4 ms·

>>But who gets to decide who gets a platform? What happens when those deciders abuse their power? The owners of the platform. As things have always been. Like

by moate 7y ago

>>But who gets to decide who gets a platform? What happens when those deciders abuse their power? The owners of the platform. As things have always been. Like magazine editors or tv producers. Everyone having a platform is a mixed bag. I don't feel it's needed. If the socialists get McCarthy'd off twitter, they'll survive. If the Alt-right pisses off their web hosts, there's always some lovely libertarian ISP out there who feels that loud anarchy is the best way to support the first amendment. >>What happens if the pendulum swings the other way and the ones you consider to be on the "right side" of history start getting deplatformed? They'll find new platforms? Like they always have? I mean, maybe not the best example but as unpopular as Nazis and the KKK are, they still somehow find a way to exist and keep coming back. If your cause is sticky enough, you'll attract people. Also, maybe some ideas should just be allowed to quietly die in private. We don't need "both sides" on every issue.

LocalH 7y ago
What if the social pressure to "not give a platform to <x>" means that it becomes practically impossible for certain groups to have their voice heard? The point I'm getting at, is when you chip away at free speech like that, no matter how laudable the goals, the inevitable result is less free speech for all.
- moate 7y ago
  Yes and? I don't believe in 100% free speech. I don't think it's needed for society to function. That's fine if you do. But slippery slope arguments or "when the tides change" future-scenarios aren't super convincing. I'm fine with being intolerant of intolerance. I also understand it's personal opinion. That's how the world works. It's a bunch of individuals trying their best to get by in their lives. I say we ban the Nazis. You say "let the Nazis talk". Then society as a whole fights it out and comes to a conclusion (with inertia favoring inaction). The same will happen for ANTIFA and Communists and the Alt-Right and Libertarians being allowed to have platforms. And American society as a whole will keep moving forward in the same weird twisting way it has for the past ~250 years. I'm not unaware of the ramifications of my opinions if enacted as policy, I'm just not afraid of the fight when someone seeks to use them against me.
  - LocalH 7y ago
    I'm not so much afraid of the fight, as I am cognizant of the fact that once you enact a restriction on something, it's extremely difficult to reverse that restriction. I'm also trying to consider future generations - I see no reason to ignore the effects our current actions could have on them. It's easy to think "the government will never use these exceptions to silence speech critical of the government" but quite honestly, I don't have faith in my fellow man in that context, or at least not the typical politician. History has proven that governments can and will abuse any tool they are given. Such abuses currently happen, today, in the modern world. I'm a firm believer in a small government that stays as much out of people's lives as possible, at least directly. I respect your difference of opinion, however. I agree with the idea that "platforms" can control who publishes through their infrastructure. I also feel that everyone should have access to some platform, even if it's not the most popular one. Thus, when it comes to the backbone of the internet, I don't think providers should be able to pick and choose who they host, as long as there is no otherwise illegal content (copyright infringement, child abuse, etc). If any companies should be considered true common carriers, it would be those on the backbone.

by moate 7y ago

LocalH 7y ago

What if the social pressure to "not give a platform to <x>" means that it becomes practically impossible for certain groups to have their voice heard? The point I'm getting at, is when you chip away at free speech like that, no matter how laudable the goals, the inevitable result is less free speech for all.

moate 7y ago
Yes and? I don't believe in 100% free speech. I don't think it's needed for society to function. That's fine if you do. But slippery slope arguments or "when the tides change" future-scenarios aren't super convincing. I'm fine with being intolerant of intolerance. I also understand it's personal opinion. That's how the world works. It's a bunch of individuals trying their best to get by in their lives. I say we ban the Nazis. You say "let the Nazis talk". Then society as a whole fights it out and comes to a conclusion (with inertia favoring inaction). The same will happen for ANTIFA and Communists and the Alt-Right and Libertarians being allowed to have platforms. And American society as a whole will keep moving forward in the same weird twisting way it has for the past ~250 years. I'm not unaware of the ramifications of my opinions if enacted as policy, I'm just not afraid of the fight when someone seeks to use them against me.
- LocalH 7y ago
  I'm not so much afraid of the fight, as I am cognizant of the fact that once you enact a restriction on something, it's extremely difficult to reverse that restriction. I'm also trying to consider future generations - I see no reason to ignore the effects our current actions could have on them. It's easy to think "the government will never use these exceptions to silence speech critical of the government" but quite honestly, I don't have faith in my fellow man in that context, or at least not the typical politician. History has proven that governments can and will abuse any tool they are given. Such abuses currently happen, today, in the modern world. I'm a firm believer in a small government that stays as much out of people's lives as possible, at least directly. I respect your difference of opinion, however. I agree with the idea that "platforms" can control who publishes through their infrastructure. I also feel that everyone should have access to some platform, even if it's not the most popular one. Thus, when it comes to the backbone of the internet, I don't think providers should be able to pick and choose who they host, as long as there is no otherwise illegal content (copyright infringement, child abuse, etc). If any companies should be considered true common carriers, it would be those on the backbone.