6 ms·

Even when governments don’t limit freedom of expression we do it to ourselves as can be seen with all the Twitter mobs.

tboyd47 7y ago
Those "mobs" are only ordinary people exercising their own freedom of expression online. I think a more correct sentiment would be that even when there are governments that don't want to limit freedom of expression, multinational corporations will still oblige those governments and influential citizens that do.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- eej2ya1K 7y ago
  Oh, fuck right off. Ordinary people aren't being dicks on twitter - it's a tiny minority of broken anglosphere cunts with nothing better to do than to ruin other people's lives.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Governments and "influential citizens" dance to the tune of corporations, not the other way around.
  - ratsmack 7y ago
    This is largely the case in America today. All you have to do is look at where political contributions come from and the amount and source of the money spent on lobbing. In addition, take a look at who traverses the revolving door between the financial sector and powerful government positions.
manifestsilence 7y ago
It's such an important distinction though. When people do it, it's just dissenting voices. When a platform removes someone, they can just find another platform. Twitter doesn't owe anyone a voice on it. But when the government says you can't talk about a thing, they can make you take it down everywhere. Only this is protected, and this line needs to not be crossed. I little sympathy for people getting upset at being deplatformed - they can go elsewhere, and their cries of freedom of expression cry wolf to the constitutional issue of those in power doing actual oppression.
- oefrha 7y ago
  When you have your career destroyed by voicing a non-pc opinion, it’s a lot more complicated than finding another Twitter to post 140 character posts.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    Yeah, but at the same time you need to understand that you're devaluing the rights on the other side of that. The guy whose company you work for, or the company whose platform you're using, or whatever the case may be, shouldn't be obliged to have their revenue take a hit solely in support of your right. I mean, if it's not going to cost your boss' company any money? Yeah OK, I can see where they should probably keep you. But if it is, well now you're putting who knows how many other jobs at risk. You only have the right to inconvenience yourself in support of your rights. Just like me or any other person. I don't have the right to put all of my coworkers at risk so that I can call some black guy the N word for instance. That's kind of the way rights work. You have rights, but everyone else does as well.
    - oefrha 7y ago
      You know perfectly well I’m not talking about “my right to call some black guy the N word”. I’m talking about careers destroyed by certain vocal minorities that many if not most people are secretly tired of, yet won’t speak out against because of the fear of being lynched next. Anyway, how’s your comment even relevant to what I replied to? GP: (implying) Twitter mobs can silence or even destroy people just like government silencing; P: Just find another Twitter; Me: When your career’s destroyed finding another Twitter is probably not the highest priority; You: You deserve to have your career destroyed, because otherwise Twitter mobs will be angry with your employer and colleagues. So you’re refuting what? If there’s freedom of expression no one’s job would be at risk. Don’t bring up “freedom from consequences”, murdered journalists also had freedom of expression, they only faced certain consequences.
      - bilbo0s 7y ago
        I'm refuting the obligation of other people to listen or associate with you. That's all implicit in the first. Freedom of Speech. Freedom to Ignore. Freedom of Association. All of it. NO. Your company is under no obligation to maintain your employment. Why? Because the owner of your company has rights too. You're not the only person who has rights. That's the whole point here. The First is for everyone. And they can do what they like with their rights. And you can do what you like with your rights. We don't take away rights from Paul, because Peter finds Paul's rights inconvenient. That's not how the Constitution works.
namirez 7y ago
I keep hearing this kind of sentiment a lot recently. Not that I have any sympathy for the Twitter mobs, but there is a huge difference between government-sanctioned "legal" censorship, and some unorganized group of trolls harassing someone on Twitter.
- atonse 7y ago
  I don't agree that there's a huge difference in effect. Yes they can't throw you in jail like a government could. But they could ruin your career, make you lose your job, and make you a pariah for years to come, throwing your life upside down.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    But what are you suggesting? That you should have freedom of expression, but the twitter users should not have freedom of expression? I feel like that's what's being lost in this discussion. The acceptance of the fact that everyone has rights. Not just you. Or just me. Or just the politicians. Or what have you. But everyone.
    - banads 7y ago
      People should attack the ideas that people have, not attack the people for having ideas. Theres a huge difference between expressing disagreement with an idea and trying to ruin someone's life.
      - bilbo0s 7y ago
        Maybe. But again, so what? People are free to be jerks. That's Freedom of Expression. If people physically attack you, that's one thing. That's crime. If people tell your company they aren't going to purchase your company's products because you work there, that's another thing entirely. That's just Americans exercising their freedom to associate with whomever or whatever they please. That's them exercising their freedom of expression and speech. There's nothing in those actions contrary to constitutional principles. That's what's important, that absolutely no one's constitutional freedoms be restricted.

