4 ms·

The problem is, "intolerance" is an arbitrary distinction, especially over time and especially now. In sites like Patreon, Youtube, or Reddit which apparently p

The problem is, "intolerance" is an arbitrary distinction, especially over time and especially now. In sites like Patreon, Youtube, or Reddit which apparently presume to operate as a free marketplace to identify, discuss, and promote ideas, censoring those which merely hate (rather than actively condone actual/specific acts of violence) sets the precedent toward greater and more arbitrary censorship (whether people that condone it acknowledge it or not). As the goalposts shift, more 'reasonable' and, let's go with your word, 'conservative' ideas begin to be denounced and censored. Your argument 'not the right to be heard' does not apply in the context of shutting down users with controversial ideas on sites like Patreon and Reddit because visitors have ample space to not seek out the quiet 'ranting racist'. I have yet to experience people being thrown out of a bar, restaurant, or business because their conversation included racist or controversial topics.

specialist 8y ago
Freedom Markets™ (laissez faire) means we all define intolerance however we want. Unless you believe corporations have any sort of obligation to the society they function within.
- asdffdsa 8y ago
  Of course they do; do you have a more specific point or argument?
  - specialist 8y ago
    More specific than pointing out the contradiction of letting corporations do whatever they want while expecting them to behave a certain way?
    - asdffdsa 8y ago
      Yes, that's a pretty short-sighted contradiction which untangled itself after some elementary analysis; most people are trying to figure out what the boundaries of corporate behavior are and should be. I think ultimately I'm against censoring out 'alt-right' ideas and the like because we've already taken a pro-business approach to freedom like some of the commenters are suggesting (a more allowable use of the right to refuse service to anyone). This resulted in segregation by race and by gender, leading to unfair discrimination which ultimately resulted in a constitutional amendment disallowing it. Since then, the right of a company to deny services to someone hasn't been exercised as much. What happens if we begin to censor content on online platforms more readily, or in a more general sense censor ("curate") more readily? As happened in the 1950s, people will be unfairly excluded. Will we have to add another entry to the whitelist (another constitutional amendment) for this category of people then blindly continue in support of censorship? Will we be happy to create segregated circles where a group with superior technology clearly profits? In this case, I'm pretty obviously in support of allowing controversial content because freedom of expression is, in our culture, rightly (imo) regarded as important, discrimination has yielded poor outcomes in the past, and it is arrogant to think that we have figured out exactly what is acceptable to censor and to start actively censoring on that basis.
      - specialist 8y ago
        The tension between freedom of association vs freedom of speech. I'm strongly in the "my house, my rules" camp. Don't like my moderation? Fine, host your own party. Some argue that today's large services have a greater responsibility. Because they serve a public good. In some cases approaching a public utility. So perhaps freedom of speech concerns outweigh "house rules" (freedom of association). Per the paradox of tolerance, I have zero sympathy for the agitators (trolls), regardless of flavor, so am the wrong person to adjudicate. I point out the (widespread) contradiction, because the other rights are often ignored.
jyounker 8y ago
I’ve seen it happen. I’ve seen them shouted down by the bar tender and patrons too. Generally though the people in the ranter’s vicinity get up and walk away.

specialist 8y ago

Freedom Markets™ (laissez faire) means we all define intolerance however we want. Unless you believe corporations have any sort of obligation to the society they function within.

asdffdsa 8y ago
Of course they do; do you have a more specific point or argument?
- specialist 8y ago
  More specific than pointing out the contradiction of letting corporations do whatever they want while expecting them to behave a certain way?
  - asdffdsa 8y ago
    Yes, that's a pretty short-sighted contradiction which untangled itself after some elementary analysis; most people are trying to figure out what the boundaries of corporate behavior are and should be. I think ultimately I'm against censoring out 'alt-right' ideas and the like because we've already taken a pro-business approach to freedom like some of the commenters are suggesting (a more allowable use of the right to refuse service to anyone). This resulted in segregation by race and by gender, leading to unfair discrimination which ultimately resulted in a constitutional amendment disallowing it. Since then, the right of a company to deny services to someone hasn't been exercised as much. What happens if we begin to censor content on online platforms more readily, or in a more general sense censor ("curate") more readily? As happened in the 1950s, people will be unfairly excluded. Will we have to add another entry to the whitelist (another constitutional amendment) for this category of people then blindly continue in support of censorship? Will we be happy to create segregated circles where a group with superior technology clearly profits? In this case, I'm pretty obviously in support of allowing controversial content because freedom of expression is, in our culture, rightly (imo) regarded as important, discrimination has yielded poor outcomes in the past, and it is arrogant to think that we have figured out exactly what is acceptable to censor and to start actively censoring on that basis.
    - specialist 8y ago
      The tension between freedom of association vs freedom of speech. I'm strongly in the "my house, my rules" camp. Don't like my moderation? Fine, host your own party. Some argue that today's large services have a greater responsibility. Because they serve a public good. In some cases approaching a public utility. So perhaps freedom of speech concerns outweigh "house rules" (freedom of association). Per the paradox of tolerance, I have zero sympathy for the agitators (trolls), regardless of flavor, so am the wrong person to adjudicate. I point out the (widespread) contradiction, because the other rights are often ignored.

jyounker 8y ago

I’ve seen it happen. I’ve seen them shouted down by the bar tender and patrons too. Generally though the people in the ranter’s vicinity get up and walk away.