3 ms·

This is a rather common style of argument often used against civil rights: every person's civil rights should be restrained because criminals abuse those rights

This is a rather common style of argument often used against civil rights: every person's civil rights should be restrained because criminals abuse those rights. We can't have censorship free platforms because someone might spin up a thousand accounts. We need the NSA to monitor all communications because terrorists use the Internet. We should arrest 12-year olds for making finger guns because of school shooters. But in this case as in so many, it's an off-topic argument, merely a distraction or an excuse for overreaching authority. No one here is arguing that someone who makes a thousand accounts shouldn't be restrained; that's simply not the topic under discussion, even if the word "censorship" can be stretched to include that topic.

aricrocuta 7y ago
What if you take out "makes a thousand accounts" and substitute "spreads hate speech" or "calls people racial slurs"? In that case there's no abuse of the system; only the speech itself is problematic. Would censorship-free platforms have a way to suppress that speech? Should such speech be suppressed? In my opinion, yes, but I'd like to know what you think.
- leereeves 7y ago
  I haven't seen a platform that actually banned hate speech; they all allow such speech, as long as it's directed at acceptable targets (often white people or Christians). These platform's actions aren't about problematic speech, but about identity politics. But in theory a platform could ban such content impartially. Should they? Should such speech be universally suppressed? I'd have to say no; if it were, who could criticize Wahhabism or Scientology? Now I'd like to know what you think. Should "hate speech" directed at Scientology be suppressed?
  - potatoz2 7y ago
    Criticism is not hate speech. Ignoring the unclear phrase "hate speech", banning calls to violence or verbal harassment is very different from banning opinions. Free speech as it is understood in the US applies to the government and the government can and does limit your rights when it comes to violence and time and place (e.g. you can't yell during a session of Congress). It's absolutely morally fine to do so and it does not infringe on freedom of speech in any way.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      Another distracting discussion of criminal behavior. As I said two posts up, we all agree such abuses should be banned. Opposition to censorship and defense of free speech is about censorship based on opinions; free speech advocates aren't fighting for an unlimited right to make threats or yell "Fire!" just for fun. By "ignoring the unclear phrase 'hate speech'" you've ignored the very issue under discussion.
nullc 7y ago
Please. This isn't some hypothetical that I'm suggesting. There are largely uncensored forums, like 4chan. That's actually what you get when you go there rather than having something that is heavily moderated but only in ways that you agree with, where you then pretend it isn't moderated. And in fact, I'll fully support you having your own platform which is as uncensored as you want it to be. I wish you the best of luck. What I don't support is you arguing that other people can't have their own platforms which restrict publication on their own platform however they see fit, including ways that you or I might disagree with. People arguing that private parties can't limit the material posted on their own property are absolutely taking a position which is contrary to free speech. The power to exclude is just as important, if not more important, than the power to include. If you'd like to argue that the dominance of a few platforms violates my assumptions and changes the tradeoffs, I'm not sure I'd disagree. But I think we should instead worry about fixing the monopoly problems rather than limiting private parties ability to exclude speech they disagree with on their own properties.
- leereeves 7y ago
  I think we should make a distinction between platforms and publishers. A publisher curates content according to their opinion, to the extent that when they publish outside opinions, they add a disclaimer like "Opinions expressed herein do not represent those of the publisher". There's no such disclaimer on reddit, Twitter, or Facebook because people understand that the posts aren't coming from the platform. These sites aren't a place for the owners to express their opinion; they're a mechanism for the users to communicate. And when the mechanisms of communication are privately owned, freedom of speech can't exist if the owners censor those mechanisms. Platforms (as opposed to publishers) should be treated like telephone companies or the mail or ISPs. They shouldn't even read the messages they carry, let alone censor them. On the other hand, sites aren't required to be a platform, but if they choose to act like a publisher then they should be held responsible for the content they publish.

aricrocuta 7y ago

What if you take out "makes a thousand accounts" and substitute "spreads hate speech" or "calls people racial slurs"? In that case there's no abuse of the system; only the speech itself is problematic. Would censorship-free platforms have a way to suppress that speech? Should such speech be suppressed? In my opinion, yes, but I'd like to know what you think.

leereeves 7y ago
I haven't seen a platform that actually banned hate speech; they all allow such speech, as long as it's directed at acceptable targets (often white people or Christians). These platform's actions aren't about problematic speech, but about identity politics. But in theory a platform could ban such content impartially. Should they? Should such speech be universally suppressed? I'd have to say no; if it were, who could criticize Wahhabism or Scientology? Now I'd like to know what you think. Should "hate speech" directed at Scientology be suppressed?
- potatoz2 7y ago
  Criticism is not hate speech. Ignoring the unclear phrase "hate speech", banning calls to violence or verbal harassment is very different from banning opinions. Free speech as it is understood in the US applies to the government and the government can and does limit your rights when it comes to violence and time and place (e.g. you can't yell during a session of Congress). It's absolutely morally fine to do so and it does not infringe on freedom of speech in any way.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    Another distracting discussion of criminal behavior. As I said two posts up, we all agree such abuses should be banned. Opposition to censorship and defense of free speech is about censorship based on opinions; free speech advocates aren't fighting for an unlimited right to make threats or yell "Fire!" just for fun. By "ignoring the unclear phrase 'hate speech'" you've ignored the very issue under discussion.

nullc 7y ago

Please. This isn't some hypothetical that I'm suggesting. There are largely uncensored forums, like 4chan. That's actually what you get when you go there rather than having something that is heavily moderated but only in ways that you agree with, where you then pretend it isn't moderated. And in fact, I'll fully support you having your own platform which is as uncensored as you want it to be. I wish you the best of luck. What I don't support is you arguing that other people can't have their own platforms which restrict publication on their own platform however they see fit, including ways that you or I might disagree with. People arguing that private parties can't limit the material posted on their own property are absolutely taking a position which is contrary to free speech. The power to exclude is just as important, if not more important, than the power to include. If you'd like to argue that the dominance of a few platforms violates my assumptions and changes the tradeoffs, I'm not sure I'd disagree. But I think we should instead worry about fixing the monopoly problems rather than limiting private parties ability to exclude speech they disagree with on their own properties.

leereeves 7y ago
I think we should make a distinction between platforms and publishers. A publisher curates content according to their opinion, to the extent that when they publish outside opinions, they add a disclaimer like "Opinions expressed herein do not represent those of the publisher". There's no such disclaimer on reddit, Twitter, or Facebook because people understand that the posts aren't coming from the platform. These sites aren't a place for the owners to express their opinion; they're a mechanism for the users to communicate. And when the mechanisms of communication are privately owned, freedom of speech can't exist if the owners censor those mechanisms. Platforms (as opposed to publishers) should be treated like telephone companies or the mail or ISPs. They shouldn't even read the messages they carry, let alone censor them. On the other hand, sites aren't required to be a platform, but if they choose to act like a publisher then they should be held responsible for the content they publish.