4 ms·

What I've realized is most people don't believe in freedom of speech. They believe in freedom of speech that they agree with or enjoy. It's really a shame, fro

What I've realized is most people don't believe in freedom of speech. They believe in freedom of speech that they agree with or enjoy. It's really a shame, from the perspective of someone who seriously does not care what others speak. It's like most people lack the ability to simply ignore what they find distasteful. They instead feel compelled to destroy it. These tendencies are at the core of our current online reality. It's a scary world out there!

bilbo0s 7y ago
I think you are being really kind. If we're really talking about "most" people? As in, the majority? Then the fact is, they do believe in free speech. It's just that they don't care about free speech. At all. Whether they agree with it or are interested in it or any other thing means absolutely nothing to them because they feel they have more important things to do. Let me give you a fairly realistic for instance of what the great unwashed masses think about free speech when compared to even something trivial like college football: Member of great unwashed mass: "What the hell is this f'in free speech debate doing on my tv when LSU is about to play Georgia!?!?!?!" Young, idealistic, activist: "Well, um, I thought maybe everyone would like to see how their rights are being eroded by increasingly powerful concentrations of industrial and technological weal..." Member of great unwashed mass: "Shut the F up!!! Put the Ohio State/Wisconsin game back on so I can catch the last little bit of that before LSU/Georgia kicks dick head!" This is what we're fighting against, and we need to be far more realistic about how powerful apathy is in shaping policy. At least in the US.
JustSomeNobody 7y ago
> It's like most people lack the ability to simply ignore what they find distasteful. Because sometimes it really is about the children.
DonaldPShimoda 7y ago
> It's like most people lack the ability to simply ignore what they find distasteful. I don't think that's really it. First, I will say that I'm not wholly decided on the issue. I think free speech is important, but I also think there are reasonable limitations on that freedom (as with any freedom). I actively encourage debate. I truly enjoy hearing other people's perspectives and considering things from opposing views. I often find myself changing positions on things because I realize I hadn't thought about an issue in a particular way before. People like me are not so rare, I think (so long as you approach the discussion politely and with manners). But I believe Facebook (to pick one example) is problematic. That they don't vet political advertisements prior to running them is problematic. That they experiment on people's psyches by manipulating their news feeds is also problematic. That they encourage the formation of echo chambers (for all people) is — you guessed it — problematic. These factors have contributed to an atmosphere of hostility and a lessened desire to listen to opposing view points. People want to hear from other people who think like them, and that's exactly what they get. It radicalizes people (to use a perhaps slightly dramatic term) by exposing them only to notions with which they already agree. Now getting back to the part of your comment that I quoted. I do not lack the ability to ignore things I find "distasteful". I ignore Alex Jones and all his conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook. I ignore Flat Earthers, and 911 conspiracists, and other people like them. Interacting with them is not worth my time, and reading their positions never leaves me feeling more enlightened than before I went in. But I am privileged to not be subjected to some of the things that others are. To pick another specific example: semi-recent discourse online has contributed to an atmosphere of hostility towards non-white people (at least here in the US where I am). This has real consequences for such people. They find themselves subjected to everything from mild harassment to actual murder. Suggesting that they should just "ignore" things online which are "distasteful" in this manner is 100% missing the forest for the trees. There is a problem with the fact that people that are violently racist (and I mean "violent" literally) are able to organize and find a platform in the same space as other people. This creates a culture that is unwelcoming and dangerous in a very real sense. I do believe there is a need for some form of regulation, not because I am unable to ignore things that I do not agree with, but because there are groups of people who must be deprived of their platforms for the benefit of the physical and emotional well-being of others. I do not want everything to be sugar-coated or covered in bubble-wrap, but I do want public platforms to be devoid of open hostility. I don't think that's so much to ask.
spion 7y ago
This only works if you believe speech doesn't influence people. If you believe it does, then you have every right to feel compelled to destroy it if the influence in your opinion is disastrous.
yoavm 7y ago
> the perspective of someone who seriously does not care what others speak I'm sorry but I can't help to think that you're only able to speak from this perspective if you were never threatened. Of course I care if someone says all Jews should be killed, because I know the next day someone might actually try to kill me and my children. It's a simple as that. My inner organs shake when I see something like that online because I know some people do actually take it seriously. I'm happy for you that you don't have to worry about this, but history shows that certain words are not only distasteful, they are dangerous.
- jazzdev 7y ago
  This changed my perspective on this. I can see where you are coming from. We do have laws against inciting violence, but I'm not sure that covers this type of speech.

