5 ms·

It's a fair argument that giving regressive people a platform (in this case making them more famous) hurts progress. I didn't dive deep into who this person is

It's a fair argument that giving regressive people a platform (in this case making them more famous) hurts progress. I didn't dive deep into who this person is so I'm just commenting on a phenomenon in general and not saying if this person actually has bad views or not.

J-dawg 8y ago
> giving regressive people a platform Regressive by whose standards? > hurts progress Progress as defined by whom? I despise this sort of thinking. It just gives liberal / left-leaning people a bad name (and I’d consider myself one of them.) You can’t censor people just because they’re not sticking to the script that “right thinking” people like you approve of.
- swashboon 8y ago
  Censoring and promoting are different.
  - LocalH 8y ago
    Yes, but some conflate lack of the former with proof of the latter.
- kajecounterhack 8y ago
  > Regressive by whose standards? Progress as defined by whom? Just because what constitutes "common decency" is up for debate doesn't mean we can't have opinions on what it should be and strive for that. In this case, the comment is an opinion about the behavior of someone / an org that published an article. This is not general, this is specific. Anyone can have a specific opinion about that. > You can’t censor people just because they’re not sticking to the script that “right thinking” people like you approve of. When you publish anything, you _have_ to make a decision on whose voices you amplify. The decisions you make reflect who you are / what you believe in. So yes, I can totally criticize a publication for amplifying voices I think are harmful to the general discourse.
  - LocalH 8y ago
    This is a good argument for decentralization of media outlets. The internet was almost this. However, when ISPs began barring subscribers from running a small webserver, that was the beginning of the end of the internet decentralization experiment. Not to mention that we're rapidly reaching a climate that not only correctly says "platform X doesn't have to publish what you write" to "if you are bad, we will not only prevent major platforms from publishing you, but we'll go after any host who does publish you, and destroy them"
    - kajecounterhack 8y ago
      > we're rapidly reaching a climate that not only correctly says "platform X doesn't have to publish what you write" to "if you are bad, we will not only prevent major platforms from publishing you, but we'll go after any host who does publish you, and destroy them" If some non-zero number of people get upset that publication X does Y, that doesn't mean they are actually able to "go after any host who publishes and destroy them." They just make a lot of noise. Take for example NYT hiring Sarah Jeong. There's opposition, but she's publishing there now. However if someone is racist, and faces backlash because of that, and enough critical mass of people say "listen I don't want to read a publication that gives voice to racists" then there's nothing wrong with that. Racists can always publish to Breitbart/Fox/whatever publication allows that (s/racist and those media outlets/whatever satisfies your own politics/r, you catch my drift). Or they can shout it in a public place, print pamphlets, or write a fucking blog. Free speech means they can do those things, but not necessarily force it onto a specific platform.

J-dawg 8y ago

> giving regressive people a platform Regressive by whose standards? > hurts progress Progress as defined by whom? I despise this sort of thinking. It just gives liberal / left-leaning people a bad name (and I’d consider myself one of them.) You can’t censor people just because they’re not sticking to the script that “right thinking” people like you approve of.

swashboon 8y ago
Censoring and promoting are different.
- LocalH 8y ago
  Yes, but some conflate lack of the former with proof of the latter.
kajecounterhack 8y ago
> Regressive by whose standards? Progress as defined by whom? Just because what constitutes "common decency" is up for debate doesn't mean we can't have opinions on what it should be and strive for that. In this case, the comment is an opinion about the behavior of someone / an org that published an article. This is not general, this is specific. Anyone can have a specific opinion about that. > You can’t censor people just because they’re not sticking to the script that “right thinking” people like you approve of. When you publish anything, you _have_ to make a decision on whose voices you amplify. The decisions you make reflect who you are / what you believe in. So yes, I can totally criticize a publication for amplifying voices I think are harmful to the general discourse.
- LocalH 8y ago
  This is a good argument for decentralization of media outlets. The internet was almost this. However, when ISPs began barring subscribers from running a small webserver, that was the beginning of the end of the internet decentralization experiment. Not to mention that we're rapidly reaching a climate that not only correctly says "platform X doesn't have to publish what you write" to "if you are bad, we will not only prevent major platforms from publishing you, but we'll go after any host who does publish you, and destroy them"
  - kajecounterhack 8y ago
    > we're rapidly reaching a climate that not only correctly says "platform X doesn't have to publish what you write" to "if you are bad, we will not only prevent major platforms from publishing you, but we'll go after any host who does publish you, and destroy them" If some non-zero number of people get upset that publication X does Y, that doesn't mean they are actually able to "go after any host who publishes and destroy them." They just make a lot of noise. Take for example NYT hiring Sarah Jeong. There's opposition, but she's publishing there now. However if someone is racist, and faces backlash because of that, and enough critical mass of people say "listen I don't want to read a publication that gives voice to racists" then there's nothing wrong with that. Racists can always publish to Breitbart/Fox/whatever publication allows that (s/racist and those media outlets/whatever satisfies your own politics/r, you catch my drift). Or they can shout it in a public place, print pamphlets, or write a fucking blog. Free speech means they can do those things, but not necessarily force it onto a specific platform.