4 ms·

That’s not the same thing. It’s much easier to just disengage on the Internet than in person. Presumably if this person is at your house you’d know them, which

That’s not the same thing. It’s much easier to just disengage on the Internet than in person. Presumably if this person is at your house you’d know them, which would add an element of emotional drama that isn’t there when some random person on frog twitter is posting Pepe memes. Just, like, look away.

burkaman 9y ago
In this analogy, Twitter is the host, users are guests. If a racist asshole shows up at the party, everyone else can easily disengage, by just leaving. Should the host just leave the door open and sit in the back making sure the lights stay on, prioritizing absolute free speech over who is having a good time? Or should they kick out toxic guests, so the people they like will stay?
- pls2halp 9y ago
  But if someone shows up wearing a black coat and jackboots because they think they look cool(or posting pepe memes because they think the images are funny), can you brand them as racist and kick them out?
  - burkaman 9y ago
    You sure can, especially if they're making the party uncomfortable and unpleasant for the rest of your guests. Their crime is not so much dressing like a Nazi, but intentionally antagonizing other people for no reason. If it wasn't intentional, they should note the reactions, take other people into consideration, and either leave or correct their behavior. Why don't other people have to consider the Nazi-dresser's feelings? Well, they do. They'll consider them for 10 seconds, realize there is no legitimate reason to be dressed like that, and rightfully suspect bad intentions. If you want to be accepted into a community, earn it. Other people have no obligation to tolerate your presence and listen to your speech. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to be heard.
    - remarkEon 9y ago
      This is such a dangerous path to go down, and it's really easy to see where we end up. Let's say I'm vehemently anti-abortion, and have a YouTube channel where I discuss that topic. If some sufficient amount of users find my content "intentionally antagonizing" I could be de-platformed. YouTube is perfectly within their legal rights to do this, of course, at least currently. But these tech companies have all become critical infrastructure in how we communicate. Do you honestly think it's a good idea for these tech companies to start enforcing ideological conformity? What's perfectly normal speech for one is intentionally antagonizing to another.
      - burkaman 9y ago
        No, I don't think tech companies should enforce ideological conformity, but they shouldn't enforce ideological equality either. A lot of people, especially on HN, seem to have this idea that if a rule or policy can't be exactly defined, it shouldn't be used. It's not possible to codify "no assholes allowed", so we should just abandon that idea. Look, the reason we don't have a law against Nazi ideas in America is that it's too dangerous to give the government that power. If we did have such a law, and it were abused, there's no higher power to appeal to. We have nearly absolute free speech not because all speech deserves equal consideration, but simply because there is no practical legal alternative. But it is crucial to understand that since we can't give the government that power, society is obligated to pick up the slack. Nazis cannot be punished legally, so they must be punished socially. We all wish we lived in a world where any idea could be freely discussed, and "bad" ones would be naturally dismissed, but we don't. The world doesn't naturally improve, people force it to, and not just by hosting neutral discussion spaces. What I'm describing is basically majority rule, and I understand how dangerous it is. Frankly, over the course of history, it's usually gone poorly. But there is no alternative. If you decide to be neutral, you're just giving more power to those who aren't. If you don't like racism, so you decide to live your life "colorblind", you're helping racists, as they obviously won't join you. As a member of society, you have an obligation to not only avoid helping racists, but actively work against them by loudly arguing with them, depriving them of opportunities to promote or implement their ideas, and maybe kicking them out of a party if they try to start some shit. Twitter can't be neutral, because everybody else isn't. In fact it's not really possible to be neutral, they can either endorse the status quo, or work against it. If they abuse their incredibly powerful position, there is a higher power we can appeal to who is required to be neutral in such cases.

burkaman 9y ago

In this analogy, Twitter is the host, users are guests. If a racist asshole shows up at the party, everyone else can easily disengage, by just leaving. Should the host just leave the door open and sit in the back making sure the lights stay on, prioritizing absolute free speech over who is having a good time? Or should they kick out toxic guests, so the people they like will stay?

pls2halp 9y ago
But if someone shows up wearing a black coat and jackboots because they think they look cool(or posting pepe memes because they think the images are funny), can you brand them as racist and kick them out?
- burkaman 9y ago
  You sure can, especially if they're making the party uncomfortable and unpleasant for the rest of your guests. Their crime is not so much dressing like a Nazi, but intentionally antagonizing other people for no reason. If it wasn't intentional, they should note the reactions, take other people into consideration, and either leave or correct their behavior. Why don't other people have to consider the Nazi-dresser's feelings? Well, they do. They'll consider them for 10 seconds, realize there is no legitimate reason to be dressed like that, and rightfully suspect bad intentions. If you want to be accepted into a community, earn it. Other people have no obligation to tolerate your presence and listen to your speech. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to be heard.
  - remarkEon 9y ago
    This is such a dangerous path to go down, and it's really easy to see where we end up. Let's say I'm vehemently anti-abortion, and have a YouTube channel where I discuss that topic. If some sufficient amount of users find my content "intentionally antagonizing" I could be de-platformed. YouTube is perfectly within their legal rights to do this, of course, at least currently. But these tech companies have all become critical infrastructure in how we communicate. Do you honestly think it's a good idea for these tech companies to start enforcing ideological conformity? What's perfectly normal speech for one is intentionally antagonizing to another.
    - burkaman 9y ago
      No, I don't think tech companies should enforce ideological conformity, but they shouldn't enforce ideological equality either. A lot of people, especially on HN, seem to have this idea that if a rule or policy can't be exactly defined, it shouldn't be used. It's not possible to codify "no assholes allowed", so we should just abandon that idea. Look, the reason we don't have a law against Nazi ideas in America is that it's too dangerous to give the government that power. If we did have such a law, and it were abused, there's no higher power to appeal to. We have nearly absolute free speech not because all speech deserves equal consideration, but simply because there is no practical legal alternative. But it is crucial to understand that since we can't give the government that power, society is obligated to pick up the slack. Nazis cannot be punished legally, so they must be punished socially. We all wish we lived in a world where any idea could be freely discussed, and "bad" ones would be naturally dismissed, but we don't. The world doesn't naturally improve, people force it to, and not just by hosting neutral discussion spaces. What I'm describing is basically majority rule, and I understand how dangerous it is. Frankly, over the course of history, it's usually gone poorly. But there is no alternative. If you decide to be neutral, you're just giving more power to those who aren't. If you don't like racism, so you decide to live your life "colorblind", you're helping racists, as they obviously won't join you. As a member of society, you have an obligation to not only avoid helping racists, but actively work against them by loudly arguing with them, depriving them of opportunities to promote or implement their ideas, and maybe kicking them out of a party if they try to start some shit. Twitter can't be neutral, because everybody else isn't. In fact it's not really possible to be neutral, they can either endorse the status quo, or work against it. If they abuse their incredibly powerful position, there is a higher power we can appeal to who is required to be neutral in such cases.