7 ms·

edit: I'm being downvote bombed for this, which is strange. Anyone care to articulate reasons for disagreeing? Would it be correct to boycott CloudFlare for de

edit: I'm being downvote bombed for this, which is strange. Anyone care to articulate reasons for disagreeing? Would it be correct to boycott CloudFlare for deplatforming the Daily Stormer? No, because there's nothing wrong with deplatforming Nazis, there was nothing morally reprehensible in Cloudflare's actions. Would it be correct to boycott Blizzard for severely over-reacting to a pro Hong Kong political act on one of their streams? Yes, because apologizing to a monstrous, despotic regime by throwing tournament players and casters under the bus for supporting Hong Kong is morally atrocious. (As Brian Kibler and other professional casters have pointed out, some generic slap-on-the-wrist would probably have been appropriate, in line with what they would have done if someone took their victory speech to talk about impeaching/not impeaching Donald Trump or something). This has nothing to do with free speech. I don't care about Blitzcheung or the casters' individual right to political speech on a Blizzard Twitch stream (it doesn't exist). I care about Blizzard's actions, and what they say about the willingness of the company to harm others to protect business interests in a despotic regime during a very important moment in global history. I'm kind of confused about why you're confused, honestly. It's not very difficult to parse out very obvious essential differences between the two scenarios.

omegaworks 7y ago
It is the business of extremist groups to craft the illusion of difficulty parsing between the two scenarios. The modern neo-nazi movement subverts mechanisms for questioning and checking power, even going as far as subverting the brand power of "free speech" to mean their speech and only their speech, in order to accumulate power around themselves and their interests. It is tragic that we can't have conversations about imperial powers suppressing independence movements without connoting that those principles protect speech suppressing and threatening minority groups.
falcolas 7y ago
I downvoted, since the two incidents are fundamentally about free speech (I have a post attached to a sibling that explains why I think this applies to private companies too). That one form of speech is detested while the other is supported doesn't change that it's fundamentally about free speech. To be slightly hyperbolic, it's impossible to say something of substance that doesn't offend someone. If all we're allowed to say is that which doesn't offend anyone, then nothing of substance can be said.
- omegaworks 7y ago
  The intent of the founders was to ensure that citizens and journalists could speak out against their government without fear of retribution by the state. The "anything ought to be fine to say anywhere without consequence" interpretation is a modern phenomenon that extremists have used to platform and normalize violent suppressive rhetoric.
  - apostacy 7y ago
    That is a horrible mischaracterization of free speech. The first telegraph network banned journalists who reported bad things against the telegraph company. They manipulated stock prices and influenced elections. That is why common carriage laws were made, which required communications platforms to provide neutral service to everyone. I'm sure that you would have been there, bravely defending the coal barons right to shut down journalists trying to report on union organizing, because they are a private corporation and they can do whatever they want on their property and not answer to anyone. You would have screamed "muh freeze peach" at journalists trying to report about labor abuses. Because they are not entitled to use the private telegraph network. Of course the line between ubiquitous large platform and government is blurry. That is why communications companies over a certain side must be forced to platform everyone, and can only be permitted to ban them when they have met certain criteria.
    - omegaworks 7y ago
      Reporting on union organizing is not the same thing as issuing death threats. You're working really hard to blur the clear line between these two things, why?
      - falcolas 7y ago
        Tell that to the union organizers who were killed because of those reports. So no, the line isn't that clear. It's worth remembering that at that point in time, the anti-union faction was strong and brutally violent.
apostacy 7y ago
> Would it be correct to boycott CloudFlare for deplatforming the Daily Stormer? No, because there's nothing wrong with deplatforming Nazis, there was nothing morally reprehensible in Cloudflare's actions. Yes, it was wrong of CloudFlare to do that, and if I could choose a competitor I would. And you would change your mind if someone accuses you of being a "nazi" and your account is immediately terminated. And yes it could happen to you. In this day and age anyone can be called a Nazi. Left leaning Jewish professors are getting called Nazis and assaulted and deplatformed. If it can happen to Jordan Peterson, it can happen to anyone. So when it comes to the point, corporations have decided that they can arbitrarily deny service to whoever they please, for political reasons. So I don't want to hear any of you complain about what Blizzard is doing. You should support Blizzard, because "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences". Any Hearthstone player that insults China should have any company they do business with drop them. Because these are just the consequences of being hateful. From the point of view of a lot of Chinese people, supporting Hong Kong makes you an imperialist hateful biggoted sino-phobic "nazi" of sorts.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  > If it can happen to Jordan Peterson, it can happen to anyone. Ha.

