4 ms·

The global gag on free speech is tightening

43 points by Reedx 7y ago

mindfulhack 7y ago
Speaking of censorship, here's a full text of the article so you can actually read it: http://archive.is/27LV3 http://archive.is/27LV3
throwawaysea 7y ago
Paywall, so I can’t read the full article. But I’m curious if they mention corporations gagging free speech in the digital town squares of Twitter, Facebook, etc. And more broadly with deplatforming running amok.
- marmaduke 7y ago
  > corporations gagging free speech in the digital town squares of Twitter See the other comment for the full text without pay well. They mention a few times how Twitter is a town square where 'mobs' of people denounce individuals for saying the Wrong Thing. Corporations though? Nope.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Largely because the corporations are just following public opinion. The article does cover how more and more people think that content they find offensive should be refused by platforms. Corporations aren't the cause of this loss of ability to speak in my view. It's the shift in public opinion, and corporations respond to shifts in public opinion akin to a sailor responding to changes in the wind.
helen___keller 7y ago
I always wonder why discussion about this issue does not state the obvious: the internet is the perfect tool for radicalization, even inadvertantly. This is why authoritarian governments control/limit access to the internet and why free countries see so much violence, conflict, and polarity that ironically appears to be curtailing free speech. Theres a reason the information revolution is a "revolution". The days of typical mass media are over, and society is going to take a few years or decades to learn how to function smoothly again.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Because this conclusion is not only far from "obvious" it likely is not the case at all. The majority of the US population was internet connected by just after year 2000. 2/3rds by 2005. By comparison crime is at 50 year lows, and contrary to the public narrative the percent of the population that approves of immigration is at its highest levels [1]. We aren't seeing "so much violence", that's just counterfactual. For the most part, I see allegations of internet radicalization coming from groups like traditional media and TV that have a conflict of interest with online platforms and have a vested interest in portraying them as harmful. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/us/immigration-polls-donald-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/us/immigration-polls-dona...
  - vokep 7y ago
    Mean world syndrome. Its just gotten worse and worse. Its not like its entirely inaccurate, there are lots of bad things happening. School shootings are terrible, but, nobody seems to mention that while those have increased as time has gone on, you no longer hear about serial killers.
  - helen___keller 7y ago
    > contrary to the public narrative the percent of the population that approves of immigration is at its highest levels I'm not sure how that's relevant. I can agree perhaps it's not as obvious to those who spend less time on the internet or in different circles, but here's some examples I've seen of internet radicalization: - Person sharing an image on Facebook that states it is your patriotic duty to shoot the Clintons on sight (shared after the Epstein suicide, not in 2016) - A Facebook group about train memes and urbanism became viral, and now every week there's an anti landlord thread where people repeatedly share images of guillotines and make jokes about how Mao was right to murder landlords - /r/the_donald is a perfect example. In the early debates before the primary began it was a very lighthearted subreddit mostly making fun of Jeb Bush. By the time Trump won the nomination it became a vile and conspiratorial cesspool. -subreddits associated with following WikiLeaks and such that essentially became broadcast channels for various conspiracy theories (deep state, Clintons, that sort of thing) - The top comments on just about any popular politicians Twitter will just be the opposing group accusing the politician of being corrupt, incompetent, etc etc - open comments sections on news articles. Need I say more? - Facebook comments sections on news articles shared by mainstream news. Need I say more? - The YouTube recommended video death spiral. I've seen a relative go from looking up and watching videos of sermons + Bible discussion, to watching and sharing "here's proof the rapture is happening in 2019", to sharing QAnon conspiracies, in a matter of months. It's fucking depressing seeing that happen to somebody you care about. To me these are all radicalization. They don't all result in Mass violence (maybe none of them do), but it pushes people's opinions very effectively outside of what's mainstream and otherwise "acceptable" in society, hence why I call it radicalization.
trilila 7y ago
While this article points the elephant in the room, some of these countries never had free speech.

