5 ms·

This is an attack on free speech. "Just use a different service!" people will say. Great, until other services also terminate your account. Yes these are priv

This is an attack on free speech. "Just use a different service!" people will say. Great, until other services also terminate your account. Yes these are private companies, but a very small number of them have tremendous control over what people see and hear online. The ideal of free speech overcomes the ideal of private corporate autonomy for me, and I believe it does for most. The nature of social media and online services requires we rethink regulation. People should not be kicked off of platforms and services unless they are using those services to break the law.

viro 7y ago
You don't have a right to some one else's property. That company has a right to refuse service to any non protected class it sees fit. Kinda like if Mailchimp was a baker ;). Can't just change the rules since the baker is bigger.
- boutad 7y ago
  Just because Mailchimp can, doesn't mean they should.
dangus 7y ago
“Free speech” is a constitutional concept that defines how the government is allowed to interact with citizens. Freedom of speech does not exist for private institutions and companies. I would direct anyone who has a problem with this to the Mailchimp terms of use and acceptable use policy, which state: > Mailchimp may refuse service, close accounts of any Members, and change eligibility requirements at any time. Additionally, here’s a link to the acceptable use policy, which excludes a number of generally legal but undesired uses: https://mailchimp.com/legal/acceptable_use/ https://mailchimp.com/legal/acceptable_use/ In my mind, extremist views don’t need to be defended by businesses and companies. In fact, refusing service to those extremists is a great way to moderate our society. A great way for Stefan to not get kicked off of platforms would be to stop spreading white supremacy. To give you an identical analogy, if a couple of people told the bartender that I was harassing and hitting on them, the bartender could kick me out of the bar. I don’t have a right to a trial or due process. I don’t have the right to explain myself or present evidence. I have to accept that. But generally, that won’t happen to me if I just act like a well-adjusted human being.
- boutad 7y ago
  Free speech is a principle. The first amendment states that the US government shall not violate this principle. The principle and the amendment are separate things.
  - dangus 7y ago
    Free speech is a theory that doesn’t describe anything that actually exists, and it’s used as a crutch to support weirdly political points of outrage. You can’t say what you want without consequences anywhere in life. This makes me think of “How To Win Friends and Influence People.” Saying exactly what’s on your mind will rarely get you the ideal outcome you are after.
    - boutad 7y ago
      > Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - gdulli 7y ago
        Read just a little further. > the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals". > Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. The real world is messy and rights can't be absolute because each could encroach on others. We try to find the right equilibrium.
JohnFen 7y ago
> The ideal of free speech overcomes the ideal of private corporate autonomy for me, and I believe it does for most. Then don't use services that behave in a way you disagree with. I know that you tried to write off that answer in your first sentence, but in my opinion it's the best solution in terms of balancing competing rights.
- m-p-3 7y ago
  What good alternative to MailChimp would you suggest?
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    I'm not familiar with that industry, but it seems to me there are several players in it. Also, depending on your needs, you may be able to operate your own email marketing campaign without using any of them.
Sohcahtoa82 7y ago
The principle of "Free speech" exists mainly to protect people who want to criticize their government and for people to have debates. And there are plenty of hot button issues that are certainly debatable. Taxes, abortion, death penalty, universal healthcare, gun rights, etc. I could go on and one. Nobody should ever be silenced or deplatformed for having an opinion on any of these things. But racism, bigotry, and white supremacy? No. That's hate speech, and IMO, shouldn't covered under the principle of free speech. You can attack ideas in your speech all you want, but you can't attack people for attributes they were born with. Try to be coy all you want about how they're only words, but words incite violence, even without being explicitly violent.
- opwieurposiu 7y ago
  I think you are missing the point. Racism, bigotry, and white supremacy are all things Stefan is against. How much of his stuff did you listen to before you came to this conclusion?
- Bostonian 7y ago
  "But racism, bigotry, and white supremacy? No. That's hate speech, and IMO, shouldn't covered under the principle of free speech." There are serious scholars such as Arthur Jensen who have studied the origin of black/white differences in IQ test scores and concluded that a large fraction of the difference is genetic in origin. One can read "Thirty Years of Research of Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" (2005) by Jensen and Rushton https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jense... . To what extent there are racial differences in IQ is a scientific question, not a moral question.
- LightTouch 7y ago
  The trick is to use bigotry for anything you don’t like. Just like terrorism. It’s a fantastic power tool. US law makes ilegal the killing of foreign dignitaries but you just have to designate them as terrorists and there you go, you can kill whoever you want. Hate speech works the same way. You just designate whatever is rocking the boat as hate speech and you can shut their filthy mouths. See? Fantastic power tool. And of course the middle tier wage slaves will not only not dare to raise their voice but will enforce your tactics for breadcrumbs. Such a cool tool.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

viro 7y ago

You don't have a right to some one else's property. That company has a right to refuse service to any non protected class it sees fit. Kinda like if Mailchimp was a baker ;). Can't just change the rules since the baker is bigger.

