6 ms·

Shameful and counter-productive. We have to return to free speech and the exchange of free ideas. Banning people for having opposing viewpoints is a big step

Shameful and counter-productive. We have to return to free speech and the exchange of free ideas. Banning people for having opposing viewpoints is a big step backwards. If you disagree with someone, hear them out and then explain why your idea is better.

cal5k 7y ago
I can’t pinpoint exactly when the shift happened, but in the recent past the tech industry was always the first to defend free speech and the open exchange of ideas. Today it seems to be increasingly beholden to a loud minority of employees with some very illiberal views about speech.
- gameswithgo 7y ago
  This happened because we saw that free speech on internet forums just let to people harassing women and yelling racist nonsense constantly. The forum you are on deletes garbage too. free speech is a principle that the government can't silence you. it never meant that other people have to listen to you or care what you say.
  - humanrebar 7y ago
    Free speech is a principle based in rationality. Exercise of power should not overrule reason and independent thought. Governments are notoriously powerful and prone to censorship, but private groups like corporations and busybody neighborhoods can also be heavy handed and net harmful.
- youdontknowtho 7y ago
  Only when the speech is insulting, racist, or oppressive. This whole thing is a dodge so that the far right can get their views in front of people. This is something that they explicitly state as a goal and a tactic. The guy voted for all kinds of gross right wing BS. People don't want to hear what he has to say.
  - major505 7y ago
    Who decides what is insult, racist and opressive? This are a very particular definition.
  - cal5k 7y ago
    Yes, a "dodge so that the far right can get their views in front of people" that also happens to be a constitutional amendment from 1791. The idea of handing the power to determine what speech is "insulting, racist, or oppressive" to government of any kind is absolutely horrifying to me. It would be a dismantling of one of the core principles of western democracy. And PS I'm Canadian.
- treesrule 7y ago
  I mean, its not just the tech industry, even people like Senator Cruz who used to `ostensibly` be for the constitutions has toyed with a ban on supporting BDS and regulating private companies speech.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- kristiandupont 7y ago
  I don't know about generally, but my own feeling is that I am more reluctant about the whole thing because a lot of the people chanting about freedom of speech seem to be destructive and ill-intentioned these days.
  - humanrebar 7y ago
    So free speech is guilty by association? I understand the emotional reaction. I don't understand how nominally rational people don't overrule their collective id on this one.
youdontknowtho 7y ago
Luckily, that spirited discussion with Nevil Chamberlain kept WWII from happening.
aNoob7000 7y ago
A problem I have with today's politics/politicians is that once you are part of a group (Republican or Democrat), you tend to vote the same as the group. People talk about the free exchange of ideas, but it is in the context of them changing your mind and not the other way around. There's no compromise on either side, why talk about different points of view, if you are not going to change your mind.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  > you tend to vote the same as the group. People talk about the free exchange of ideas, but it is in the context of them changing your mind and not the other way around. Thank the removal of earmarks and Citizens United for that. Legislators are dependent on those sweet PAC dollars (or more critically, dependent on someone else not getting them) in order to get re-elected and without an earmark to bring home to your district to please your voters with you can't risk losing goodwill with the party elites who control the purse strings by breaking from the party.
- humanrebar 7y ago
  There is no compromise is the fringes of Twitter. I don't think it's true that literally nobody thinks things through.
  - aNoob7000 7y ago
    The problem is not thinking things through. The problem is will enough people vote on something their political party is entirely against or even compromise a little.
    - humanrebar 7y ago
      Can't speak for everyone, but I do. I didn't vote for either presidential candidate last time around especially because of the us-versus-them attitudes all around. Pretending folks like me don't exist isn't going to improve our culture.
- zimpenfish 7y ago

cal5k 7y ago

I can’t pinpoint exactly when the shift happened, but in the recent past the tech industry was always the first to defend free speech and the open exchange of ideas. Today it seems to be increasingly beholden to a loud minority of employees with some very illiberal views about speech.

gameswithgo 7y ago
This happened because we saw that free speech on internet forums just let to people harassing women and yelling racist nonsense constantly. The forum you are on deletes garbage too. free speech is a principle that the government can't silence you. it never meant that other people have to listen to you or care what you say.
- humanrebar 7y ago
  Free speech is a principle based in rationality. Exercise of power should not overrule reason and independent thought. Governments are notoriously powerful and prone to censorship, but private groups like corporations and busybody neighborhoods can also be heavy handed and net harmful.
youdontknowtho 7y ago
Only when the speech is insulting, racist, or oppressive. This whole thing is a dodge so that the far right can get their views in front of people. This is something that they explicitly state as a goal and a tactic. The guy voted for all kinds of gross right wing BS. People don't want to hear what he has to say.
- major505 7y ago
  Who decides what is insult, racist and opressive? This are a very particular definition.
- cal5k 7y ago
  Yes, a "dodge so that the far right can get their views in front of people" that also happens to be a constitutional amendment from 1791. The idea of handing the power to determine what speech is "insulting, racist, or oppressive" to government of any kind is absolutely horrifying to me. It would be a dismantling of one of the core principles of western democracy. And PS I'm Canadian.
treesrule 7y ago
I mean, its not just the tech industry, even people like Senator Cruz who used to `ostensibly` be for the constitutions has toyed with a ban on supporting BDS and regulating private companies speech.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kristiandupont 7y ago
I don't know about generally, but my own feeling is that I am more reluctant about the whole thing because a lot of the people chanting about freedom of speech seem to be destructive and ill-intentioned these days.
- humanrebar 7y ago
  So free speech is guilty by association? I understand the emotional reaction. I don't understand how nominally rational people don't overrule their collective id on this one.

youdontknowtho 7y ago

Luckily, that spirited discussion with Nevil Chamberlain kept WWII from happening.

aNoob7000 7y ago

A problem I have with today's politics/politicians is that once you are part of a group (Republican or Democrat), you tend to vote the same as the group. People talk about the free exchange of ideas, but it is in the context of them changing your mind and not the other way around. There's no compromise on either side, why talk about different points of view, if you are not going to change your mind.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
> you tend to vote the same as the group. People talk about the free exchange of ideas, but it is in the context of them changing your mind and not the other way around. Thank the removal of earmarks and Citizens United for that. Legislators are dependent on those sweet PAC dollars (or more critically, dependent on someone else not getting them) in order to get re-elected and without an earmark to bring home to your district to please your voters with you can't risk losing goodwill with the party elites who control the purse strings by breaking from the party.
humanrebar 7y ago
There is no compromise is the fringes of Twitter. I don't think it's true that literally nobody thinks things through.
- aNoob7000 7y ago
  The problem is not thinking things through. The problem is will enough people vote on something their political party is entirely against or even compromise a little.
  - humanrebar 7y ago
    Can't speak for everyone, but I do. I didn't vote for either presidential candidate last time around especially because of the us-versus-them attitudes all around. Pretending folks like me don't exist isn't going to improve our culture.
zimpenfish 7y ago