3 ms·

You didn't read what I wrote. Reddit is absolutely free to do this. Voat exists, if they want a place to speak.

by KGIII 9y ago

michaelchisari 9y ago
I did read what you wrote. You are not arguing for the right to free speech, you are arguing for a right to a platform (yet referring to such as an appeal to free speech). And there is no such thing. There is no right to a platform for your speech. You are allowed to say it, but nobody has any obligation to repeat, produce, disseminate or validate your speech.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Again, I ask what good is a right if one can not reasonably exercise it? I also suggest we are veering too far from the topic. To be very, very clear - Reddit is under no obligation to allow anything they do not wish to allow.
  - uoaei 9y ago
    No one's rights are being infringed upon. The right to free speech is certainly still in their hands. Their audience is then anyone within earshot. Your question seems to me to be a red herring, and doesn't seem relevant in the discussion surrounding web-based fora. While "the internet" in some abstract form could be construed as a human right in this modern technological world of ours, the World Wide Web as it stands today very much is not that. The infrastructure is privately maintained, and as such is not granted the protections that the 1st amendment provides. Likewise the services that are built upon the physical infrastructure, namely websites and data-transmission services, are not obligated to enforce rights.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      Let's try something. Do you believe that the Internet should be a basic human right, that affordable access should be made reasonably available for everyone on the planet?
      - uoaei 9y ago
        The question is, access to what? Access to encyclopedic knowledge? Sure. Access to academic literature? Would definitely be a net positive. Access to the ramblings of every human in existence? Not sure why this would be so necessary. Quick edit to add: anything that requires instantiation to justify said "right" doesn't seem like it vibes well with the definition of the word "right." For instance, how could the right to internet exist if the internet didn't exist? This is opposed to people's need to communicate (free speech), their need for a safe place to sleep, or to satiate their hunger and nutritional needs. All of these problems exist by nature of us being human, and are inescapable in life by definition. Thus the rights, that we have today to protect people from succumbing to painful and undignified suffering when these needs aren't met, are justified. The same cannot be said of a recent technological invention. No one needs the internet to live.
        KGIII 9y ago
        So, we have a starting point. Now, would you then agree that the primary purpose of a networked group of computers is the exchange of information? If you will agree to that, will you also agree that communication is information? If you will agree to that, and to the general concept of the freedom of expression, as an ideal to aspire to and not just a government restriction, would you then agree that even the shittiest people on the planet should be allowed some method for self expression on said connected network of computers in a reasonable manner, so long as said expression is lawful and up until due process, in accordance with their local jurisdiction, takes away said rights? In other words, they deserve the right to say their vile crap. Before you say no they don't, I'd like to point out that not that king ago, and in some parts of this world, is censored speech. I'd like to point out that I absolutely guarantee there are those who would silence even you. They find your views absolutely reprehensible. You offend the very fiber of their being. They hate everything you stand for. Be careful which rights you cede, for you will not always be the decider. Pendulums swing and the repercussions are mighty. I've traveled, a lot. I've been in combat, war zones, in the midst of refugees, in camps, and in ruins. I've seen what happens when people dehumanize others. I've seen what happens when we lose empathy. I'm not trying to change your mind. It's the Internet. Nobody ever changes their mind. I am trying to demonstrate a good accounting. Someone has to speak for the rights of all humans. Someone has to have empathy for even the worst among us. Don't get me wrong. Some folks need killing. But, due process matters, as does empathy, dignity, and honor. Meh... It is just what it is. Things go to hell without it. As for your point, you don't need a right to bear arms to survive. You don't need a right to speech to survive. You don't need a right to your property, your right to avoid self incrimination, etc... You need those to have liberty. Edit: email in profile, if you want. I'm quite happy to have rational discourse.

You didn't read what I wrote. Reddit is absolutely free to do this. Voat exists, if they want a place to speak.

by KGIII 9y ago

You didn't read what I wrote. Reddit is absolutely free to do this. Voat exists, if they want a place to speak.

I did read what you wrote. You are not arguing for the right to free speech, you are arguing for a right to a platform (yet referring to such as an appeal to free speech). And there is no such thing. There is no right to a platform for your speech. You are allowed to say it, but nobody has any obligation to repeat, produce, disseminate or validate your speech.

KGIII 9y ago
Again, I ask what good is a right if one can not reasonably exercise it? I also suggest we are veering too far from the topic. To be very, very clear - Reddit is under no obligation to allow anything they do not wish to allow.
- uoaei 9y ago
  No one's rights are being infringed upon. The right to free speech is certainly still in their hands. Their audience is then anyone within earshot. Your question seems to me to be a red herring, and doesn't seem relevant in the discussion surrounding web-based fora. While "the internet" in some abstract form could be construed as a human right in this modern technological world of ours, the World Wide Web as it stands today very much is not that. The infrastructure is privately maintained, and as such is not granted the protections that the 1st amendment provides. Likewise the services that are built upon the physical infrastructure, namely websites and data-transmission services, are not obligated to enforce rights.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Let's try something. Do you believe that the Internet should be a basic human right, that affordable access should be made reasonably available for everyone on the planet?
    - uoaei 9y ago
      The question is, access to what? Access to encyclopedic knowledge? Sure. Access to academic literature? Would definitely be a net positive. Access to the ramblings of every human in existence? Not sure why this would be so necessary. Quick edit to add: anything that requires instantiation to justify said "right" doesn't seem like it vibes well with the definition of the word "right." For instance, how could the right to internet exist if the internet didn't exist? This is opposed to people's need to communicate (free speech), their need for a safe place to sleep, or to satiate their hunger and nutritional needs. All of these problems exist by nature of us being human, and are inescapable in life by definition. Thus the rights, that we have today to protect people from succumbing to painful and undignified suffering when these needs aren't met, are justified. The same cannot be said of a recent technological invention. No one needs the internet to live.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        So, we have a starting point. Now, would you then agree that the primary purpose of a networked group of computers is the exchange of information? If you will agree to that, will you also agree that communication is information? If you will agree to that, and to the general concept of the freedom of expression, as an ideal to aspire to and not just a government restriction, would you then agree that even the shittiest people on the planet should be allowed some method for self expression on said connected network of computers in a reasonable manner, so long as said expression is lawful and up until due process, in accordance with their local jurisdiction, takes away said rights? In other words, they deserve the right to say their vile crap. Before you say no they don't, I'd like to point out that not that king ago, and in some parts of this world, is censored speech. I'd like to point out that I absolutely guarantee there are those who would silence even you. They find your views absolutely reprehensible. You offend the very fiber of their being. They hate everything you stand for. Be careful which rights you cede, for you will not always be the decider. Pendulums swing and the repercussions are mighty. I've traveled, a lot. I've been in combat, war zones, in the midst of refugees, in camps, and in ruins. I've seen what happens when people dehumanize others. I've seen what happens when we lose empathy. I'm not trying to change your mind. It's the Internet. Nobody ever changes their mind. I am trying to demonstrate a good accounting. Someone has to speak for the rights of all humans. Someone has to have empathy for even the worst among us. Don't get me wrong. Some folks need killing. But, due process matters, as does empathy, dignity, and honor. Meh... It is just what it is. Things go to hell without it. As for your point, you don't need a right to bear arms to survive. You don't need a right to speech to survive. You don't need a right to your property, your right to avoid self incrimination, etc... You need those to have liberty. Edit: email in profile, if you want. I'm quite happy to have rational discourse.