wasn't as prevalent even 10 years ago. Bring up being against draconian gun control and, depending on where you live and how large your social circle is, you might get a reputation for being a bunch of things you're not. I'm often seen as a conservative for bringing up the fact that violent crime in America is down, or challenging misconceptions about GMOs or criticizing Bill Nye the Science Guy(no, I'm not kidding), or even so much as questioning the accuracy of the gender pay gap statistic. Yet I have nothing in common with the kind of "conservatives" people are talking about. In fact I'd argue that almost all of my actual positions are far more liberal and progressive than that of most liberals. The problem is that free speech of any value has to be facilitated by the likes of Facebook and other companies. If companies control who gets banned for saying something, and their goal is largely profit-driven, and the consensus is to make communication habitable for the most consumers(as opposed to actual expression of ideas beyond vapid Instagram photos), we are essentially screwed. The left is at an advantage because they have the facade of being the ones who fight for social injustice and those who are "historically oppressed", which are things that most people, including many conservatives, can't really argue against on face value; when they are handed the keys to media power, they behave just as conservative religious fundamentalists would, just with their own particular set of ideas that are not always congruent. That is why I find the public's support of censorship, and the socially-acceptable level of vexation over "offensive" ideas, to be very disturbing. I find that I cannot even trust a large number of people who I know, and I think many people have discovered the same thing, which is why platforms like Facebook have turned into digital ghettos.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > world of hurt that wasn't as prevalent even 10 years ago Well this sounds unfortunate ... > might get a reputation for being a bunch of things you're not .. but that's just other people's free speech? > I'm often seen as a conservative for bringing up the fact that violent crime in America is down True, and also free speech. I'm slightly surprised this labels you as a conservative. I'm not really seeing the "world of hurt", just a world of other people's free speech?
  - BearGoesChirp 9y ago
    >.. but that's just other people's free speech? No. That saying "Hey, I want to own my own semi auto rifle." leads to someone thinking you are alt-right has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Their expressing their view of you being alt-right does, but the logical jump itself does not. Now, people are free to think what ever they want. Not exactly given in a single Amendment, but people would agree holding some belief is a freedom. But we can still say that some beliefs being wide spread is a bad thing. >True, and also free speech. Their spreading their view of grandparent as being conservative is free speech. Their actually having this view is not related to free speech at all. Take a comparison, imagine extremely racist views became extremely widespread and people kept bringing them up. Even though this is free speech, we still put limits on it. For example, the notion of creating a hostile work environment and the penalties that can bring.

dalbasal 9y ago

Interesting survey, but political opinion surveys are tricky and I think it's hard to say anything concrete. The ideal "find your words despicable but defend your right to say them" is not all that common in practice, never has been. It's an idealist's position. I'd guess that the results have more to do with political leanings on the underlying issue, than the free speech one. IE, the more concerned with hate speech, the more illiberal they are in the survey. Change "offensive to minority groups" to "spread lies about the President," and I suspect a different spread. It needs to be courts who defend these things and they'll do it, if the laws are there.

cremno 9y ago

So-called tankies are pretty much irrelevant though.

forapurpose 9y ago

> tankie Tankies? I think of that as the Communists who supported Stalin's invasion of Hungary in the 1950s. What does that mean here?

JBReefer 9y ago
Yeah - there's a ton of them around the internet these days. Tankies are the sort of people who defend the Venezuelan and North Korean governments on r/socialism, for example. I have no idea what chunk of the actual population they are, but I know a lot of people in Antifa self identify as tankies. I could be wrong though, usually am.

jliptzin 9y ago

While I agree that it's stunning and alarming if true that 40% of millennials think the gov't should be allowed to arrest people for making racist statements, I don't see where Facebook fits into this situation. They are a private organization and should be allowed to do whatever they feel is necessary to protect their business interests (within legal limits). Personally I don't really use Facebook anymore for a host of reasons. If they want to start filtering all kinds of speech they disagree with, they can go ahead at the risk of losing members. But I don't have a problem with it. Every organization has its skew whether you see it or not.

SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago

I don't recall a time in history when publishers (what Facebook et al. are) were required or expected to publish whatever any random person or organizations opinions. Furthermore, the country most in favor of limiting free speech to protect minorities, Germany(70% pro, 29% against, total population) , ironically has the most experience with the dangers of both extremes of allowances on speech. On one hand the Nazi's were able to rise to power partly because they were able to publicly scapegoat groups of people who were eventually slaughtered en mass. On the other hand you have the Stasi who would torture and murder people based on a whiff of being critical of the ruling party. Look, I'm for free speech, but lets not pretend that its an issue that doesn't require a modicum of nuance to approach.

ntuch 9y ago
> publishers (what Facebook et al. are) They're not publishers, so your argument falls apart in the very first sentence. I don't recall a time in history when services (what Facebook et al. are) were allowed to police the content of communications made with their service. I don't recall AT&T, when they allow customers to communicate using their telephone lines, being allowed to police the content of those communications. I don't allow printer manufacturers being allowed to police the things people print. Before you reach for the keyboard to type the words, "that's different" - no, no it's not. It's not different at all. Facebook offers a service. They aren't publishers. My analogy is closer to reality than yours. It just so happens that Facebook is technically able to police my speech, and so you've chosen to shrug and say it's okay. If AT&T had been technically capable of listening to my speech and policing it, what argument would you make that they shouldn't be allowed to do that? Whatever argument you come up with, I make the same argument for facebook. > I'm for free speech, but "...but I'm not really for free speech." It's all or nothing. You either accept it as a principle because you understand that it's literally the most important principle, or you don't. In your case, you don't.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  I find this metaphorical argumentation incredibly boring. Either Facebook is a metaphor for the phone company, or it's a metaphor for a publisher. Who cares? Maybe we need a third category. Maybe we need to end common carriers entirely. We're obviously treading new ground here. Let's argue about proposed law, how it works, and cost/benefit analysis. What law you would write and who it should apply to? You think Facebook should be mandated to host all non-illegal content, yes? What about Flickr? What about Gardening.com? What about NoNazisAllowed.com? What would you propose as the legal standard for deciding who is a common carrier and who is not? I don't have a horse in this race, but let's at least start the discussion with something concrete.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

heurist 9y ago

Let's deal with one issue at a time. Our current government actively suppresses minority votes - a step beyond suppressing speech. Get rid of that then redo the survey in 10 years and you'll see a shift back toward freedom of speech. If you're going to uphold a principle for one group then you need to uphold it for all groups. If you don't do that then why should it apply to any group?

guelo 9y ago

> tankie left I had to look that one up. A tankie is a hardline stalinist who defends old USSR policies in all cases. I really have a hard time believing that there is a rise in people like that. The whole "antifa is just as bad"/"hard right and hard left are the same" thing just helps mask the real rise of the alt-right who have amassed a lot of power, they just helped elect a president. The hard-left has nowhere near that much power.