43 points by Reedx 7y ago

Speaking of censorship, here's a full text of the article so you can actually read it: http://archive.is/27LV3 http://archive.is/27LV3

throwawaysea 7y ago

Paywall, so I can’t read the full article. But I’m curious if they mention corporations gagging free speech in the digital town squares of Twitter, Facebook, etc. And more broadly with deplatforming running amok.

marmaduke 7y ago
> corporations gagging free speech in the digital town squares of Twitter See the other comment for the full text without pay well. They mention a few times how Twitter is a town square where 'mobs' of people denounce individuals for saying the Wrong Thing. Corporations though? Nope.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Largely because the corporations are just following public opinion. The article does cover how more and more people think that content they find offensive should be refused by platforms. Corporations aren't the cause of this loss of ability to speak in my view. It's the shift in public opinion, and corporations respond to shifts in public opinion akin to a sailor responding to changes in the wind.

helen___keller 7y ago

I always wonder why discussion about this issue does not state the obvious: the internet is the perfect tool for radicalization, even inadvertantly. This is why authoritarian governments control/limit access to the internet and why free countries see so much violence, conflict, and polarity that ironically appears to be curtailing free speech. Theres a reason the information revolution is a "revolution". The days of typical mass media are over, and society is going to take a few years or decades to learn how to function smoothly again.

manfredo 7y ago
Because this conclusion is not only far from "obvious" it likely is not the case at all. The majority of the US population was internet connected by just after year 2000. 2/3rds by 2005. By comparison crime is at 50 year lows, and contrary to the public narrative the percent of the population that approves of immigration is at its highest levels [1]. We aren't seeing "so much violence", that's just counterfactual. For the most part, I see allegations of internet radicalization coming from groups like traditional media and TV that have a conflict of interest with online platforms and have a vested interest in portraying them as harmful. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/us/immigration-polls-donald-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/us/immigration-polls-dona...
- vokep 7y ago
  Mean world syndrome. Its just gotten worse and worse. Its not like its entirely inaccurate, there are lots of bad things happening. School shootings are terrible, but, nobody seems to mention that while those have increased as time has gone on, you no longer hear about serial killers.
- helen___keller 7y ago
  > contrary to the public narrative the percent of the population that approves of immigration is at its highest levels I'm not sure how that's relevant. I can agree perhaps it's not as obvious to those who spend less time on the internet or in different circles, but here's some examples I've seen of internet radicalization: - Person sharing an image on Facebook that states it is your patriotic duty to shoot the Clintons on sight (shared after the Epstein suicide, not in 2016) - A Facebook group about train memes and urbanism became viral, and now every week there's an anti landlord thread where people repeatedly share images of guillotines and make jokes about how Mao was right to murder landlords - /r/the_donald is a perfect example. In the early debates before the primary began it was a very lighthearted subreddit mostly making fun of Jeb Bush. By the time Trump won the nomination it became a vile and conspiratorial cesspool. -subreddits associated with following WikiLeaks and such that essentially became broadcast channels for various conspiracy theories (deep state, Clintons, that sort of thing) - The top comments on just about any popular politicians Twitter will just be the opposing group accusing the politician of being corrupt, incompetent, etc etc - open comments sections on news articles. Need I say more? - Facebook comments sections on news articles shared by mainstream news. Need I say more? - The YouTube recommended video death spiral. I've seen a relative go from looking up and watching videos of sermons + Bible discussion, to watching and sharing "here's proof the rapture is happening in 2019", to sharing QAnon conspiracies, in a matter of months. It's fucking depressing seeing that happen to somebody you care about. To me these are all radicalization. They don't all result in Mass violence (maybe none of them do), but it pushes people's opinions very effectively outside of what's mainstream and otherwise "acceptable" in society, hence why I call it radicalization.

trilila 7y ago

While this article points the elephant in the room, some of these countries never had free speech.