5 ms·

Slide 66 is particularly interesting, and articulates an observation that I've made: > Tech firms are performing a balancing act between two incompatible posit

Slide 66 is particularly interesting, and articulates an observation that I've made: > Tech firms are performing a balancing act between two incompatible positions > 100% commit to the American tradition that prioritises free speech for democracy, not civility > 100% commit to the European tradition that favors dignity over liberty, and civility over freedom It is a very American view that unrestricted freedom of speech is a requirement for a well-functioning democracy, and that any restriction of this beyond censoring direct calls to violence is evil.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
est 8y ago
Is "against freedom of speech" a freedom of speech?
- tylersmith 8y ago
  Being against freedom of speech is absolutely a freedom of speech. Preventing people from expressing their freedom of speech is not.
- pathseeker 8y ago
  Yes, talking about it is. Restricting it at the government level isn't. Freedom of speech is a right protecting you from the government, not companies.
  - VonGallifrey 8y ago
    Are you confusing the american first amendment with the concept of freedom of speech? Freedom of Speech is a much broader concept then just the first amendment.
kodablah 8y ago
> It is a very American view that unrestricted freedom of speech is a requirement for a well-functioning democracy It is similarly a very American view that unrestricted freedom of speech is a requirement for a well-functioning internet (well, not completely "unrestricted", but we're not here to argue nuance). Avoiding the obvious debate on which is better, the problem of choice exists in a global medium. Lest it become balkanized, you will have to choose an approach both as a company and as a set of laws. Wrt laws, restrictions are added much more often than they are removed so we should probably err on the side of fewer/limited-scope restrictions. I think most would prefer the greatest common factor of freedoms vs the lowest common denominator of restrictions.
- atypicaluser 8y ago
  They would prefer it as a way of lowering the cost of doing business. However, as Google has shown with Dragonfly, this attitude is likely to encourage a race to the bottom with the most oppressive regimes.
raxxorrax 8y ago
As a European I have to admit that the American model is vastly superior. Europe had laws to protect "civilty" even before the great wars. American democracy is also more successful in general. Europe just had the "luck" that censorship didn't become very necessary. In some places it was used extensively and those places are no more today. And lastly, stripping someones voice implicates directly stripping someones dignity.
- hef19898 8y ago
  As a fellow European I have to disagree. Hiostorically speaking, pernal freedoms have been alot higher in Europe than the US (since the time something like personal freedom became athing), slavery was abolished by Great Britain and France way before the War of Independance for example. Also, where exactly is the US democracy more successfull overall? We do have free election in Europe, don't we? And we don't have such things like aelectoral college, not even in Germany where we don't elect the Chancellor directly (that the separation of legislative, executive and judicative powers works better in the US than in Germany with regards to the first two the excepotion proofing the rule). Cesnrship was used extensivle by every European nation during WW1 and WW2, France convicted journalists of treason during wWW1 and Britain was very restrictive as well during WW2. Both places still exist. Again, no one is stripping me of my voice in Europe. With the notable exception of redicals within their respective bubbles, there freedom of speech is treated as a direct threat. The existence of these bubbles and the hate speech coming from them has to be freedom speech on the other hand. But hey, extremist always want it both ways. Logic thinking isn't theirs strength, self dilusion is much more comfortable, isn't it?
  - odessacubbage 8y ago
    go try to listen to a death in june album or play manhunt or voice any opinion the state considers dangerous and tell me how free you are.
    - hef19898 8y ago
      Just listening to Death in June on Google Play Music, thanks for the music tip, it's always nice to listen to non-mainstream stuff, radio in Germany can otherwise become a little bit repetetive. Not that a game like Manhunt is actually my taste, Borderlands is more my cup of cake, but since I checked I have question: Is it true that, despite being available in the US, it is really hard to actually get? With Wal-Mart not wanting to sell it for a time and Sony as well as Nintendo having had an issue with the un-cut version of it? Please excuse me that I don't try to voice state-threatening opinions which aren't mine just for fun. But maybe you have experience with that?
zmix 8y ago
I don't see any incompatibility in the real world. In Europe you are free, unless you cause other people harm. If you cause other people harm, it must be decided, whether that was justified (self-defense) or not (criminal offense). I would say, that in the US the term "freedom" is more liberally used to make a "criminal-offense" look like "self-defense", though I am a bit cynical now. Dignity means also, that you can speak your mind freely.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

est 8y ago

Is "against freedom of speech" a freedom of speech?

