3 ms·

This is such a common thing that you're doing. There are four levels of power (kind of) => government, employer, social, individual. Whenever you're in an argu

This is such a common thing that you're doing. There are four levels of power (kind of) => government, employer, social, individual. Whenever you're in an argument, assume that the other side is advocating for the top level to enforce something so you can call them oppresive, and claim that you're advocating for the bottom level (and that that level should be free to do as it likes). Nothing in this article mentions passing a law and he even mentions several times that it's within their rights. It's therefore clearly discussing level 3 and 4 (trying to effect cultural change at the level of the individual. For you to weigh in as if he's arguing for passing an insane freedom of speech is disingenuous.

jasode 8y ago
>Nothing in this article mentions passing a law [...] For you to weigh in as if he's arguing for passing an insane freedom of speech is disingenuous. I think you've inadvertently overlooked how the 3 parent replies above you were discussing hypotheticals. In other words, each reply tried to elaborate what the alternate universes of free/censored speech might look like: - evrydayhustling's hypothetical: "What would it look like for an "anti-deplatforming" initiative to succeed? [...]" - im3w1l's hypothetical: "What reason is there to assume those platform platforms will not get kicked off the platform [...]" - amputect's hypothetical: "What's the alternative to "build your own platforms" though. Are you willing to compel Stripe by threat of force [...]" Commenters can bring up hypothetical laws or attempt to predict hypothetical outcomes even though the article itself doesn't mention creating a new law. (It's also possible that the middle reply in the chain of hypotheticals by im3w1l was misinterpreted as a call for a government law even though he doesn't explicitly state it. Sometimes people read between the lines and misconstrue the commenter's intent. It does seem like im3w1l's statement of "These people are not arguing in good faith" is implying that the mechanisms of the free market and free association wouldn't work for marginalized ideas. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to assume that the alternate universe he's thinking of that would work would be a government law that prevents de-platforming.)
atq2119 8y ago
I agree with you, but your four levels really need to be refined by a fifth level, corporate power. That is, power that is wielded over you by corporations even though they're not your employer because you essentially have to do business with them (Visa and MasterCard come to mind - they're essential infrastructure to the point where it really should just be a function of government, but isn't for historical reasons)
- zimablue 8y ago
  Very good point

jasode 8y ago

>Nothing in this article mentions passing a law [...] For you to weigh in as if he's arguing for passing an insane freedom of speech is disingenuous. I think you've inadvertently overlooked how the 3 parent replies above you were discussing hypotheticals. In other words, each reply tried to elaborate what the alternate universes of free/censored speech might look like: - evrydayhustling's hypothetical: "What would it look like for an "anti-deplatforming" initiative to succeed? [...]" - im3w1l's hypothetical: "What reason is there to assume those platform platforms will not get kicked off the platform [...]" - amputect's hypothetical: "What's the alternative to "build your own platforms" though. Are you willing to compel Stripe by threat of force [...]" Commenters can bring up hypothetical laws or attempt to predict hypothetical outcomes even though the article itself doesn't mention creating a new law. (It's also possible that the middle reply in the chain of hypotheticals by im3w1l was misinterpreted as a call for a government law even though he doesn't explicitly state it. Sometimes people read between the lines and misconstrue the commenter's intent. It does seem like im3w1l's statement of "These people are not arguing in good faith" is implying that the mechanisms of the free market and free association wouldn't work for marginalized ideas. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to assume that the alternate universe he's thinking of that would work would be a government law that prevents de-platforming.)

atq2119 8y ago

I agree with you, but your four levels really need to be refined by a fifth level, corporate power. That is, power that is wielded over you by corporations even though they're not your employer because you essentially have to do business with them (Visa and MasterCard come to mind - they're essential infrastructure to the point where it really should just be a function of government, but isn't for historical reasons)

zimablue 8y ago
Very good point