9 ms·

I think the 'marketplace of ideas' at least insofar as embodied in various internet outlets is what is failing and causing people to think that some speech is b

I think the 'marketplace of ideas' at least insofar as embodied in various internet outlets is what is failing and causing people to think that some speech is bad and should go away, due to the bullshit asymmetry principle and successful personal-hate targeting campaigns. During the founding of this country we probably had trolls too, but its easier to regain a pleasant town square when the troll has to directly, physically, face the consequences of his free speech.

x220 8y ago
>troll has to directly, physically, face the consequences of his free speech That's not free speech.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  ??? I'm not trying to get in the middle of your guys' argument, but I have a serious question. Why does a troll being anonymous or public, make his speech any more, or less, free? (Assuming that soldiers or police, or Saudi Intelligence Agents, aren't coming to drag said troll away.)
- anexprogrammer 8y ago
  That is exactly free speech. A right to express an unsavoury view without the system punishing you. Never gave you a right not to be ignored by your neighbours, or not banned from the bar, or not having others nudge their friends to make sure they notice and avoid, etc. Free speech almost always came with consequences until the internet age.
  - sverige 8y ago
    Reminds me of a New York comedian I heard who said something like, "I discovered that in the South, guys don't give any warning before they punch you." It is like that where I grew up in the Midwest, too. Knowing that there will likely be immediate physical consequences for inflammatory speech is a great way to limit that kind of behavior. Unless, of course, it's Saturday night and you're mildly drunk and looking for a fight.
    - leetcrew 8y ago
      > Knowing that there will likely be immediate physical consequences for inflammatory speech is a great way to limit that kind of behavior. it's also a great way to limit unpopular political speech and marginalized people taking up public space. "gay bashing", for example, is still a thing that happens to some of my friends. unless we can count on people to only administer beatings to the right folks, i don't really see how you can have it both ways.
      - krapp 8y ago
        >it's also a great way to limit unpopular political speech and marginalized people taking up public space. It's also a great way to defend unpopular political speech and marginalized people. The civil rights and gay rights movements used the same means of inflicting social and physical consequences against the status quo that its defenders used to defend it. Speech doesn't exist in a vacuum completely separate from the universe of physical consequence, it never has.
        x220 8y ago
        No, the civil rights movement almost always was at the mercy of those willing to commit violence and kick people out of businesses. Your ideas about how people can kick you out of businesses and punch you if they don't like what you're saying benefit only those with power.
        krapp 8y ago
        >Your ideas about how people can kick you out of businesses and punch you if they don't like what you're saying benefit only those with power. They're not my ideas, and they don't benefit only those in power. If that were true, no protest, union or revolutionary movement of any kind would ever have been successful. The paradox of tolerance[0] is a real thing. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
    - x220 8y ago
  - msiyer 8y ago
    Free speech to be really free must be free of consequences. This also requires a rational, mature audience. The fear of consequences will not allow free speech to exist. Preaching Bible can offend my atheist neighbor. My neighbor's blasphemous speech can offend my religious sentiments. There can be no end to this. In effect, no one will be free to speak their mind.
- commandlinefan 8y ago
  > That's not free speech That is, in fact, the definition of free speech.
malvosenior 8y ago
All of this was happening on Usenet to a much greater degree than anything I've seen on social media. That's where the term "don't feed the trolls" came from (still the best advice!). The goal of free speech is not to create a "pleasant town square", it's to protect individual liberty and not allow powerful entities to control what can and cannot be communicated.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  This is actually a common misconception. The goal of the Constitution is to not allow the government to control what you can and cannot do. This is because the Founders, rightly, felt that the government is what we really need protection from. I have some pretty unpopular opinions because of my support of this Constitutional underpinning. For instance, I think that there is nothing wrong with exclusive country clubs. Or hoisting Confederate/Nazi flags on private property. Or even kneeling during the anthem. Etc. Our government does not stop any such activities. (And if they did, I would consider it an act of governmental overreach on the level of treason against the Constitution.) Now from the other side of it, if that exclusive country club does not want me on their grounds, that does not restrict my activities. I don't have any rights that impinge the rights of others. That is, the country club does not have to give up its right to be exclusive, because I want to go eat there. My rights, shouldn't trump anyone else' rights, but I believe my rights should almost always trump the government's rights. And my honest belief is that that's how the Founders saw things as well. That's the way I think things should work.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    Which works great when you have a decentralized internet with a million separate sections where people with different views congregate with their own community moderation policies. But when it comes to YouTube or Facebook, no moderation policy is appropriate because there is no single set of community standards for all users. When you have more users than most countries have citizens, you're acting in the role of a government. Obviously the best solution to this is to get back to a decentralized internet where no one site has more than 5% of the total users, but in the meantime the big players shouldn't be censoring anything. And if that so happens to make them less competitive against smaller sites without so many users they're expected not to restrict anything -- good.

