10 ms·

I'm really confused, culturally we didn't really have freedom of speech the way is being described here (the freedom to be in private spaces and say disagreeabl

I'm really confused, culturally we didn't really have freedom of speech the way is being described here (the freedom to be in private spaces and say disagreeable things without being ousted). Being bullied out of social circles, shunned for behaving in socially unacceptable ways (like women wearing pants, being gay, accepting interracial marriage) including speaking socially unacceptable things (like women are objects, I choose not to vaccinate my child) have always had consequences in the public space including being shunned broadly by friends, families, and business partners.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
coffeemug 8y ago
The difference is that the internet has discontinuously more scalable network effects, so technology companies often find themselves in a winner-takes-all dynamic. If some publisher, newspaper, or literary magazine refused to publish Walt Whitman, he could always try and find another publisher. But if Twitter bans Titania McGrath, there is no other Twitter for her to join because the next best alternative has 1/10000th the number of users. This effect is new. These platforms are private entities, but effectively they operate as public commons. So culturally we must treat them similar to public commons where it isn't acceptable to kick out quirky characters because some of us don't like what they have to say.
- SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  Yes, and this was problem exists to this day in prevailing cable and newspapers. During the time they were prevalent, unpopular events and speech were not spoken on the biggest networks (still not spoken about) and significant silenced perspectives had to make do with smaller platforms, poorer cable times, smaller venues, and self-publishing newspapers assuming they could fund a printing press. There was not a push to force those networks to host these voices. Yes, it’s an existing problem. I don’t understand why this is a new problem and am confused why this is unacceptable on the level that is new.
  - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
    It's not new, but I do believe back in the day there was such a thing as public-access television, and anyone could in fact start their own newspaper without being somehow banned from taking cash payments.
    - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
      They are still not banned from taking cash payments. They are banned from using a specific cash-taking service. It is still possible to set up a PO box to mail cheques to. Public-access television did not mean that anyone can have a show(or was entitled to being shown), either, iirc. They could still start their own newspaper, and the indie/local newspaper cycle is still being perpetuated in artsy or politically leftist circles.
      - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
        >They are still not banned from taking cash payments. They are banned from using a specific cash-taking service. It is still possible to set up a PO box to mail cheques to. That's a de facto ban and you know it. There have been zero cases in which an internet business has kept itself above-water via asking for checks to be sent to a post-office box. Instead, there should just be a post-office payment processor, operating over the network like all the others, and legally required to serve any customer.
coldtea 8y ago
>I'm really confused, culturally we didn't really have freedom of speech the way is being described here Well, what's to be confused about? Culturally we only had "freedom of speech" to the degree that we had it the way it is being described here. Everything else is the dominant ideas (with power in government, press, etc) throwing some other up-and-coming ideas a bone.
- SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  I’m confused why patreons behavior is newly unacceptable in a way that sparks controversy. I agree that it is likely a problem overall, but I don’t understand what has occurred that has made it new to discuss.
  - krapp 8y ago
    >I don’t understand what has occurred that has made it new to discuss. A lot of people in the tech community and on HN sympathize with the ideology of people being deplatformed, particularly regarding alt-right and "anti-feminist" views.
    - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
      Yes, but people have been deplatformed in the past, and are quite normally deplatformed for saying and doing socially unacceptable things outside of the platform. Plenty of news anchors get booted off for going on racist twitter rants or whatever. I fundamentally don’t understand the difference between this and booting someone from patreon for what they said on YouTube. I agree this is a problem- I don’t understand why this is a significantly new problem worthy of heated discussion.
    - repolfx 8y ago
      Really? How many anti-feminists are there on Hacker News? Very few, I'd say, especially as such views tend to be immediately downvoted and flagged into oblivion. There are however plenty of people who are disturbed by the systematic way certain minorities attack and destroy speech about ideas that are, objectively, commonplace and popular (just look at opinion polls). Even the top voted comment on this whole thread talks about disquiet over censorship whilst ending by saying they're a left leaning socialist. Of course, this statement should not be necessary to make, but it is - it's a form of "don't shoot I'm on your side".
stcredzero 8y ago
Being bullied out of social circles, shunned for behaving in socially unacceptable ways (like women wearing pants, being gay, accepting interracial marriage) including speaking socially unacceptable things (like women are objects, I choose not to vaccinate my child) If Patreon were trying to cultivate a "brand" on the side of shunning homosexuals, shaming women who wear pants, and denigrating interracial marriage, would you have a different take on their shutting down speech? Or would you say it's Patreon's right to cultivate their public image in whatever way they see fit?
- mallets 8y ago
  No. But would take a stand against Patreon, and only Patreon, if such a thing were to occur. Patreon is "free" to cultivate their public image as they see fit and I am free to stop using them, discourage others from using it, etc. Nothing to do with their take on free speech.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    I think the lesson of the past, is that people who do the kind of suppression which Patreon is engaging in, which Pay Pal is engaging in, which people who ran "restricted" clubs engaged in -- the people doing these things are the ones who have decided that certain people are "undesirables" and are motivated by the darker side of human emotion. It's those who are on the wrong side of history. The right side is the side that would engage ideas. Instead, people with power are suppressing ideas and hoping they'll go away. If you need to suppress and cannot engage, then you are on the wrong side of history.
    - bjourne 8y ago
      That is not the same thing. The white supremacists are thrown off Patreon because of what they do not because of who they are. Their ideas aren't being suppressed.
      - Sacho 8y ago
        Your statement is ironic as the person being discussed here was banned for denigrating the alt-right during his long-standing vendetta with them. Was he banned for "what he is"?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