Those "mobs" are only ordinary people exercising their own freedom of expression online. I think a more correct sentiment would be that even when there are governments that don't want to limit freedom of expression, multinational corporations will still oblige those governments and influential citizens that do.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
eej2ya1K 7y ago
Oh, fuck right off. Ordinary people aren't being dicks on twitter - it's a tiny minority of broken anglosphere cunts with nothing better to do than to ruin other people's lives.
jessaustin 7y ago
Governments and "influential citizens" dance to the tune of corporations, not the other way around.
- ratsmack 7y ago
  This is largely the case in America today. All you have to do is look at where political contributions come from and the amount and source of the money spent on lobbing. In addition, take a look at who traverses the revolving door between the financial sector and powerful government positions.

manifestsilence 7y ago

It's such an important distinction though. When people do it, it's just dissenting voices. When a platform removes someone, they can just find another platform. Twitter doesn't owe anyone a voice on it. But when the government says you can't talk about a thing, they can make you take it down everywhere. Only this is protected, and this line needs to not be crossed. I little sympathy for people getting upset at being deplatformed - they can go elsewhere, and their cries of freedom of expression cry wolf to the constitutional issue of those in power doing actual oppression.

oefrha 7y ago
When you have your career destroyed by voicing a non-pc opinion, it’s a lot more complicated than finding another Twitter to post 140 character posts.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Yeah, but at the same time you need to understand that you're devaluing the rights on the other side of that. The guy whose company you work for, or the company whose platform you're using, or whatever the case may be, shouldn't be obliged to have their revenue take a hit solely in support of your right. I mean, if it's not going to cost your boss' company any money? Yeah OK, I can see where they should probably keep you. But if it is, well now you're putting who knows how many other jobs at risk. You only have the right to inconvenience yourself in support of your rights. Just like me or any other person. I don't have the right to put all of my coworkers at risk so that I can call some black guy the N word for instance. That's kind of the way rights work. You have rights, but everyone else does as well.
  - oefrha 7y ago
    You know perfectly well I’m not talking about “my right to call some black guy the N word”. I’m talking about careers destroyed by certain vocal minorities that many if not most people are secretly tired of, yet won’t speak out against because of the fear of being lynched next. Anyway, how’s your comment even relevant to what I replied to? GP: (implying) Twitter mobs can silence or even destroy people just like government silencing; P: Just find another Twitter; Me: When your career’s destroyed finding another Twitter is probably not the highest priority; You: You deserve to have your career destroyed, because otherwise Twitter mobs will be angry with your employer and colleagues. So you’re refuting what? If there’s freedom of expression no one’s job would be at risk. Don’t bring up “freedom from consequences”, murdered journalists also had freedom of expression, they only faced certain consequences.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      I'm refuting the obligation of other people to listen or associate with you. That's all implicit in the first. Freedom of Speech. Freedom to Ignore. Freedom of Association. All of it. NO. Your company is under no obligation to maintain your employment. Why? Because the owner of your company has rights too. You're not the only person who has rights. That's the whole point here. The First is for everyone. And they can do what they like with their rights. And you can do what you like with your rights. We don't take away rights from Paul, because Peter finds Paul's rights inconvenient. That's not how the Constitution works.

namirez 7y ago

I keep hearing this kind of sentiment a lot recently. Not that I have any sympathy for the Twitter mobs, but there is a huge difference between government-sanctioned "legal" censorship, and some unorganized group of trolls harassing someone on Twitter.

atonse 7y ago
I don't agree that there's a huge difference in effect. Yes they can't throw you in jail like a government could. But they could ruin your career, make you lose your job, and make you a pariah for years to come, throwing your life upside down.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  But what are you suggesting? That you should have freedom of expression, but the twitter users should not have freedom of expression? I feel like that's what's being lost in this discussion. The acceptance of the fact that everyone has rights. Not just you. Or just me. Or just the politicians. Or what have you. But everyone.
  - banads 7y ago
    People should attack the ideas that people have, not attack the people for having ideas. Theres a huge difference between expressing disagreement with an idea and trying to ruin someone's life.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      Maybe. But again, so what? People are free to be jerks. That's Freedom of Expression. If people physically attack you, that's one thing. That's crime. If people tell your company they aren't going to purchase your company's products because you work there, that's another thing entirely. That's just Americans exercising their freedom to associate with whomever or whatever they please. That's them exercising their freedom of expression and speech. There's nothing in those actions contrary to constitutional principles. That's what's important, that absolutely no one's constitutional freedoms be restricted.