5 ms·

I’m at the point where dishonest discussions about “free speech” online are a non-starter (Having had an illuminating exchange on this very site two days ago).

I’m at the point where dishonest discussions about “free speech” online are a non-starter (Having had an illuminating exchange on this very site two days ago). It’s not as though these anonymous chats matter in the slightest, they’re had in bad faith and most of all are intellectually stultifying. The only winning move is not to play. You won’t convince anyone of your position who has made the conscious choice to adopt a dynamic series of positions to support their unstated agenda. It’s like arguing with creationists, the best you can hope for is changing their declared position of the day. Meanwhile they win just by having an audience and the semblance of legitimacy, not to mention dominating and railroading ever comment section they can to quash reasonable debate. This is setting aside issues with bots, trolls, and brigades. In real life with people you know and can talk to there can be value in these discussions, but never anonymously and never online. It’s pseudointellectual wank dressed up as reasonable talk. There is nothing wrong with simply saying, “I’m not interested in having this conversation with you, sorry.” and moving on.

malvosenior 8y ago
Do you really not accept that some people (many) may just actually believe in free speech and not be arguing in bad faith, be a bot, brigade...? That was a pretty normal position to hold on the US until about 5 years ago and I’d say it still is.
- tombert 8y ago
  It's still a pretty normal position; I think a vast majority of Americans openly support free speech. Fear-mongering idiots like Sargon of Akkad and Ben Shapiro and Stephen Crowder and Stefan Molyneux and Jordan Peterson work very hard to make you feel like "all the SJWs are trying to regulate everything you say OMG!" because that's how they get their Patreon money, but in reality it's a lot more nuanced. I personally think that you should be allowed to say whatever the hell you want, and I do think it's a little BS when YouTube bans people for ideological reasons. That said, I also don't really get mad at YouTube for it, because it is a private platform, and frankly I don't think most people here would argue that YouTube should be classified as a utility.
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    I wish more people thought like you. I don’t get mad about what YouTube does either (although maybe I would if I was a YouTuber). I do get irritated when people tell me I’m a bot, Russian troll... for honestly stating my opinion (which I don’t think is even radical).
    - tombert 8y ago
      I have personally found the whole "he/she is a bot!" thing to be needlessly dismissive and irrelevant. Even if the entity making these claims is a bot/troll, the claims are still out there, and if there's any evidence that a sizable number of people are going to believe them, then these claims should be addressed appropriately. An example that comes to mind are the flat-earthers; a lot of people say that the ones making the YouTube videos are trolls, and most of them might be, but the fact is that there is evidence that a fair number of people fall for it (or at least are so in on the joke that they spend a lot of money for merchandise, and convention tickets, and funding Patreon accounts). I have no idea of your political leanings, but I do visit Donald Trump's Twitter account almost daily (because I'm apparently masochistic), and I see the "Russian Bot" insult hurled at any of his supporters, which I always find annoying.
  - nailer 8y ago
    There's people arguing against speech in this very thread.
  - thatoneuser 8y ago
    You need to do some actual listening to the people you've listed. Idk all of them but the ones I do aren't hate speech at all. You're being played by propaganda homes.
    - tombert 8y ago
      I didn't say they were hate speech, I said that they were fear-mongering idiots. That is demonstrably true.
- thatoneuser 8y ago
