6 ms·

Gab forced offline over apparent tie to Pittsburgh synagogue shooter

9 points by okket 8y ago

beat 8y ago
The older I get, the less I appreciate "free speech". Community standards exist to protect the community. We should not just assume absolute freedom of speech is an unalloyed good. What are the benefits, and what are the consequences? Because in this case, the consequences are pretty clear.
- billylindeman 8y ago
  It scares the living shit out of me how many people in tech are actively fighting against free speech. Censorship is evil. It is a power that will be abused for political gains (as we're already seeing). That is pretty much a constant throughout human history. The internet itself was a platform for free speech. That's what made the internet of the 90s so great. Now look at it. A handful of mega corporations spying on everyone all day every day, and controlling what they're allowed to see and talk about. It's all very 1984, and everyone seems asleep at the wheel.
  - beat 8y ago
    There's a rather large gap between "Maybe we shouldn't let people plan genocide online" and 1984. And we already accept limits on free speech. For example, can I publicly lie about someone as "free speech"? No, it's libel/slander.
    - justtopost 8y ago
      There is not a gap. It is all just speech. When there are limits placed, then someone has to decide where they are, and therin lies the rub. It is only libel when you can show damages, only conspiracy when you make some action toward the goal, and only a threat when articulated. The laws exist and are clear.
      - beat 8y ago
        Saying "There is not a gap" does not make the gap disappear. Applying limits to free speech is not absolute totalitarianism, unless the limits themselves are totalitarian. For example, if criticizing the government is banned, that's totalitarian. If saying "All members of group x should be tortured to death" is banned but criticizing the government is not (unless the government is torturing group x to death), then it's not totalitarian.
        zerealshadowban 8y ago
        Nobody was forced to visit or read Gab, just as nobody is forced to listen to what I say to a few friends in my living room. Do you intend to control the latter as well, in the name of your "community"?
      - yongjik 8y ago
        I think the damages are clear enough when eleven people are murdered. Speech is never "just speech": it enables and compels people to take actions. That's why free speech is important in the first place. In the same spirit, that's why free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
        zerealshadowban 8y ago
        Speech does not compel. People have free will, which is why they are held responsible for their actions, and judged accordingly.
        beat 8y ago
        I've heard this kind of argument a lot. I heard it when someone was defending the Charlottesville tiki torchers surrounding a synagogue with torches as "free speech" because they were standing on a public sidewalk. By that logic, it's okay for me to point a loaded gun in your face, as long as I don't actually pull the trigger. That intimidation and threats are just "free speech".
        8y ago
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  Just look back 50 or 100 years ago to find what was absolutely evil beyond question that is today seen as acceptable. Without freedom of speech, such groups have a much harder time changing social norms. I guess this isn't a problem if we think that today's norms recognizes all the groups that deserve it, but I feel this is the same hubris shown by every generation previous.

9 points by okket 8y ago

beat 8y ago

The older I get, the less I appreciate "free speech". Community standards exist to protect the community. We should not just assume absolute freedom of speech is an unalloyed good. What are the benefits, and what are the consequences? Because in this case, the consequences are pretty clear.

billylindeman 8y ago
It scares the living shit out of me how many people in tech are actively fighting against free speech. Censorship is evil. It is a power that will be abused for political gains (as we're already seeing). That is pretty much a constant throughout human history. The internet itself was a platform for free speech. That's what made the internet of the 90s so great. Now look at it. A handful of mega corporations spying on everyone all day every day, and controlling what they're allowed to see and talk about. It's all very 1984, and everyone seems asleep at the wheel.
- beat 8y ago
  There's a rather large gap between "Maybe we shouldn't let people plan genocide online" and 1984. And we already accept limits on free speech. For example, can I publicly lie about someone as "free speech"? No, it's libel/slander.
  - justtopost 8y ago
    There is not a gap. It is all just speech. When there are limits placed, then someone has to decide where they are, and therin lies the rub. It is only libel when you can show damages, only conspiracy when you make some action toward the goal, and only a threat when articulated. The laws exist and are clear.
    - beat 8y ago
      Saying "There is not a gap" does not make the gap disappear. Applying limits to free speech is not absolute totalitarianism, unless the limits themselves are totalitarian. For example, if criticizing the government is banned, that's totalitarian. If saying "All members of group x should be tortured to death" is banned but criticizing the government is not (unless the government is torturing group x to death), then it's not totalitarian.
      - zerealshadowban 8y ago
        Nobody was forced to visit or read Gab, just as nobody is forced to listen to what I say to a few friends in my living room. Do you intend to control the latter as well, in the name of your "community"?
    - yongjik 8y ago
      I think the damages are clear enough when eleven people are murdered. Speech is never "just speech": it enables and compels people to take actions. That's why free speech is important in the first place. In the same spirit, that's why free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
      - zerealshadowban 8y ago
        Speech does not compel. People have free will, which is why they are held responsible for their actions, and judged accordingly.
        beat 8y ago
        I've heard this kind of argument a lot. I heard it when someone was defending the Charlottesville tiki torchers surrounding a synagogue with torches as "free speech" because they were standing on a public sidewalk. By that logic, it's okay for me to point a loaded gun in your face, as long as I don't actually pull the trigger. That intimidation and threats are just "free speech".
        8y ago
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
Just look back 50 or 100 years ago to find what was absolutely evil beyond question that is today seen as acceptable. Without freedom of speech, such groups have a much harder time changing social norms. I guess this isn't a problem if we think that today's norms recognizes all the groups that deserve it, but I feel this is the same hubris shown by every generation previous.