4 ms·

If I were to post here linking your legal name and identifying information and residence to this post and issuing a call to have you disemployed and harassed at

by olefoo 8y ago

If I were to post here linking your legal name and identifying information and residence to this post and issuing a call to have you disemployed and harassed at home; evicted if possible and subjected to a general boycott covering everything from sex to food. You would object strenuously. Yet I would only be engaging in "free speech".

acct1771 8y ago
So why haven't you?
AndrewKemendo 8y ago
I don't think this is as great of a counterpoint as you seem to think it is. All of the information you state is public record, and for someone like me who always uses my real name, I'm not concerned about people knowing it. You are free to call whomever you like to say I should be "disemployed and harassed at home" but making fraudulent claims and engaging in harassment can be handled like it always has, by me calling my local power brokers (police etc...) to prevent you from breaking the law. Your implicit point though, that systems of free speech when combined with systems of wide ranging granular information about individuals, can be abused. If your solution is to get rid of the former, rather than limit access to the latter or create better systems of verification with power structures, then indeed you're (IMO) on the wrong side of a free society.
- olefoo 8y ago
  The point I was trying to make is that some forms of speech are violence ( in the action intended to cause harm sense ).
makomk 8y ago
The thing that gets me about this argument is that, not only is this not a hypothetical scenario, there's a rather large overlap between the people who've been using these tactics to shut people up and the people demanding that sites like Facebook clamp down on "harmful" speech. They're like two parallel tactics in the same war to silence undesirable views. If we give in to the demands for sites like Facebook to eradicate harmful speech, we'll still have the same campaigns to fire and harass people, they just won't be able to complain about it because the social media websites will be under the exact same pressure to shut them up as their employers.

by olefoo 8y ago

acct1771 8y ago

So why haven't you?

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

I don't think this is as great of a counterpoint as you seem to think it is. All of the information you state is public record, and for someone like me who always uses my real name, I'm not concerned about people knowing it. You are free to call whomever you like to say I should be "disemployed and harassed at home" but making fraudulent claims and engaging in harassment can be handled like it always has, by me calling my local power brokers (police etc...) to prevent you from breaking the law. Your implicit point though, that systems of free speech when combined with systems of wide ranging granular information about individuals, can be abused. If your solution is to get rid of the former, rather than limit access to the latter or create better systems of verification with power structures, then indeed you're (IMO) on the wrong side of a free society.

olefoo 8y ago
The point I was trying to make is that some forms of speech are violence ( in the action intended to cause harm sense ).

makomk 8y ago

The thing that gets me about this argument is that, not only is this not a hypothetical scenario, there's a rather large overlap between the people who've been using these tactics to shut people up and the people demanding that sites like Facebook clamp down on "harmful" speech. They're like two parallel tactics in the same war to silence undesirable views. If we give in to the demands for sites like Facebook to eradicate harmful speech, we'll still have the same campaigns to fire and harass people, they just won't be able to complain about it because the social media websites will be under the exact same pressure to shut them up as their employers.