  The two posters before this are exactly why people are so riled up about censorship (calling it what it is. Just cuz someone dislikes the speech doesn't warrant removal of the right to speak.) Basically you have people that demand others be censored. That they don't deserve to speak freely. And they'll come up with all these mental gymnastics as to why other people's speech isn't acceptable. And for most of us we understand that the first amendment is the most important and that's not acceptable. Just look thru the last 2 years of left leaning websites. Anyone who claimed trump was innocent (clearly...) was a "bot, troll or brigader" and ought to be censored because it was "hate speech". A world where we censor is a dark world. There's a reason free speech was right number one in this country.
  - fossuser 8y ago
    Editorial discretion has always been a thing - you should absolutely be able to publish your own speech on your own terms, but I'm not convinced you should be able to force other private companies to host your content. The ability to publish widely is relatively new, before if you sent some long screed to the new york times they just wouldn't publish it (you could publish it yourself, but likely wouldn't have a huge audience). This gets tricky though when you're talking about things like being blocked by a domain name registrar or something. Even with speech you publish yourself there are some existing restrictions (libel laws, hate speech targeting individuals, etc.) Moderation is also what allows communities like HN to exist and remain interesting places - I'd definitely prefer it to every website turning into 4chan.
  - russdpale 8y ago
    The infringement of speech is only prevented for the federal government. The internet doesn't count. The internet is not beholden to physical barriers and there is more than enough room to start your own website. You have a right to speech, you don't have a right to a privately owned platform that isn't yours.. Furthermore, deplatforming has always been a thing. It basically happened to the dixie chicks after they spoke out against the Iraq war and GWB in England way back in the early 2000's. I don't think they have ever been on fox or a sinclair broadcasting station ever again. No one is saying proclaiming trumps innocence is hate speech, that is an absurd claim, where are you getting that nonsense?
- Pharmakon 8y ago
  Online it isn’t worth the time and energy sifting through ideologues, time-wasters, and other bad actors. It’s a conversation devoid of nuance, the ability to asses to someone’s truthfulness with body language, and one that ends when ever a party finds it convenient to stop responding and stsrt over with the next mark. Maybe you’re a really well-intentioned person interested in deep discussions of complex issues, and not working backwards from whichever forgone conclusion you’ve already reached. Maybe not. Either way I don’t see the value in spending my time engaging with you on this subject online. If I knew you offline and knew more about you, I might feel differently. I’ve just added “free speech” to a short list including guns, abortion, and conspiracy theories. Life’s too damned short, and the ROI of these topics online is negative.
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    It seems odd that you keep saying this yet continue to post. If you really felt this way, why not just stay silent instead of making a straw man of trolls... Is there someone in this thread that is trolling? If so, why don't you address them directly.
    - Pharmakon 8y ago
      You asked me a question and because I answered it, that’s a problem? I was trying to be polite, and you could do the same by respecting my choice and not using your (I assumed) honest question as bait.
      - malvosenior 8y ago
        I'm pointing out that you're the bad actor here. You're parachuting into a conversation and saying "don't listen to one side, they're all trolls!". Then plugging your ears with your fingers and repeating it.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
tombert 8y ago
In regards to free-speech you might be right, but I actually feel like HN is somewhat of an outlier with online debate/discussion, because I actually have changed my mind on things based on peoples' posts here (not even terribly long ago).