bilbo0s 7y ago

I think you are being really kind. If we're really talking about "most" people? As in, the majority? Then the fact is, they do believe in free speech. It's just that they don't care about free speech. At all. Whether they agree with it or are interested in it or any other thing means absolutely nothing to them because they feel they have more important things to do. Let me give you a fairly realistic for instance of what the great unwashed masses think about free speech when compared to even something trivial like college football: Member of great unwashed mass: "What the hell is this f'in free speech debate doing on my tv when LSU is about to play Georgia!?!?!?!" Young, idealistic, activist: "Well, um, I thought maybe everyone would like to see how their rights are being eroded by increasingly powerful concentrations of industrial and technological weal..." Member of great unwashed mass: "Shut the F up!!! Put the Ohio State/Wisconsin game back on so I can catch the last little bit of that before LSU/Georgia kicks dick head!" This is what we're fighting against, and we need to be far more realistic about how powerful apathy is in shaping policy. At least in the US.

JustSomeNobody 7y ago

> It's like most people lack the ability to simply ignore what they find distasteful. Because sometimes it really is about the children.

DonaldPShimoda 7y ago

> It's like most people lack the ability to simply ignore what they find distasteful. I don't think that's really it. First, I will say that I'm not wholly decided on the issue. I think free speech is important, but I also think there are reasonable limitations on that freedom (as with any freedom). I actively encourage debate. I truly enjoy hearing other people's perspectives and considering things from opposing views. I often find myself changing positions on things because I realize I hadn't thought about an issue in a particular way before. People like me are not so rare, I think (so long as you approach the discussion politely and with manners). But I believe Facebook (to pick one example) is problematic. That they don't vet political advertisements prior to running them is problematic. That they experiment on people's psyches by manipulating their news feeds is also problematic. That they encourage the formation of echo chambers (for all people) is — you guessed it — problematic. These factors have contributed to an atmosphere of hostility and a lessened desire to listen to opposing view points. People want to hear from other people who think like them, and that's exactly what they get. It radicalizes people (to use a perhaps slightly dramatic term) by exposing them only to notions with which they already agree. Now getting back to the part of your comment that I quoted. I do not lack the ability to ignore things I find "distasteful". I ignore Alex Jones and all his conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook. I ignore Flat Earthers, and 911 conspiracists, and other people like them. Interacting with them is not worth my time, and reading their positions never leaves me feeling more enlightened than before I went in. But I am privileged to not be subjected to some of the things that others are. To pick another specific example: semi-recent discourse online has contributed to an atmosphere of hostility towards non-white people (at least here in the US where I am). This has real consequences for such people. They find themselves subjected to everything from mild harassment to actual murder. Suggesting that they should just "ignore" things online which are "distasteful" in this manner is 100% missing the forest for the trees. There is a problem with the fact that people that are violently racist (and I mean "violent" literally) are able to organize and find a platform in the same space as other people. This creates a culture that is unwelcoming and dangerous in a very real sense. I do believe there is a need for some form of regulation, not because I am unable to ignore things that I do not agree with, but because there are groups of people who must be deprived of their platforms for the benefit of the physical and emotional well-being of others. I do not want everything to be sugar-coated or covered in bubble-wrap, but I do want public platforms to be devoid of open hostility. I don't think that's so much to ask.

spion 7y ago

This only works if you believe speech doesn't influence people. If you believe it does, then you have every right to feel compelled to destroy it if the influence in your opinion is disastrous.

yoavm 7y ago

> the perspective of someone who seriously does not care what others speak I'm sorry but I can't help to think that you're only able to speak from this perspective if you were never threatened. Of course I care if someone says all Jews should be killed, because I know the next day someone might actually try to kill me and my children. It's a simple as that. My inner organs shake when I see something like that online because I know some people do actually take it seriously. I'm happy for you that you don't have to worry about this, but history shows that certain words are not only distasteful, they are dangerous.

jazzdev 7y ago
This changed my perspective on this. I can see where you are coming from. We do have laws against inciting violence, but I'm not sure that covers this type of speech.