boutad 7y ago
Just because Mailchimp can, doesn't mean they should.

dangus 7y ago

“Free speech” is a constitutional concept that defines how the government is allowed to interact with citizens. Freedom of speech does not exist for private institutions and companies. I would direct anyone who has a problem with this to the Mailchimp terms of use and acceptable use policy, which state: > Mailchimp may refuse service, close accounts of any Members, and change eligibility requirements at any time. Additionally, here’s a link to the acceptable use policy, which excludes a number of generally legal but undesired uses: https://mailchimp.com/legal/acceptable_use/ https://mailchimp.com/legal/acceptable_use/ In my mind, extremist views don’t need to be defended by businesses and companies. In fact, refusing service to those extremists is a great way to moderate our society. A great way for Stefan to not get kicked off of platforms would be to stop spreading white supremacy. To give you an identical analogy, if a couple of people told the bartender that I was harassing and hitting on them, the bartender could kick me out of the bar. I don’t have a right to a trial or due process. I don’t have the right to explain myself or present evidence. I have to accept that. But generally, that won’t happen to me if I just act like a well-adjusted human being.

boutad 7y ago
Free speech is a principle. The first amendment states that the US government shall not violate this principle. The principle and the amendment are separate things.
- dangus 7y ago
  Free speech is a theory that doesn’t describe anything that actually exists, and it’s used as a crutch to support weirdly political points of outrage. You can’t say what you want without consequences anywhere in life. This makes me think of “How To Win Friends and Influence People.” Saying exactly what’s on your mind will rarely get you the ideal outcome you are after.
  - boutad 7y ago
    > Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - gdulli 7y ago
      Read just a little further. > the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals". > Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. The real world is messy and rights can't be absolute because each could encroach on others. We try to find the right equilibrium.

JohnFen 7y ago

> The ideal of free speech overcomes the ideal of private corporate autonomy for me, and I believe it does for most. Then don't use services that behave in a way you disagree with. I know that you tried to write off that answer in your first sentence, but in my opinion it's the best solution in terms of balancing competing rights.

m-p-3 7y ago
What good alternative to MailChimp would you suggest?
- JohnFen 7y ago
  I'm not familiar with that industry, but it seems to me there are several players in it. Also, depending on your needs, you may be able to operate your own email marketing campaign without using any of them.

Sohcahtoa82 7y ago

The principle of "Free speech" exists mainly to protect people who want to criticize their government and for people to have debates. And there are plenty of hot button issues that are certainly debatable. Taxes, abortion, death penalty, universal healthcare, gun rights, etc. I could go on and one. Nobody should ever be silenced or deplatformed for having an opinion on any of these things. But racism, bigotry, and white supremacy? No. That's hate speech, and IMO, shouldn't covered under the principle of free speech. You can attack ideas in your speech all you want, but you can't attack people for attributes they were born with. Try to be coy all you want about how they're only words, but words incite violence, even without being explicitly violent.

opwieurposiu 7y ago
I think you are missing the point. Racism, bigotry, and white supremacy are all things Stefan is against. How much of his stuff did you listen to before you came to this conclusion?
Bostonian 7y ago
"But racism, bigotry, and white supremacy? No. That's hate speech, and IMO, shouldn't covered under the principle of free speech." There are serious scholars such as Arthur Jensen who have studied the origin of black/white differences in IQ test scores and concluded that a large fraction of the difference is genetic in origin. One can read "Thirty Years of Research of Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" (2005) by Jensen and Rushton https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jense... . To what extent there are racial differences in IQ is a scientific question, not a moral question.
LightTouch 7y ago
The trick is to use bigotry for anything you don’t like. Just like terrorism. It’s a fantastic power tool. US law makes ilegal the killing of foreign dignitaries but you just have to designate them as terrorists and there you go, you can kill whoever you want. Hate speech works the same way. You just designate whatever is rocking the boat as hate speech and you can shut their filthy mouths. See? Fantastic power tool. And of course the middle tier wage slaves will not only not dare to raise their voice but will enforce your tactics for breadcrumbs. Such a cool tool.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]