4 ms·

Real profanity and disease on the internet is untouched while you police decorum

49 points by panarky 8y ago

saas_co_de 8y ago
A rich hollywood producer complaining about being deplatformed - surely we have better things to do with our time?
- kevingadd 8y ago
  If you've spent much time working in media, you'd know a considerable number of people are just chasing down every project to pay rent. Just like open source software and startups, not everyone gets rich off of a success.
hrktb 8y ago
I feel the same argument could have been made for someone thrown out of a tribunal for constantly swearing at the defendant. Sure there’s an emotional side of it, but following a set of rules doesn’t prevent from expressing one’s opinion to a satisfactory point.
- kevingadd 8y ago
  I think the argument being made by TFA is that rules and structures can, if constructed incorrectly, privilege 'civil' advocacy for abhorrent behavior over discourse that accurately characterizes it for what it is. Hyperbolically decrying minor things as atrocities has led to rules of decorum that assume no atrocities actually occur, and any heated argument is automatically bad.
  - hrktb 8y ago
    The TFA isn’t about accurately describing behavior, it’s about voicing disgust in feel-good words for the author. > But the hyperbolic and comic hope that a just god might smite the slanderer or brutalizer with a deadly skin disorder is somehow beyond the pale. Words are plenty, there would be no shortage of them to express the author’s point within relying on deadly skin disorders. Nobody [edit: here at least] is denying atrocities, the point is to adjust communication to the medium used.
kevingadd 8y ago
One interesting thing is that this perspective - displeasure that decorum is being enforced instead of underlying issues being addressed - is loudly shared by both left and right on the internet these days. After a few decades of insincerity and bad faith argument it seems like everyone is getting fed up, and most people running platforms have no idea what to do about it. Look no further than Gab, a no-censorship right wing Twitter alternative that is now in crisis due to fights between users and corporate leadership over a mix of death threats and - you guessed it - decorum.
- panarky 8y ago
  > a no-censorship right wing Twitter alternative that is now in crisis ... Without strict rules and strong moderation, most online communities devolve into a cesspool of trolls, sock puppets, spam, shills and ignorance. The noise swamps the signal. Twitter has come a long way in the last year by clarifying the rules, enforcing the rules, and suppressing the troublemakers that turned Twitter into a cesspool. Twitter's signal-to-noise ratio has improved quite a lot recently. Gab claimed to be the alt-Twitter for those banned from Twitter. But without strict rules and strong moderation, it's no surprise that Gab has become a stinking pit.
- drivingmenuts 8y ago
  I can't help but think that a lot of the people making free-speech (online) arguments are being deliberately obtuse. The Constitution and general body of law doesn't really address interactions on privately owned forums. It doesn't even really cover publicly (shareholder) owned forums, either, because they are, in effect, private as well. Government-owned/controlled forums are a different matter entirely and they can't be censored in the same way. Any online site has the right to say: this far and no further. How simple is that? State what you're not going to allow, admit that some things are judgement calls and call it done and dusted. I will fight for your right to say any damn stupid thing you want (barring yelling fire in a theater), just don't try it in the middle of my f---ing living room.
  - cosmiccartel 8y ago
    You're confusing the First Amendment with the principle of Free Speech. When it comes to privately owned forums, they may have absolute control over what is acceptable to say, but those who disagree with their policies are perfectly justified in criticizing them for violating the principle of free speech. But it isn't even as black and white as you say from a legal standpoint. There is precedent (Marsh v. Alabama) for the owners of a publicly-used, privately-owned space to have their rights limited in order to protect the constitutional rights of persons using the space. The same principle could apply to sites as large as Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.
oh_sigh 8y ago
David Simon isn't even right in the argument he is having with those who he wishes to die of boils - Non-nationals entering or attempting to cross the US border at a non-designated time or place is a crime according to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
- idlewords 8y ago
  That is not correct. "Section 208(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) confirms that any individual who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States at a port of entry or otherwise may apply for asylum, irrespective of the person’s immigration status" https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/hrf-crossing-the-line-report.pdf https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/hrf-cro...
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    Does that negate the criminal act of crossing the border illegally? Maybe? But if you're planning on applying for asylum 11 months after you illegally cross the border, are you not a criminal in America until then?
    - idlewords 8y ago
      It is not a crime to cross the border seeking asylum, but asylum seekers must do so immediately.
- charlesism 8y ago
  > "mothers who have their children kidnapped and held > incommunicado from them at the American border are criminals > - and both mother and child deserve that fate" I doubt his main point of contention is whether or not the mothers are criminals. Not that I'm very enthusiastic about his main point. There are ways to communicate scorn that don't involve death wishes.
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
Torgo 8y ago
It took a lot of effort to get Twitter to acknowledge that these mock death threats are a form of abuse.