malvosenior 8y ago

Do you really not accept that some people (many) may just actually believe in free speech and not be arguing in bad faith, be a bot, brigade...? That was a pretty normal position to hold on the US until about 5 years ago and I’d say it still is.

tombert 8y ago
It's still a pretty normal position; I think a vast majority of Americans openly support free speech. Fear-mongering idiots like Sargon of Akkad and Ben Shapiro and Stephen Crowder and Stefan Molyneux and Jordan Peterson work very hard to make you feel like "all the SJWs are trying to regulate everything you say OMG!" because that's how they get their Patreon money, but in reality it's a lot more nuanced. I personally think that you should be allowed to say whatever the hell you want, and I do think it's a little BS when YouTube bans people for ideological reasons. That said, I also don't really get mad at YouTube for it, because it is a private platform, and frankly I don't think most people here would argue that YouTube should be classified as a utility.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  I wish more people thought like you. I don’t get mad about what YouTube does either (although maybe I would if I was a YouTuber). I do get irritated when people tell me I’m a bot, Russian troll... for honestly stating my opinion (which I don’t think is even radical).
  - tombert 8y ago
    I have personally found the whole "he/she is a bot!" thing to be needlessly dismissive and irrelevant. Even if the entity making these claims is a bot/troll, the claims are still out there, and if there's any evidence that a sizable number of people are going to believe them, then these claims should be addressed appropriately. An example that comes to mind are the flat-earthers; a lot of people say that the ones making the YouTube videos are trolls, and most of them might be, but the fact is that there is evidence that a fair number of people fall for it (or at least are so in on the joke that they spend a lot of money for merchandise, and convention tickets, and funding Patreon accounts). I have no idea of your political leanings, but I do visit Donald Trump's Twitter account almost daily (because I'm apparently masochistic), and I see the "Russian Bot" insult hurled at any of his supporters, which I always find annoying.
- nailer 8y ago
  There's people arguing against speech in this very thread.
- thatoneuser 8y ago
  You need to do some actual listening to the people you've listed. Idk all of them but the ones I do aren't hate speech at all. You're being played by propaganda homes.
  - tombert 8y ago
    I didn't say they were hate speech, I said that they were fear-mongering idiots. That is demonstrably true.
thatoneuser 8y ago
The two posters before this are exactly why people are so riled up about censorship (calling it what it is. Just cuz someone dislikes the speech doesn't warrant removal of the right to speak.) Basically you have people that demand others be censored. That they don't deserve to speak freely. And they'll come up with all these mental gymnastics as to why other people's speech isn't acceptable. And for most of us we understand that the first amendment is the most important and that's not acceptable. Just look thru the last 2 years of left leaning websites. Anyone who claimed trump was innocent (clearly...) was a "bot, troll or brigader" and ought to be censored because it was "hate speech". A world where we censor is a dark world. There's a reason free speech was right number one in this country.
- fossuser 8y ago
  Editorial discretion has always been a thing - you should absolutely be able to publish your own speech on your own terms, but I'm not convinced you should be able to force other private companies to host your content. The ability to publish widely is relatively new, before if you sent some long screed to the new york times they just wouldn't publish it (you could publish it yourself, but likely wouldn't have a huge audience). This gets tricky though when you're talking about things like being blocked by a domain name registrar or something. Even with speech you publish yourself there are some existing restrictions (libel laws, hate speech targeting individuals, etc.) Moderation is also what allows communities like HN to exist and remain interesting places - I'd definitely prefer it to every website turning into 4chan.
- russdpale 8y ago
  The infringement of speech is only prevented for the federal government. The internet doesn't count. The internet is not beholden to physical barriers and there is more than enough room to start your own website. You have a right to speech, you don't have a right to a privately owned platform that isn't yours.. Furthermore, deplatforming has always been a thing. It basically happened to the dixie chicks after they spoke out against the Iraq war and GWB in England way back in the early 2000's. I don't think they have ever been on fox or a sinclair broadcasting station ever again. No one is saying proclaiming trumps innocence is hate speech, that is an absurd claim, where are you getting that nonsense?
Pharmakon 8y ago
Online it isn’t worth the time and energy sifting through ideologues, time-wasters, and other bad actors. It’s a conversation devoid of nuance, the ability to asses to someone’s truthfulness with body language, and one that ends when ever a party finds it convenient to stop responding and stsrt over with the next mark. Maybe you’re a really well-intentioned person interested in deep discussions of complex issues, and not working backwards from whichever forgone conclusion you’ve already reached. Maybe not. Either way I don’t see the value in spending my time engaging with you on this subject online. If I knew you offline and knew more about you, I might feel differently. I’ve just added “free speech” to a short list including guns, abortion, and conspiracy theories. Life’s too damned short, and the ROI of these topics online is negative.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  It seems odd that you keep saying this yet continue to post. If you really felt this way, why not just stay silent instead of making a straw man of trolls... Is there someone in this thread that is trolling? If so, why don't you address them directly.
  - Pharmakon 8y ago
    You asked me a question and because I answered it, that’s a problem? I was trying to be polite, and you could do the same by respecting my choice and not using your (I assumed) honest question as bait.
    - malvosenior 8y ago
      I'm pointing out that you're the bad actor here. You're parachuting into a conversation and saying "don't listen to one side, they're all trolls!". Then plugging your ears with your fingers and repeating it.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]

tombert 8y ago

In regards to free-speech you might be right, but I actually feel like HN is somewhat of an outlier with online debate/discussion, because I actually have changed my mind on things based on peoples' posts here (not even terribly long ago).