5 ms·

Pretty much, yes. I've made known my views on freedom of expression. I'm a very strong proponent, to the point where I've recently been forced to defend Nazis.

by KGIII 9y ago

Pretty much, yes. I've made known my views on freedom of expression. I'm a very strong proponent, to the point where I've recently been forced to defend Nazis. Politically/socially correct speech doesn't need to be defended. However wrong someone is, the liberty to express their views, within the bounds of reasonable law, should be a social goal, not just an amendment that restricts the government. What is socially acceptable today may not be socially acceptable tomorrow. What power is used against your enemies today may be used against you tomorrow.

fixermark 9y ago
While true, it seems this leads to the conclusion "periodically review who has the power to moderate," not "don't moderate."
- KGIII 9y ago
  Oh, to be clear, Reddit can do whatever they want on their site. I was speaking to the larger. And, yes, I believe in freedom of expression. Even ideas that are hateful. No, no I'm not white. So, I'm not saying this because I want to say hateful things. In fact, I don't hate anyone. I don't even have anything controversial to say, except to support the liberty of free speech.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
MrZongle2 9y ago
I'm astounded that on HN, of all places, you've been downvoted for what was considered obvious a generation ago, and obvious to anyone who has lived under authoritarian rule.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Usually, as I've said much the same before, I get down votes and then someone comes along and actually reads what I wrote, as opposed to knee jerking to the idea that I support Nazis. In fact, I support basic human rights for everyone. Some people are uncomfortable with that idea. It's okay, I have karma to spare. I'm not in it for the points. I'm in it to express the idea of liberty. Many people only want liberty for themselves and those they approve of, or so it seems. Edited to add: See? It's back in the positives. It will bounce around a bit, but liberty is still popular. I think some people don't read what I wrote, so much as they insert ideas about what they think I wrote. Another post in this thread suffers similarly. It's all good.
  - mcguire 9y ago
    On the other hand, where does speech stop and actions start? Where does liberty stop and mob assault start? Are death threats covered by freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is an important right and necessary part of true liberty, but the people in the situations in question aren't exactly engaging in reasoned debate. Speaking of which, "only want liberty for themselves and those they approve of"? Really?
    - KGIII 9y ago
      It becomes unlawful when there is credible threat explicitly stated, then there are libel and slander laws. Death threats, when credible, are illegal and justifiably so. See my first post. And yes, really. See the replies to my post. Note, specifically, the comment regarding votes. I stand by my assertion. The evidence supports it.
    - MrZongle2 9y ago
      "...but the people in the situations in question aren't exactly engaging in reasoned debate." In this case, I agree. But like "obscenity" or "pornography", determining what is reasonable or not is a slippery slope. Promoting concentration camps? Not reasonable. Protesting military action? Probably reasonable. What about protesting military action against a country that runs concentration camps? (As North Korea does run these types of prison camps, and the chance of military involvement with the DPRK seems higher than ever, this is not a completely academic scenario)
- koenigdavidmj 9y ago
  Since Charlottesville, there have been two changes in public discourse that I've noticed. First, free speech even for despicable positions is now equivalent to Nazism in the eyes of many. Second, Westboro-style language is now acceptable if the victims are the South. Plenty of people being unironically joyful over the hurricanes.
haburka 9y ago
People do have the liberty to express their views in the sense that they have no trouble from the law with what they've said online. They do not lose their right to vote because of it. That's freedom of speech. However, being censored by an organization is something that's very healthy for any organization of a decent size. It helps to keep the mission and culture of the organization consistent with what it's designed for. In reddits case, it decided that it would not harbor hate speech because it didn't want to make its culture include that. This is very similar to a group of friends not inviting you to drinks after you repeatedly said that you think genocide is a good solution. It's censorship! Which, if done by the government, can be bad. But it's something that we all do when we want to change the culture of our group. It is very puzzling to me that so many smart people on hacker news do not understand why it's beneficial.
- KGIII 9y ago
  I am not sure that you read my post? What are you addressing, specifically? I can probably give a better reply if you help me out.

by KGIII 9y ago

fixermark 9y ago

While true, it seems this leads to the conclusion "periodically review who has the power to moderate," not "don't moderate."

KGIII 9y ago
Oh, to be clear, Reddit can do whatever they want on their site. I was speaking to the larger. And, yes, I believe in freedom of expression. Even ideas that are hateful. No, no I'm not white. So, I'm not saying this because I want to say hateful things. In fact, I don't hate anyone. I don't even have anything controversial to say, except to support the liberty of free speech.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

MrZongle2 9y ago

I'm astounded that on HN, of all places, you've been downvoted for what was considered obvious a generation ago, and obvious to anyone who has lived under authoritarian rule.

KGIII 9y ago
Usually, as I've said much the same before, I get down votes and then someone comes along and actually reads what I wrote, as opposed to knee jerking to the idea that I support Nazis. In fact, I support basic human rights for everyone. Some people are uncomfortable with that idea. It's okay, I have karma to spare. I'm not in it for the points. I'm in it to express the idea of liberty. Many people only want liberty for themselves and those they approve of, or so it seems. Edited to add: See? It's back in the positives. It will bounce around a bit, but liberty is still popular. I think some people don't read what I wrote, so much as they insert ideas about what they think I wrote. Another post in this thread suffers similarly. It's all good.
- mcguire 9y ago
  On the other hand, where does speech stop and actions start? Where does liberty stop and mob assault start? Are death threats covered by freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is an important right and necessary part of true liberty, but the people in the situations in question aren't exactly engaging in reasoned debate. Speaking of which, "only want liberty for themselves and those they approve of"? Really?
  - KGIII 9y ago
    It becomes unlawful when there is credible threat explicitly stated, then there are libel and slander laws. Death threats, when credible, are illegal and justifiably so. See my first post. And yes, really. See the replies to my post. Note, specifically, the comment regarding votes. I stand by my assertion. The evidence supports it.
  - MrZongle2 9y ago
    "...but the people in the situations in question aren't exactly engaging in reasoned debate." In this case, I agree. But like "obscenity" or "pornography", determining what is reasonable or not is a slippery slope. Promoting concentration camps? Not reasonable. Protesting military action? Probably reasonable. What about protesting military action against a country that runs concentration camps? (As North Korea does run these types of prison camps, and the chance of military involvement with the DPRK seems higher than ever, this is not a completely academic scenario)
koenigdavidmj 9y ago
Since Charlottesville, there have been two changes in public discourse that I've noticed. First, free speech even for despicable positions is now equivalent to Nazism in the eyes of many. Second, Westboro-style language is now acceptable if the victims are the South. Plenty of people being unironically joyful over the hurricanes.

haburka 9y ago

People do have the liberty to express their views in the sense that they have no trouble from the law with what they've said online. They do not lose their right to vote because of it. That's freedom of speech. However, being censored by an organization is something that's very healthy for any organization of a decent size. It helps to keep the mission and culture of the organization consistent with what it's designed for. In reddits case, it decided that it would not harbor hate speech because it didn't want to make its culture include that. This is very similar to a group of friends not inviting you to drinks after you repeatedly said that you think genocide is a good solution. It's censorship! Which, if done by the government, can be bad. But it's something that we all do when we want to change the culture of our group. It is very puzzling to me that so many smart people on hacker news do not understand why it's beneficial.

KGIII 9y ago
I am not sure that you read my post? What are you addressing, specifically? I can probably give a better reply if you help me out.