5 ms·

We didn't decide to guarantee free speech in "public spaces" for funsies. We did it because guaranteeing people the ability to meaningfully participate in the p

We didn't decide to guarantee free speech in "public spaces" for funsies. We did it because guaranteeing people the ability to meaningfully participate in the public political debate is a preventative measure against real world violence. If people cannot peacefully advocate for their interests, they are going to do so violently. The fact of the matter is that places like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are where a substantial amount of the public political debate takes place. Users banned from there are significantly less able to participate in the political debate, and so significantly less able to peacefully advocate for what they see as their interests. If you find those people so deplorable that you don't want them to be able to advocate for their own interests, don't be surprised when they return the sentiment with fast moving lead.

Retra 7y ago
If their interests are to advocate for violence, why would you expect their ability to advocate in public to lead to peace?
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  Everyone advocates for violence in some circumstances, except perfect pacifists.
  - Retra 7y ago
    And the world is a more violent place because of it. Nevertheless, there is big difference between the way violence is advocated for between moderates and extremists in terms of severity, frequency, and justification. I didn't ask you who advocates for violence, I asked you why you thought the unrestricted public speech of extremists leads to peace.
    - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
      Please be specific. Whose political speech do you believe is going to result in more real world violence, and what is the chain of events that you foresee? I've already explained why I think restricting political speech results in increased real world violence. People are going to advocate for what they perceive as their interests, and if they can't do it peacefully, they're going to do it violently.
      - Retra 7y ago
        Why do you think they won't be able to do it peacefully?
        HBKXNCUO 7y ago
        If people are banned from the places where a substantial portion of the public political debate occurs, e.g. YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, their ability to participate in the public political debate is substantially reduced. People advocate for their interests peacefully by participating in the public political debate. If their ability to participate in the public political debate is substantially reduced, then their attempts to peacefully advocate for their interests are a waste of their time.
        Retra 7y ago
        You are making an assumption which contradicts your conclusion. If we are assuming that (1) YouTube is effectively the public square and that (2) people will advocate for their interest peacefully, then you cannot conclude that people will forego self-moderation of content deemed extreme and immediately turn to violence. If your YouTube video gets taken down, you can re-upload something that is better reasoned and less prone to inciting violence. If you can't do this, then you message is inherently violent, and there was never any peaceful outcome in the first place. Either way, I'd still rather have extremists arming themselves than spending their lives convincing others to take up violence on their behalf.
        HBKXNCUO 7y ago
        >If we are assuming that (1) YouTube is effectively the public square and that (2) people will advocate for their interest peacefully, then you cannot conclude that people will forego self-moderation of content deemed extreme and immediately turn to violence. Could you word this another way? I do not understand what you're saying. >then you message is inherently violent Can you please be specific and give an example of a political ideology that is inherently violent, and also one that is not inherently violent, other than pure pacifism? >Either way, I'd still rather have extremists arming themselves than spending their lives convincing others to take up violence on their behalf. Because you are worried that people are going to buy what they're selling? Why are you worried about that, specifically?
    - anoncake 7y ago
      > And the world is a more violent place because of it. I don't think the world becomes more violent because people defend themselves and others. And if it does, it's still worth it compared to surrendering to every would-be tyrant without a fight.
Krasnol 7y ago
> We didn't decide to guarantee free speech in "public spaces" for funsies. We did it because guaranteeing people the ability to meaningfully participate in the public political debate is a preventative measure against real world violence. If people cannot peacefully advocate for their interests, they are going to do so violently. Is this supposed to threaten me? I don't know where you're from but here in Germany there is a difference between public spaces and private spaces. You can suppress free speech in private spaces. You don't even have to allow access to private spaces while it's the other way around in public spaces. There are laws for that. The amount of people does not matter. You can't display swastikas in a Bundesliga stadium just because there are plenty people there. The owner would throw you out and probably even report you to the police. Censorship is something the state forces upon you. It restricts things in public spaces. There is no place left you can go in a state with censorship present to challenge that. Misusing "censorship" for moderation of private spaces plays down the word. It wears it out and it ridicules people who really suffer under true censorship. And please...spare me the drama. I grew up in a state with true censorship and I've been online long enough to see this ridiculous whining as what it is...
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  >Is this supposed to threaten me? I'm not sure what that would mean in this context. >You can suppress free speech in private spaces. You don't even have to allow access to private spaces while it's the other way around in public spaces. There are laws for that. The point I'm making is that it's probably not a good idea to allow certain private spaces to suppress free speech. >You can't display swastikas in a Bundesliga stadium just because there are plenty people there. As I understand, you can't display them anywhere in your country, because your country has more restrictions on political speech than some other parts of the world, e.g. the US. Regardless, I am not suggesting that stadium owners should be forced to allow political demonstrations on their private property. I'm suggesting that certain key internet websites where a significant portion of the public political debate takes place should not be given carte blanche to reduce the ability of people to spread political ideas which the owners of those sites do not like. >The amount of people does not matter. What matters is whether people feel as though they have lost their ability to peacefully and meaningfully advocate for their interests. >Censorship is something the state forces upon you. It restricts things in public spaces. There is no place left you can go in a state with censorship present to challenge that. I'm not interested in debating your strange and highly restricted meaning of the word. I'm interested in the real world consequences of the actions that these mega-corporations are taking. >It wears it out and it ridicules people who really suffer under true censorship. The people you mean to refer to are not my concern.

