4 ms·

Gab was founded by people who think that “freedom of speech” means they’re allowed to say what they want without consequence. They view being ushered out of the

Gab was founded by people who think that “freedom of speech” means they’re allowed to say what they want without consequence. They view being ushered out of the theatre for talking during a movie as censorship.

kamaal 8y ago
Adding to your point, there is whole generation of people who think 'freedom of speech' also means entitlement to get an audience. You can see this phenomenon in Indian right wing Twitter accounts, the talk is like: Don't I have freedom of speech? Why don't people listen to what I say? Why am I being deprived of audience? And like you said many people have a hard time coming to terms when faced with fact that 'freedom of speech' only gives you the freedom to talk, as such no immunity is provided for the consequences of the speech. This leads to all sorts of crazy situations, for example: Many people give like hate inciting speech to create a riot, and almost act like they indulged in a great tradition of democracy. On the very long term, things like 'freedom of speech', only make sense when they become a force for good. Another common abuse is comedians, cartoonists etc, in full conscious creating mischief and expect people to just happily put up with it.
nilkn 8y ago
I disagree. The idea behind sites like gab is that sites like Twitter are increasingly functioning like public spaces, but they exercise great ideological control over what one is allowed to say within those spaces. The folks behind gab and similar sites think that one should not be banned from Twitter -- that is quite different from speech without consequence. One can still be humiliated, shamed, and socially shunned in every way possible. You could still be fired from your job. You could also just be completely ignored -- merely not being banned from Twitter does not grant you even a single follower. To illustrate the issue, consider that one can be suspended or even banned from Twitter simply for stating (rightly or wrongly) that there are two genders. But Sarah Jeong-style tweets are considered perfectly fine, even though they are hateful and racist in many ways. I think these examples illustrate that what is at stake here is much more than just the ability of mass murderers to spew hatred. To make your analogy stronger, you would have to imagine a world in which theaters had become the standard place to talk and engage in discourse amongst tens of millions of people simultaneously.
dingaling 8y ago
I dont think that's a good analogy. They've built their own cinema where everyone who enters agrees that they can talk during the movie. Those who disagree can continue to use their preferred cinemas with less interruption. Surely it should be seen as a benefit for other websites that they have sequestered themselves off on their own domain?
- manicdee 8y ago
  I understand your desire to draw a better analogy, but imagine for a moment that the point of talking in a theatre is not so much to express an opinion but to cause other people discomfort or harm. These are people who think it’s okay so shout in the streets, “death to the Jews!” Because they of course are not actually killing anyone. They don’t accept responsibility for their vocal protest encouraging someone who was already harbouring murderous thoughts to actually commit murder. They don’t accept that actions spring from ideas and ideas spring from words. They don’t accept that in a world where people aren’t actively blaming Jews for the world’s problems, the nascent anti-Semite will take no action because they are insufficiently motivated to take any action. So in the talking in theatres analogy, the worst harm is that someone else doesn’t get to enjoy the movie. In real life the worst harm is that someone is encouraged to commit genocide.

kamaal 8y ago

Adding to your point, there is whole generation of people who think 'freedom of speech' also means entitlement to get an audience. You can see this phenomenon in Indian right wing Twitter accounts, the talk is like: Don't I have freedom of speech? Why don't people listen to what I say? Why am I being deprived of audience? And like you said many people have a hard time coming to terms when faced with fact that 'freedom of speech' only gives you the freedom to talk, as such no immunity is provided for the consequences of the speech. This leads to all sorts of crazy situations, for example: Many people give like hate inciting speech to create a riot, and almost act like they indulged in a great tradition of democracy. On the very long term, things like 'freedom of speech', only make sense when they become a force for good. Another common abuse is comedians, cartoonists etc, in full conscious creating mischief and expect people to just happily put up with it.

nilkn 8y ago

I disagree. The idea behind sites like gab is that sites like Twitter are increasingly functioning like public spaces, but they exercise great ideological control over what one is allowed to say within those spaces. The folks behind gab and similar sites think that one should not be banned from Twitter -- that is quite different from speech without consequence. One can still be humiliated, shamed, and socially shunned in every way possible. You could still be fired from your job. You could also just be completely ignored -- merely not being banned from Twitter does not grant you even a single follower. To illustrate the issue, consider that one can be suspended or even banned from Twitter simply for stating (rightly or wrongly) that there are two genders. But Sarah Jeong-style tweets are considered perfectly fine, even though they are hateful and racist in many ways. I think these examples illustrate that what is at stake here is much more than just the ability of mass murderers to spew hatred. To make your analogy stronger, you would have to imagine a world in which theaters had become the standard place to talk and engage in discourse amongst tens of millions of people simultaneously.

dingaling 8y ago

I dont think that's a good analogy. They've built their own cinema where everyone who enters agrees that they can talk during the movie. Those who disagree can continue to use their preferred cinemas with less interruption. Surely it should be seen as a benefit for other websites that they have sequestered themselves off on their own domain?

manicdee 8y ago
I understand your desire to draw a better analogy, but imagine for a moment that the point of talking in a theatre is not so much to express an opinion but to cause other people discomfort or harm. These are people who think it’s okay so shout in the streets, “death to the Jews!” Because they of course are not actually killing anyone. They don’t accept responsibility for their vocal protest encouraging someone who was already harbouring murderous thoughts to actually commit murder. They don’t accept that actions spring from ideas and ideas spring from words. They don’t accept that in a world where people aren’t actively blaming Jews for the world’s problems, the nascent anti-Semite will take no action because they are insufficiently motivated to take any action. So in the talking in theatres analogy, the worst harm is that someone else doesn’t get to enjoy the movie. In real life the worst harm is that someone is encouraged to commit genocide.