3 ms·

The powers that be. The shadowy cabal. The unseen hand which controls all aspects of society with absolute and arbitrary power. Actually, this does seem to be

The powers that be. The shadowy cabal. The unseen hand which controls all aspects of society with absolute and arbitrary power. Actually, this does seem to be the case with a somewhat reduced context of just media/social-media/tech in 2019. Journalist collusion is well documented. Big company manipulation of local journalists is documented. We have seen indications of CEOs of different companies cooperating to suppress politics unacceptable to them, even to the point of implementing censorship and demonetization within their platforms, and outside their own companies and spanning multiple platforms. no one is capable of defending free speech without resorting to slippery slopes and absolutism That's begging the question. Free Speech is inherently an (almost) absolutist position. There are other rights which take precedence, but to be valid, no one can be the arbiter of the philosophical or political positions taken -- only of incitement to specific illegal actions. Otherwise the arbiters on speech exist, and there is no Free Speech. In reality there is no need to defend Free Speech. Society isn't on the verge of collapse here. Maintaining Free Speech won't lead to an escalation of extremism. Only increased suppression will do that. What's really happening, is that big companies and governments are engaging in a power grab which weakens Free Speech.

fzeroracer 7y ago
Free speech is not an absolutist position and it does not exist. There is no single country on this earth, past or present, which has held an absolutist free speech position. Yes, that includes America. It may be enshrined in our constitution, but that has never stopped us from selectively applying constitutional rights to different classes of citizens or people we consider to be non-people. The real problem is pretending that an absolutist position exists and acting like we're becoming more free when the reality is that violent bigotry is rising while we complain about the imaginary slippery slope into fascism whenever someone decides to take action against them.
- lliamander 7y ago
  > It may be enshrined in our constitution, but that has never stopped us from selectively applying constitutional rights to different classes of citizens or people we consider to be non-people. So, because some people were denied their rights in the past, it proves that right doesn't exist and shouldn't be protected?
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    So, because some people were denied their rights in the past, it proves that right doesn't exist and shouldn't be protected? "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." --MLK I would agree we don't do this: "Selectively applying constitutional rights to different classes of citizens or people we consider to be non-people." Instead of forcing a power differential on people we don't like by limiting their access to things on the Internet, we need to convince them. It may take time. But that is the way of just, enlightened people. Using coercion against people by taking away viral-dissemination and discovery from them isn't any different than taking away books, taking away printing presses, or not allowing them into good schools.

fzeroracer 7y ago

Free speech is not an absolutist position and it does not exist. There is no single country on this earth, past or present, which has held an absolutist free speech position. Yes, that includes America. It may be enshrined in our constitution, but that has never stopped us from selectively applying constitutional rights to different classes of citizens or people we consider to be non-people. The real problem is pretending that an absolutist position exists and acting like we're becoming more free when the reality is that violent bigotry is rising while we complain about the imaginary slippery slope into fascism whenever someone decides to take action against them.

lliamander 7y ago
> It may be enshrined in our constitution, but that has never stopped us from selectively applying constitutional rights to different classes of citizens or people we consider to be non-people. So, because some people were denied their rights in the past, it proves that right doesn't exist and shouldn't be protected?
- stcredzero 7y ago
  So, because some people were denied their rights in the past, it proves that right doesn't exist and shouldn't be protected? "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." --MLK I would agree we don't do this: "Selectively applying constitutional rights to different classes of citizens or people we consider to be non-people." Instead of forcing a power differential on people we don't like by limiting their access to things on the Internet, we need to convince them. It may take time. But that is the way of just, enlightened people. Using coercion against people by taking away viral-dissemination and discovery from them isn't any different than taking away books, taking away printing presses, or not allowing them into good schools.