12 ms·
> deplatforming to silence opposing views I can't name any deplatformed views that aren't hate speech. If you can, I'd like to hear about them to broaden my vi
by ebg13 7y ago
> deplatforming to silence opposing views
I can't name any deplatformed views that aren't hate speech. If you can, I'd like to hear about them to broaden my views.
> Free speech is a fundamental good that must be protected
The freedom of speech and association comes with a corollary: the freedom to dissociate and shun. So welcome to the consequences of being on the other side of progress, I suppose? This is what happens.
> progressive left
Do you mean social democratic left?
- busymom0 7y agoMany people who have criticized Greta Thunberg have been banned.
- ebg13 7y agoWho got banned from where for doing that?
- meruru 7y agoDid you miss all the Stallman threads we just had? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21120806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21120806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21103133 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21103133 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21088690 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21088690 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20990583 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20990583
- duxup 7y agoAre MIT's or FSF's decisions "deplatforming"?
- meruru 7y agoMaybe not technically, but that's irrelevant. It's part of the phenomenon being discussed.
- colordrops 7y agoHe was more "canceled" than "deplatformed". They call it "cancel culture" now.
- ebg13 7y agoI saw them. What do they have to do with deplatforming?
- brighton36 7y agoWho decides what's hate speech? Aren't white nationalists necessarily guilty of too much white people love?
- orangecat 7y agoI can't name any deplatformed views that aren't hate speech. If you can, I'd like to hear about them to broaden my views. James Damore. And if you believe what he said really was hate speech, that just illustrates the problem.
- Craighead 7y ago"You all are inferior because of your gender" That's the definition of creating a vicious and predatory workplace. Hence, fired. Not to mention every source he quoted came out saying that the information was misused.
- phasnox 7y agoHe never said that. Different != Inferior
- philwelch 7y agoThat’s not what he said. But really, this only highlights the real problem: if you censor someone, you can accuse them of having said anything because, by virtue of having censored the person, there’s no way for anyone to know better. Obviously many of us actually can still read Damore’s writeup, but that’s largely because the censorship isn’t actually effective yet. I’m just impressed that still doesn’t stop the would-be censors from lying about the stuff they’re trying to censor!
- guelo 7y agoYou heard his speech, millions heard his speech. In what way was he censored?
- mdorazio 7y ago1) There was no speech. There was a well-reasoned essay worth reading even if you disagree with it. 2) Virtually no one actually read his essay in its entirety, including the media figures and bloggers who commented on it incessantly. His actual message and claims were completely ignored or outright twisted to fit a specific narrative. The fact that you had to go all the way to places like the Joe Rogan podcast to listen to him actually explain his thoughts without being editorialized was insane. 3) He lost his job as a direct result.
- bilbo0s 7y agoYou're both right. Freedom of speech is important. And Freedom of Association is important. Everyone has a right to say what they please. And everyone has a right to associate with whoever they please. If you don't like what someone says, well, sorry. I don't know what to tell you? Go listen to someone else, I guess? But you can't make the guy you don't like stop talking. That's attacking his freedom. If people don't want to associate with you, well, sorry. I don't know what to tell you? Go find different friends, or don't be a douchebag, I guess? But you can't force people who don't like you to associate with you. That's attacking their freedom. Hate speech may be a thing, but it's entirely legitimate free expression. Other people don't lose their rights simply because you feel they should to accommodate your belief system. "Deplatforming", whatever that is, may be a thing, but it's entirely legitimate free expression. Other people don't lose their rights simply because you feel they should to accommodate your belief system.
- phasnox 7y agoI completely agree. YouTube doesn't have to show content they don't like. But if they want to behave like a publisher, they need to be prepared to be legislated as a publisher.
- guelo 7y agoWhat publisher legislation? Freedom of the press is in the same constitutional amendment as freedom of speech.