coffeemug 8y ago

The difference is that the internet has discontinuously more scalable network effects, so technology companies often find themselves in a winner-takes-all dynamic. If some publisher, newspaper, or literary magazine refused to publish Walt Whitman, he could always try and find another publisher. But if Twitter bans Titania McGrath, there is no other Twitter for her to join because the next best alternative has 1/10000th the number of users. This effect is new. These platforms are private entities, but effectively they operate as public commons. So culturally we must treat them similar to public commons where it isn't acceptable to kick out quirky characters because some of us don't like what they have to say.

SolaceQuantum 8y ago
Yes, and this was problem exists to this day in prevailing cable and newspapers. During the time they were prevalent, unpopular events and speech were not spoken on the biggest networks (still not spoken about) and significant silenced perspectives had to make do with smaller platforms, poorer cable times, smaller venues, and self-publishing newspapers assuming they could fund a printing press. There was not a push to force those networks to host these voices. Yes, it’s an existing problem. I don’t understand why this is a new problem and am confused why this is unacceptable on the level that is new.
- eli_gottlieb 8y ago
  It's not new, but I do believe back in the day there was such a thing as public-access television, and anyone could in fact start their own newspaper without being somehow banned from taking cash payments.
  - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
    They are still not banned from taking cash payments. They are banned from using a specific cash-taking service. It is still possible to set up a PO box to mail cheques to. Public-access television did not mean that anyone can have a show(or was entitled to being shown), either, iirc. They could still start their own newspaper, and the indie/local newspaper cycle is still being perpetuated in artsy or politically leftist circles.
    - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
      >They are still not banned from taking cash payments. They are banned from using a specific cash-taking service. It is still possible to set up a PO box to mail cheques to. That's a de facto ban and you know it. There have been zero cases in which an internet business has kept itself above-water via asking for checks to be sent to a post-office box. Instead, there should just be a post-office payment processor, operating over the network like all the others, and legally required to serve any customer.

coldtea 8y ago

>I'm really confused, culturally we didn't really have freedom of speech the way is being described here Well, what's to be confused about? Culturally we only had "freedom of speech" to the degree that we had it the way it is being described here. Everything else is the dominant ideas (with power in government, press, etc) throwing some other up-and-coming ideas a bone.

SolaceQuantum 8y ago
I’m confused why patreons behavior is newly unacceptable in a way that sparks controversy. I agree that it is likely a problem overall, but I don’t understand what has occurred that has made it new to discuss.
- krapp 8y ago
  >I don’t understand what has occurred that has made it new to discuss. A lot of people in the tech community and on HN sympathize with the ideology of people being deplatformed, particularly regarding alt-right and "anti-feminist" views.
  - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
    Yes, but people have been deplatformed in the past, and are quite normally deplatformed for saying and doing socially unacceptable things outside of the platform. Plenty of news anchors get booted off for going on racist twitter rants or whatever. I fundamentally don’t understand the difference between this and booting someone from patreon for what they said on YouTube. I agree this is a problem- I don’t understand why this is a significantly new problem worthy of heated discussion.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    Really? How many anti-feminists are there on Hacker News? Very few, I'd say, especially as such views tend to be immediately downvoted and flagged into oblivion. There are however plenty of people who are disturbed by the systematic way certain minorities attack and destroy speech about ideas that are, objectively, commonplace and popular (just look at opinion polls). Even the top voted comment on this whole thread talks about disquiet over censorship whilst ending by saying they're a left leaning socialist. Of course, this statement should not be necessary to make, but it is - it's a form of "don't shoot I'm on your side".

stcredzero 8y ago

Being bullied out of social circles, shunned for behaving in socially unacceptable ways (like women wearing pants, being gay, accepting interracial marriage) including speaking socially unacceptable things (like women are objects, I choose not to vaccinate my child) If Patreon were trying to cultivate a "brand" on the side of shunning homosexuals, shaming women who wear pants, and denigrating interracial marriage, would you have a different take on their shutting down speech? Or would you say it's Patreon's right to cultivate their public image in whatever way they see fit?

mallets 8y ago
No. But would take a stand against Patreon, and only Patreon, if such a thing were to occur. Patreon is "free" to cultivate their public image as they see fit and I am free to stop using them, discourage others from using it, etc. Nothing to do with their take on free speech.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  I think the lesson of the past, is that people who do the kind of suppression which Patreon is engaging in, which Pay Pal is engaging in, which people who ran "restricted" clubs engaged in -- the people doing these things are the ones who have decided that certain people are "undesirables" and are motivated by the darker side of human emotion. It's those who are on the wrong side of history. The right side is the side that would engage ideas. Instead, people with power are suppressing ideas and hoping they'll go away. If you need to suppress and cannot engage, then you are on the wrong side of history.
  - bjourne 8y ago
    That is not the same thing. The white supremacists are thrown off Patreon because of what they do not because of who they are. Their ideas aren't being suppressed.
    - Sacho 8y ago
      Your statement is ironic as the person being discussed here was banned for denigrating the alt-right during his long-standing vendetta with them. Was he banned for "what he is"?