Retra 7y ago

If their interests are to advocate for violence, why would you expect their ability to advocate in public to lead to peace?

HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Everyone advocates for violence in some circumstances, except perfect pacifists.
- Retra 7y ago
  And the world is a more violent place because of it. Nevertheless, there is big difference between the way violence is advocated for between moderates and extremists in terms of severity, frequency, and justification. I didn't ask you who advocates for violence, I asked you why you thought the unrestricted public speech of extremists leads to peace.
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    Please be specific. Whose political speech do you believe is going to result in more real world violence, and what is the chain of events that you foresee? I've already explained why I think restricting political speech results in increased real world violence. People are going to advocate for what they perceive as their interests, and if they can't do it peacefully, they're going to do it violently.
    - Retra 7y ago
      Why do you think they won't be able to do it peacefully?
      - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
        If people are banned from the places where a substantial portion of the public political debate occurs, e.g. YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, their ability to participate in the public political debate is substantially reduced. People advocate for their interests peacefully by participating in the public political debate. If their ability to participate in the public political debate is substantially reduced, then their attempts to peacefully advocate for their interests are a waste of their time.
        Retra 7y ago
        You are making an assumption which contradicts your conclusion. If we are assuming that (1) YouTube is effectively the public square and that (2) people will advocate for their interest peacefully, then you cannot conclude that people will forego self-moderation of content deemed extreme and immediately turn to violence. If your YouTube video gets taken down, you can re-upload something that is better reasoned and less prone to inciting violence. If you can't do this, then you message is inherently violent, and there was never any peaceful outcome in the first place. Either way, I'd still rather have extremists arming themselves than spending their lives convincing others to take up violence on their behalf.
        HBKXNCUO 7y ago
        >If we are assuming that (1) YouTube is effectively the public square and that (2) people will advocate for their interest peacefully, then you cannot conclude that people will forego self-moderation of content deemed extreme and immediately turn to violence. Could you word this another way? I do not understand what you're saying. >then you message is inherently violent Can you please be specific and give an example of a political ideology that is inherently violent, and also one that is not inherently violent, other than pure pacifism? >Either way, I'd still rather have extremists arming themselves than spending their lives convincing others to take up violence on their behalf. Because you are worried that people are going to buy what they're selling? Why are you worried about that, specifically?
  - anoncake 7y ago
    > And the world is a more violent place because of it. I don't think the world becomes more violent because people defend themselves and others. And if it does, it's still worth it compared to surrendering to every would-be tyrant without a fight.

Krasnol 7y ago

> We didn't decide to guarantee free speech in "public spaces" for funsies. We did it because guaranteeing people the ability to meaningfully participate in the public political debate is a preventative measure against real world violence. If people cannot peacefully advocate for their interests, they are going to do so violently. Is this supposed to threaten me? I don't know where you're from but here in Germany there is a difference between public spaces and private spaces. You can suppress free speech in private spaces. You don't even have to allow access to private spaces while it's the other way around in public spaces. There are laws for that. The amount of people does not matter. You can't display swastikas in a Bundesliga stadium just because there are plenty people there. The owner would throw you out and probably even report you to the police. Censorship is something the state forces upon you. It restricts things in public spaces. There is no place left you can go in a state with censorship present to challenge that. Misusing "censorship" for moderation of private spaces plays down the word. It wears it out and it ridicules people who really suffer under true censorship. And please...spare me the drama. I grew up in a state with true censorship and I've been online long enough to see this ridiculous whining as what it is...

HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>Is this supposed to threaten me? I'm not sure what that would mean in this context. >You can suppress free speech in private spaces. You don't even have to allow access to private spaces while it's the other way around in public spaces. There are laws for that. The point I'm making is that it's probably not a good idea to allow certain private spaces to suppress free speech. >You can't display swastikas in a Bundesliga stadium just because there are plenty people there. As I understand, you can't display them anywhere in your country, because your country has more restrictions on political speech than some other parts of the world, e.g. the US. Regardless, I am not suggesting that stadium owners should be forced to allow political demonstrations on their private property. I'm suggesting that certain key internet websites where a significant portion of the public political debate takes place should not be given carte blanche to reduce the ability of people to spread political ideas which the owners of those sites do not like. >The amount of people does not matter. What matters is whether people feel as though they have lost their ability to peacefully and meaningfully advocate for their interests. >Censorship is something the state forces upon you. It restricts things in public spaces. There is no place left you can go in a state with censorship present to challenge that. I'm not interested in debating your strange and highly restricted meaning of the word. I'm interested in the real world consequences of the actions that these mega-corporations are taking. >It wears it out and it ridicules people who really suffer under true censorship. The people you mean to refer to are not my concern.