- AmericanChopper 7y agoA free press is still accountable to the law. If the press slanders somebody, or publishes illegal content they are liable for it. That is, unless they publish it as user generated content, which was a legal loophole created in the mid 90s to protect websites from liability for user submitted comments. It used to be that if you did not moderate the comments, you were not liable for them (think net neutrality), as you were simply acting as a common carrier. Since that law was passed, you are now free to moderate and editorialize user generated content in any way you see fit, as well as enjoy complete immunity from all liability that would otherwise be associated with that (think the exact opposite of net neutrality).
- throwawaysea 7y agoIf you follow my link to Professor Cliff Mass's blog post about censorship at the University of Washington, you would see a bit about when he used the phrase "pigs at a trough". This phrasing was - as ridiculous as it may sound - cast as a racist comment by activists, and used as a means of attack against him. Here's the relevant bits: > In that blog, I discussed the issue of politically well-connected groups securing funds at the public trough and used the century-old political metaphor of “pigs at a trough”, not in the text, but in a single picture (see below). > This metaphor is frequently used in the media and books, such as Arianna Huffington’s hard hitting book on political corruption in America, which described the greed of the politically connected (see below). > The activist students claimed that such a metaphor was racist because some members of the 1631 consortium were from minority groups. They ignored the fact that the 1631 coalition was overwhelmingly white and well-to-do. The fact I was expressing political opinions outside the UW did not seem important to them, nor did they care about the concept of freedom of speech. They wanted the department and college administration to do something about me and my blog. > Will the College of Environment Deans Accuse Arianna Huffington of Racism? Or Australian Adam Schwab? And shamefully and potentially illegally, the Atmospheric Sciences chair and COENV Deans, ignoring First Amendment protections and the essential principles of an academic institution, did exactly what the students wanted > Between the end of October and early November 2018, Department Chairman Dale Durran, COENV Associate Dean of Research Robert Wood, COENV Associate Dean of Administration Stephanie Harrington, and COENV Assistant Dean of Diversity Terryl Ross wrote a letter attacking my blog that was formally approved by Dean Lisa Graumlich. (all of this is documented in their internal emails). > Their letter, “Message on Departmental Civility”, was sent to MY ENTIRE DEPARTMENT (including staff, faculty, and students—over 120 people) on November 22, stating that my blog “included imagery and text that was racially insensitive and caused offense.” The letter accused me of racism through the statement “Racism is in direct contradiction to our shared values and has no place in our college” as well as suggesting that I harmed the community through my blog. > This letter was not only inappropriate and arguably unethical but a violation of University of Washington faculty code, including the protection of academic freedom. > UW administrators were sanctioning and shaming a faculty member inside the university for expressing political free speech outside of the UW: also an apparent violation of constitutionally protected freedom of speech at a public university. Importantly, freedom of speech is protected BOTH inside and outside a public university by the U.S. and Washington State constitutions. There are numerous examples to point at, but this is a very recent one showing how far the definition of 'hate speech' has been stretched. By making every issue political, and every issue one of oppression, the notion of intersectionality has been twisted to weaponize rhetoric and curtail free speech. I think that is very bad for healing divisiveness and operating a rational society.
- Consultant32452 7y agoIt doesn't help the conversation to suggest that the speech that's being deplatformed is unpalatable. That's practically a tautology. You don't have to protect approved speech. I recommend this speech by Frederick Douglass against deplatforming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w2i5CnZ9Xo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w2i5CnZ9Xo
- snagglegaggle 7y agoHate speech is protected speech. The "fire in a theater" argument was forced as the justice was grabbing at straws in an attempt to protect the war effort. He later admitted it was a poor ruling. To understand why all speech is protected realize that the first amendment is partly to prevent arguments about which speech is permissible from occurring by allowing all of it. So... by saying "hate speech is not allowed" you are having the argument that was supposed to not be had.
- ebg13 7y ago> Hate speech is protected speech. Protected against the government, but not protected against community ostracization.
- snagglegaggle 7y agoYes, I know, it's been brought up plenty. But keep in mind "hate speech is protected" is not popular in most legal circles (but is kind of accepted with most people I know, and has some major dissenting legal opinions in support of it).