4 ms·

Holy smokes, since when did interest in our constitutional rights of free speech become a "right" thing? It seems like the "From the right" should be "right-wi

Holy smokes, since when did interest in our constitutional rights of free speech become a "right" thing? It seems like the "From the right" should be "right-wing belief that tech platforms push left-wing biases", true or not, that is their gripe.

jyrkesh 7y ago
Since a while. I'm definitively not a right-winger, but I increasingly have to align myself with folks whose speech I hate in order to defend free speech against folks I agree with on issues. Too many on the left are gleeful at the thought of deplatforming any and all of their detractors.
- remarkEon 7y ago
  If we're being honest here, "Free Speech" has never really been a true philosophical maxim in this country. It's been a useful tool to acquire political and then, once acquired, it's jettisoned as a principle.
ARandomerDude 7y ago
> tech platforms push left-wing biases That's half of it. The other half is suppression of right-slanted content. The issue is monopoly status + pushing one side + suppressing the other side.
vturner 7y ago
And the down votes prove your point... Incredible.
- scarmig 7y ago
  I love how downvotes on Hacker News have become a totalitarian attack on free speech.
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    They're proof of cowardice and intellectual dishonesty. That's enough.
    - ionised 7y ago
      Oh the irony.
      - PavlovsCat 7y ago
        What irony?
- darkwizard42 7y ago
  Or perhaps its just a reminder to the user that free speech does not need to be extended by private organizations...They have in their TOS to remove content they do not deem fit in the same way users do not need to use these services.
  - remarkEon 7y ago
    Was it okay for communists to be blacklisted in Hollywood in the 40s and 50s? I personally don't have a problem with it, but I am not a communist.
    - maxheadroom 7y ago
      >I personally don't have a problem with it, but I am not a communist. The way this reads to me is: If you were against it, it could only be because you were a communist. #mcCarthyism
      - remarkEon 7y ago
        It’s a reference to a rather famous text from Martin Niemöller, about what happened in Nazi Germany. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
dragonwriter 7y ago
> since when did interest in our constitutional rights of free speech become a "right" thing? Confusing government regulation of private parties to prevent those actors chosen exercise of the right of free speech by way of not actively using their resources to magnify the reach of your favored actors speech with “free speech” is a “right” thing, and one diametrically opposed to Constitutional free speech.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  not actively using their resources to magnify the reach of your favored actors speech In 2019, having online speech without discovery and viral propagation is obviously disadvantaged. That's like saying in 1960's America, it would have been alright for networks to ban a political party from using radio and television, because they still have newspaper ads. What you're advocating is that one side of the political spectrum should get a huge media advantage in terms of "friction" and network effects -- because their side owns the companies controlling it. That's not advocating for a free marketplace of ideas. That's advocating for a rigged marketplace of ideas, because you happen to like the direction of the tilt. Would you be satisfied if Republicans were deplatforming your pundits and widely censoring speech you favored on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter? I wouldn't, and I don't think you'd like it very much. (In a way, it was like dealing with the Moral Majority types back in the 80's and 90's.) Be careful how you rig the system and distort the marketplace. One day, it might well be the turn of people you don't like. (1) diametrically opposed to Constitutional free speech Free Speech is more important than property rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama (1) - Given that I agree with Bret Weinstein, that some Bad Actors are exploiting the far left for their own purposes, this is basically already happening. It's just that the bias of most left leaning people prevents them from seeing the corruption on their own side.
zerocrates 7y ago
Who Twitter & friends choose to allow or not on their services doesn't really involve the First Amendment at all. Or rather, it doesn't as long as they're allowed to choose for themselves. Regulation trying to control who they can kick out and why would implicate the First Amendment quite directly. If you wanted to be charitable, you could say people mad about social media "deplatforming" are more trying to uphold a cultural value of free speech, but not a constitutional right.
- bduerst 7y ago
  >are more trying to uphold a cultural value of free speech Which is almost always a red herring. Typically the ones being deplatformed are causing harm to individuals, for which even the founders of free-speech philosophy said should be an exception.
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    > Typically the ones being deplatformed are causing harm to individuals "Typically"? Spoken like someone who actually looked at all cases? Or just taken some cases your peers agree on, and painting all cases with the same brush without even looking at them? Who did Carey Wedler harm, for example? See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzlPhxf4Rd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzlPhxf4Rd0 Or is that "not typical", as in "No True Scotsman"?
    - bduerst 7y ago
      For this to be a no-true-Scotsman, I would have to have claimed all bans, which I did not do. It's not an appeal to purity. Since this is the internet and people will nitpick things to death, I said Typically, because in any normalized population of bans you're going to have outlying false negatives and false positives, in which you've gone to lengths to dig up and present one. How do you even know that Anti-Media was banned for their speech anyways? According to them they never received a reason.
      - PavlovsCat 7y ago
alexis_fr 7y ago
Why « belief » ? They assert it in their values and in responses to interviews about deplatforming, so claiming it’s a belief makes it look less proven than it is.

jyrkesh 7y ago

Since a while. I'm definitively not a right-winger, but I increasingly have to align myself with folks whose speech I hate in order to defend free speech against folks I agree with on issues. Too many on the left are gleeful at the thought of deplatforming any and all of their detractors.

remarkEon 7y ago
If we're being honest here, "Free Speech" has never really been a true philosophical maxim in this country. It's been a useful tool to acquire political and then, once acquired, it's jettisoned as a principle.

