5 ms·

That's an important consideration, but taken to extremes it's basically appeasement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App

That's an important consideration, but taken to extremes it's basically appeasement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement Don't try to resist bad people, don't try to protect their victims, because they might turn around and push back. Where does it end? When are we finally allowed to take action?

staunch 8y ago
A reasonable question but I think it's caused by confusion. The answer to bad speech is good speech, not censorship. The answer to unjust violence is just violence, not appeasement.
- prolepunk 8y ago
  > The answer to bad speech is good speech, not censorship. Good luck wasting your precious time arguing with Nazis while Reichstag is burning.
  - dang 8y ago
    We've banned this account for continuing to use HN for ideological battle after we asked you to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
hamhock666 8y ago
You take action with your own speech, not by using the power of the majority to censor opinions and ideas that the majority doesn't like. You have the ability to do this anytime without fear that someone will tell you your perspective and opinions are wrong. If the roles were reversed and you were living in an authoritarian dictatorship, you might be considered a "bad person", and your speech might be censored or worse.
- potta_coffee 8y ago
  This is the first response in this conversation that has made any sense.
ThrowawayR2 8y ago
> Where does it end? When are we finally allowed to take action? Speech must only ever be met with speech if liberals want to keep the moral high ground. If you meet speech with oppression, how are you any better than the oppressors of the past that liberal movements fought and won victories against? Now if you're facing oppression, that's a different story and at that point "taking action" (your words, not mine) might be justified.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Speech must only ever be met with speech if liberals want to keep the moral high ground. Choosing not to actively expend resources to relay speech is itself an exercise of free speech rights. Private deplatforming isn't oppression, it is free speech. (Now, if a notionally private platform is a protected monopoly on an essential avenue of communication, you are in the domain of effective government action which is why common carriers exist; but while FB may be a popular social media venue, I don't think it reaches that level.)
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    You have summarized the view of the courts. Is that the most relevant perspective? Isn't the whole point convincing people not to be Nazis? If average private monopolistic platform users perceive Nazis to be subject to special treatment, it doesn't matter to them whether that's coming from the platform owner or from the government. Although, let's not kid ourselves, Facebook would love to regulate themselves into even more of our lives. Would anyone be shocked to hear of some municipality requiring FB login in order to receive public services?
  - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
    > Choosing not to actively expend resources to relay speech is itself an exercise of free speech rights. Private deplatforming isn't oppression, it is free speech. Yet if a business used that line to refuse service to a minority, a religious person or atheist, a pro-choice advocate, or a LGBT person (in a nation where these are not protected groups or in a time before those groups were protected), you'd be up in arms about it even though it's the exact same excuse. See the double standard now? The groups you oppose would absolutely love to be able to use that line of reasoning to defend themselves (remember the Colorado baker case?). The irony of people calling themselves liberals trying to use it to put an aura of legitimacy over their behavior too is delicious.

staunch 8y ago

A reasonable question but I think it's caused by confusion. The answer to bad speech is good speech, not censorship. The answer to unjust violence is just violence, not appeasement.

prolepunk 8y ago
> The answer to bad speech is good speech, not censorship. Good luck wasting your precious time arguing with Nazis while Reichstag is burning.
- dang 8y ago
  We've banned this account for continuing to use HN for ideological battle after we asked you to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

hamhock666 8y ago

You take action with your own speech, not by using the power of the majority to censor opinions and ideas that the majority doesn't like. You have the ability to do this anytime without fear that someone will tell you your perspective and opinions are wrong. If the roles were reversed and you were living in an authoritarian dictatorship, you might be considered a "bad person", and your speech might be censored or worse.

potta_coffee 8y ago
This is the first response in this conversation that has made any sense.

ThrowawayR2 8y ago

> Where does it end? When are we finally allowed to take action? Speech must only ever be met with speech if liberals want to keep the moral high ground. If you meet speech with oppression, how are you any better than the oppressors of the past that liberal movements fought and won victories against? Now if you're facing oppression, that's a different story and at that point "taking action" (your words, not mine) might be justified.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Speech must only ever be met with speech if liberals want to keep the moral high ground. Choosing not to actively expend resources to relay speech is itself an exercise of free speech rights. Private deplatforming isn't oppression, it is free speech. (Now, if a notionally private platform is a protected monopoly on an essential avenue of communication, you are in the domain of effective government action which is why common carriers exist; but while FB may be a popular social media venue, I don't think it reaches that level.)
- jessaustin 8y ago
  You have summarized the view of the courts. Is that the most relevant perspective? Isn't the whole point convincing people not to be Nazis? If average private monopolistic platform users perceive Nazis to be subject to special treatment, it doesn't matter to them whether that's coming from the platform owner or from the government. Although, let's not kid ourselves, Facebook would love to regulate themselves into even more of our lives. Would anyone be shocked to hear of some municipality requiring FB login in order to receive public services?
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago
  > Choosing not to actively expend resources to relay speech is itself an exercise of free speech rights. Private deplatforming isn't oppression, it is free speech. Yet if a business used that line to refuse service to a minority, a religious person or atheist, a pro-choice advocate, or a LGBT person (in a nation where these are not protected groups or in a time before those groups were protected), you'd be up in arms about it even though it's the exact same excuse. See the double standard now? The groups you oppose would absolutely love to be able to use that line of reasoning to defend themselves (remember the Colorado baker case?). The irony of people calling themselves liberals trying to use it to put an aura of legitimacy over their behavior too is delicious.