x220 8y ago

>troll has to directly, physically, face the consequences of his free speech That's not free speech.

bilbo0s 8y ago
??? I'm not trying to get in the middle of your guys' argument, but I have a serious question. Why does a troll being anonymous or public, make his speech any more, or less, free? (Assuming that soldiers or police, or Saudi Intelligence Agents, aren't coming to drag said troll away.)
anexprogrammer 8y ago
That is exactly free speech. A right to express an unsavoury view without the system punishing you. Never gave you a right not to be ignored by your neighbours, or not banned from the bar, or not having others nudge their friends to make sure they notice and avoid, etc. Free speech almost always came with consequences until the internet age.
- sverige 8y ago
  Reminds me of a New York comedian I heard who said something like, "I discovered that in the South, guys don't give any warning before they punch you." It is like that where I grew up in the Midwest, too. Knowing that there will likely be immediate physical consequences for inflammatory speech is a great way to limit that kind of behavior. Unless, of course, it's Saturday night and you're mildly drunk and looking for a fight.
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    > Knowing that there will likely be immediate physical consequences for inflammatory speech is a great way to limit that kind of behavior. it's also a great way to limit unpopular political speech and marginalized people taking up public space. "gay bashing", for example, is still a thing that happens to some of my friends. unless we can count on people to only administer beatings to the right folks, i don't really see how you can have it both ways.
    - krapp 8y ago
      >it's also a great way to limit unpopular political speech and marginalized people taking up public space. It's also a great way to defend unpopular political speech and marginalized people. The civil rights and gay rights movements used the same means of inflicting social and physical consequences against the status quo that its defenders used to defend it. Speech doesn't exist in a vacuum completely separate from the universe of physical consequence, it never has.
      - x220 8y ago
        No, the civil rights movement almost always was at the mercy of those willing to commit violence and kick people out of businesses. Your ideas about how people can kick you out of businesses and punch you if they don't like what you're saying benefit only those with power.
        krapp 8y ago
        >Your ideas about how people can kick you out of businesses and punch you if they don't like what you're saying benefit only those with power. They're not my ideas, and they don't benefit only those in power. If that were true, no protest, union or revolutionary movement of any kind would ever have been successful. The paradox of tolerance[0] is a real thing. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - x220 8y ago
- msiyer 8y ago
  Free speech to be really free must be free of consequences. This also requires a rational, mature audience. The fear of consequences will not allow free speech to exist. Preaching Bible can offend my atheist neighbor. My neighbor's blasphemous speech can offend my religious sentiments. There can be no end to this. In effect, no one will be free to speak their mind.
commandlinefan 8y ago
> That's not free speech That is, in fact, the definition of free speech.

malvosenior 8y ago

All of this was happening on Usenet to a much greater degree than anything I've seen on social media. That's where the term "don't feed the trolls" came from (still the best advice!). The goal of free speech is not to create a "pleasant town square", it's to protect individual liberty and not allow powerful entities to control what can and cannot be communicated.

bilbo0s 8y ago
This is actually a common misconception. The goal of the Constitution is to not allow the government to control what you can and cannot do. This is because the Founders, rightly, felt that the government is what we really need protection from. I have some pretty unpopular opinions because of my support of this Constitutional underpinning. For instance, I think that there is nothing wrong with exclusive country clubs. Or hoisting Confederate/Nazi flags on private property. Or even kneeling during the anthem. Etc. Our government does not stop any such activities. (And if they did, I would consider it an act of governmental overreach on the level of treason against the Constitution.) Now from the other side of it, if that exclusive country club does not want me on their grounds, that does not restrict my activities. I don't have any rights that impinge the rights of others. That is, the country club does not have to give up its right to be exclusive, because I want to go eat there. My rights, shouldn't trump anyone else' rights, but I believe my rights should almost always trump the government's rights. And my honest belief is that that's how the Founders saw things as well. That's the way I think things should work.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  Which works great when you have a decentralized internet with a million separate sections where people with different views congregate with their own community moderation policies. But when it comes to YouTube or Facebook, no moderation policy is appropriate because there is no single set of community standards for all users. When you have more users than most countries have citizens, you're acting in the role of a government. Obviously the best solution to this is to get back to a decentralized internet where no one site has more than 5% of the total users, but in the meantime the big players shouldn't be censoring anything. And if that so happens to make them less competitive against smaller sites without so many users they're expected not to restrict anything -- good.