tylersmith 8y ago
Being against freedom of speech is absolutely a freedom of speech. Preventing people from expressing their freedom of speech is not.
pathseeker 8y ago
Yes, talking about it is. Restricting it at the government level isn't. Freedom of speech is a right protecting you from the government, not companies.
- VonGallifrey 8y ago
  Are you confusing the american first amendment with the concept of freedom of speech? Freedom of Speech is a much broader concept then just the first amendment.

kodablah 8y ago

> It is a very American view that unrestricted freedom of speech is a requirement for a well-functioning democracy It is similarly a very American view that unrestricted freedom of speech is a requirement for a well-functioning internet (well, not completely "unrestricted", but we're not here to argue nuance). Avoiding the obvious debate on which is better, the problem of choice exists in a global medium. Lest it become balkanized, you will have to choose an approach both as a company and as a set of laws. Wrt laws, restrictions are added much more often than they are removed so we should probably err on the side of fewer/limited-scope restrictions. I think most would prefer the greatest common factor of freedoms vs the lowest common denominator of restrictions.

atypicaluser 8y ago
They would prefer it as a way of lowering the cost of doing business. However, as Google has shown with Dragonfly, this attitude is likely to encourage a race to the bottom with the most oppressive regimes.

raxxorrax 8y ago

As a European I have to admit that the American model is vastly superior. Europe had laws to protect "civilty" even before the great wars. American democracy is also more successful in general. Europe just had the "luck" that censorship didn't become very necessary. In some places it was used extensively and those places are no more today. And lastly, stripping someones voice implicates directly stripping someones dignity.

hef19898 8y ago
As a fellow European I have to disagree. Hiostorically speaking, pernal freedoms have been alot higher in Europe than the US (since the time something like personal freedom became athing), slavery was abolished by Great Britain and France way before the War of Independance for example. Also, where exactly is the US democracy more successfull overall? We do have free election in Europe, don't we? And we don't have such things like aelectoral college, not even in Germany where we don't elect the Chancellor directly (that the separation of legislative, executive and judicative powers works better in the US than in Germany with regards to the first two the excepotion proofing the rule). Cesnrship was used extensivle by every European nation during WW1 and WW2, France convicted journalists of treason during wWW1 and Britain was very restrictive as well during WW2. Both places still exist. Again, no one is stripping me of my voice in Europe. With the notable exception of redicals within their respective bubbles, there freedom of speech is treated as a direct threat. The existence of these bubbles and the hate speech coming from them has to be freedom speech on the other hand. But hey, extremist always want it both ways. Logic thinking isn't theirs strength, self dilusion is much more comfortable, isn't it?
- odessacubbage 8y ago
  go try to listen to a death in june album or play manhunt or voice any opinion the state considers dangerous and tell me how free you are.
  - hef19898 8y ago
    Just listening to Death in June on Google Play Music, thanks for the music tip, it's always nice to listen to non-mainstream stuff, radio in Germany can otherwise become a little bit repetetive. Not that a game like Manhunt is actually my taste, Borderlands is more my cup of cake, but since I checked I have question: Is it true that, despite being available in the US, it is really hard to actually get? With Wal-Mart not wanting to sell it for a time and Sony as well as Nintendo having had an issue with the un-cut version of it? Please excuse me that I don't try to voice state-threatening opinions which aren't mine just for fun. But maybe you have experience with that?

zmix 8y ago

I don't see any incompatibility in the real world. In Europe you are free, unless you cause other people harm. If you cause other people harm, it must be decided, whether that was justified (self-defense) or not (criminal offense). I would say, that in the US the term "freedom" is more liberally used to make a "criminal-offense" look like "self-defense", though I am a bit cynical now. Dignity means also, that you can speak your mind freely.