ARandomerDude 7y ago

> tech platforms push left-wing biases That's half of it. The other half is suppression of right-slanted content. The issue is monopoly status + pushing one side + suppressing the other side.

vturner 7y ago

And the down votes prove your point... Incredible.

scarmig 7y ago
I love how downvotes on Hacker News have become a totalitarian attack on free speech.
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  They're proof of cowardice and intellectual dishonesty. That's enough.
  - ionised 7y ago
    Oh the irony.
    - PavlovsCat 7y ago
      What irony?
darkwizard42 7y ago
Or perhaps its just a reminder to the user that free speech does not need to be extended by private organizations...They have in their TOS to remove content they do not deem fit in the same way users do not need to use these services.
- remarkEon 7y ago
  Was it okay for communists to be blacklisted in Hollywood in the 40s and 50s? I personally don't have a problem with it, but I am not a communist.
  - maxheadroom 7y ago
    >I personally don't have a problem with it, but I am not a communist. The way this reads to me is: If you were against it, it could only be because you were a communist. #mcCarthyism
    - remarkEon 7y ago
      It’s a reference to a rather famous text from Martin Niemöller, about what happened in Nazi Germany. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

dragonwriter 7y ago

> since when did interest in our constitutional rights of free speech become a "right" thing? Confusing government regulation of private parties to prevent those actors chosen exercise of the right of free speech by way of not actively using their resources to magnify the reach of your favored actors speech with “free speech” is a “right” thing, and one diametrically opposed to Constitutional free speech.

stcredzero 7y ago
not actively using their resources to magnify the reach of your favored actors speech In 2019, having online speech without discovery and viral propagation is obviously disadvantaged. That's like saying in 1960's America, it would have been alright for networks to ban a political party from using radio and television, because they still have newspaper ads. What you're advocating is that one side of the political spectrum should get a huge media advantage in terms of "friction" and network effects -- because their side owns the companies controlling it. That's not advocating for a free marketplace of ideas. That's advocating for a rigged marketplace of ideas, because you happen to like the direction of the tilt. Would you be satisfied if Republicans were deplatforming your pundits and widely censoring speech you favored on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter? I wouldn't, and I don't think you'd like it very much. (In a way, it was like dealing with the Moral Majority types back in the 80's and 90's.) Be careful how you rig the system and distort the marketplace. One day, it might well be the turn of people you don't like. (1) diametrically opposed to Constitutional free speech Free Speech is more important than property rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama (1) - Given that I agree with Bret Weinstein, that some Bad Actors are exploiting the far left for their own purposes, this is basically already happening. It's just that the bias of most left leaning people prevents them from seeing the corruption on their own side.

zerocrates 7y ago

Who Twitter & friends choose to allow or not on their services doesn't really involve the First Amendment at all. Or rather, it doesn't as long as they're allowed to choose for themselves. Regulation trying to control who they can kick out and why would implicate the First Amendment quite directly. If you wanted to be charitable, you could say people mad about social media "deplatforming" are more trying to uphold a cultural value of free speech, but not a constitutional right.

bduerst 7y ago
>are more trying to uphold a cultural value of free speech Which is almost always a red herring. Typically the ones being deplatformed are causing harm to individuals, for which even the founders of free-speech philosophy said should be an exception.
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  > Typically the ones being deplatformed are causing harm to individuals "Typically"? Spoken like someone who actually looked at all cases? Or just taken some cases your peers agree on, and painting all cases with the same brush without even looking at them? Who did Carey Wedler harm, for example? See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzlPhxf4Rd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzlPhxf4Rd0 Or is that "not typical", as in "No True Scotsman"?
  - bduerst 7y ago
    For this to be a no-true-Scotsman, I would have to have claimed all bans, which I did not do. It's not an appeal to purity. Since this is the internet and people will nitpick things to death, I said Typically, because in any normalized population of bans you're going to have outlying false negatives and false positives, in which you've gone to lengths to dig up and present one. How do you even know that Anti-Media was banned for their speech anyways? According to them they never received a reason.
    - PavlovsCat 7y ago

alexis_fr 7y ago

Why « belief » ? They assert it in their values and in responses to interviews about deplatforming, so claiming it’s a belief makes it look less proven than it is.