49 points by panarky 8y ago

saas_co_de 8y ago

A rich hollywood producer complaining about being deplatformed - surely we have better things to do with our time?

kevingadd 8y ago
If you've spent much time working in media, you'd know a considerable number of people are just chasing down every project to pay rent. Just like open source software and startups, not everyone gets rich off of a success.

hrktb 8y ago

I feel the same argument could have been made for someone thrown out of a tribunal for constantly swearing at the defendant. Sure there’s an emotional side of it, but following a set of rules doesn’t prevent from expressing one’s opinion to a satisfactory point.

kevingadd 8y ago
I think the argument being made by TFA is that rules and structures can, if constructed incorrectly, privilege 'civil' advocacy for abhorrent behavior over discourse that accurately characterizes it for what it is. Hyperbolically decrying minor things as atrocities has led to rules of decorum that assume no atrocities actually occur, and any heated argument is automatically bad.
- hrktb 8y ago
  The TFA isn’t about accurately describing behavior, it’s about voicing disgust in feel-good words for the author. > But the hyperbolic and comic hope that a just god might smite the slanderer or brutalizer with a deadly skin disorder is somehow beyond the pale. Words are plenty, there would be no shortage of them to express the author’s point within relying on deadly skin disorders. Nobody [edit: here at least] is denying atrocities, the point is to adjust communication to the medium used.

kevingadd 8y ago

One interesting thing is that this perspective - displeasure that decorum is being enforced instead of underlying issues being addressed - is loudly shared by both left and right on the internet these days. After a few decades of insincerity and bad faith argument it seems like everyone is getting fed up, and most people running platforms have no idea what to do about it. Look no further than Gab, a no-censorship right wing Twitter alternative that is now in crisis due to fights between users and corporate leadership over a mix of death threats and - you guessed it - decorum.

panarky 8y ago
> a no-censorship right wing Twitter alternative that is now in crisis ... Without strict rules and strong moderation, most online communities devolve into a cesspool of trolls, sock puppets, spam, shills and ignorance. The noise swamps the signal. Twitter has come a long way in the last year by clarifying the rules, enforcing the rules, and suppressing the troublemakers that turned Twitter into a cesspool. Twitter's signal-to-noise ratio has improved quite a lot recently. Gab claimed to be the alt-Twitter for those banned from Twitter. But without strict rules and strong moderation, it's no surprise that Gab has become a stinking pit.
drivingmenuts 8y ago
I can't help but think that a lot of the people making free-speech (online) arguments are being deliberately obtuse. The Constitution and general body of law doesn't really address interactions on privately owned forums. It doesn't even really cover publicly (shareholder) owned forums, either, because they are, in effect, private as well. Government-owned/controlled forums are a different matter entirely and they can't be censored in the same way. Any online site has the right to say: this far and no further. How simple is that? State what you're not going to allow, admit that some things are judgement calls and call it done and dusted. I will fight for your right to say any damn stupid thing you want (barring yelling fire in a theater), just don't try it in the middle of my f---ing living room.
- cosmiccartel 8y ago
  You're confusing the First Amendment with the principle of Free Speech. When it comes to privately owned forums, they may have absolute control over what is acceptable to say, but those who disagree with their policies are perfectly justified in criticizing them for violating the principle of free speech. But it isn't even as black and white as you say from a legal standpoint. There is precedent (Marsh v. Alabama) for the owners of a publicly-used, privately-owned space to have their rights limited in order to protect the constitutional rights of persons using the space. The same principle could apply to sites as large as Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.

oh_sigh 8y ago

David Simon isn't even right in the argument he is having with those who he wishes to die of boils - Non-nationals entering or attempting to cross the US border at a non-designated time or place is a crime according to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

idlewords 8y ago
That is not correct. "Section 208(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) confirms that any individual who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States at a port of entry or otherwise may apply for asylum, irrespective of the person’s immigration status" https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/hrf-crossing-the-line-report.pdf https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/hrf-cro...
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  Does that negate the criminal act of crossing the border illegally? Maybe? But if you're planning on applying for asylum 11 months after you illegally cross the border, are you not a criminal in America until then?
  - idlewords 8y ago
    It is not a crime to cross the border seeking asylum, but asylum seekers must do so immediately.
charlesism 8y ago
> "mothers who have their children kidnapped and held > incommunicado from them at the American border are criminals > - and both mother and child deserve that fate" I doubt his main point of contention is whether or not the mothers are criminals. Not that I'm very enthusiastic about his main point. There are ways to communicate scorn that don't involve death wishes.
- oh_sigh 8y ago

Torgo 8y ago

It took a lot of effort to get Twitter to acknowledge that these mock death threats are a form of abuse.