omegaworks 7y ago

It is the business of extremist groups to craft the illusion of difficulty parsing between the two scenarios. The modern neo-nazi movement subverts mechanisms for questioning and checking power, even going as far as subverting the brand power of "free speech" to mean their speech and only their speech, in order to accumulate power around themselves and their interests. It is tragic that we can't have conversations about imperial powers suppressing independence movements without connoting that those principles protect speech suppressing and threatening minority groups.

falcolas 7y ago

I downvoted, since the two incidents are fundamentally about free speech (I have a post attached to a sibling that explains why I think this applies to private companies too). That one form of speech is detested while the other is supported doesn't change that it's fundamentally about free speech. To be slightly hyperbolic, it's impossible to say something of substance that doesn't offend someone. If all we're allowed to say is that which doesn't offend anyone, then nothing of substance can be said.

omegaworks 7y ago
The intent of the founders was to ensure that citizens and journalists could speak out against their government without fear of retribution by the state. The "anything ought to be fine to say anywhere without consequence" interpretation is a modern phenomenon that extremists have used to platform and normalize violent suppressive rhetoric.
- apostacy 7y ago
  That is a horrible mischaracterization of free speech. The first telegraph network banned journalists who reported bad things against the telegraph company. They manipulated stock prices and influenced elections. That is why common carriage laws were made, which required communications platforms to provide neutral service to everyone. I'm sure that you would have been there, bravely defending the coal barons right to shut down journalists trying to report on union organizing, because they are a private corporation and they can do whatever they want on their property and not answer to anyone. You would have screamed "muh freeze peach" at journalists trying to report about labor abuses. Because they are not entitled to use the private telegraph network. Of course the line between ubiquitous large platform and government is blurry. That is why communications companies over a certain side must be forced to platform everyone, and can only be permitted to ban them when they have met certain criteria.
  - omegaworks 7y ago
    Reporting on union organizing is not the same thing as issuing death threats. You're working really hard to blur the clear line between these two things, why?
    - falcolas 7y ago
      Tell that to the union organizers who were killed because of those reports. So no, the line isn't that clear. It's worth remembering that at that point in time, the anti-union faction was strong and brutally violent.

apostacy 7y ago

> Would it be correct to boycott CloudFlare for deplatforming the Daily Stormer? No, because there's nothing wrong with deplatforming Nazis, there was nothing morally reprehensible in Cloudflare's actions. Yes, it was wrong of CloudFlare to do that, and if I could choose a competitor I would. And you would change your mind if someone accuses you of being a "nazi" and your account is immediately terminated. And yes it could happen to you. In this day and age anyone can be called a Nazi. Left leaning Jewish professors are getting called Nazis and assaulted and deplatformed. If it can happen to Jordan Peterson, it can happen to anyone. So when it comes to the point, corporations have decided that they can arbitrarily deny service to whoever they please, for political reasons. So I don't want to hear any of you complain about what Blizzard is doing. You should support Blizzard, because "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences". Any Hearthstone player that insults China should have any company they do business with drop them. Because these are just the consequences of being hateful. From the point of view of a lot of Chinese people, supporting Hong Kong makes you an imperialist hateful biggoted sino-phobic "nazi" of sorts.

Dylan16807 7y ago
> If it can happen to Jordan Peterson, it can happen to anyone. Ha.