5 ms·

It's not an issue if you happen to agree this time. Next time you might not. And then it's too late, you've made your bed.

by Reedx 6y ago

mwfunk 6y ago
That only makes sense if you consider someone like Alex Jones to be “just another person who happens to have different opinions about some things than some other people”. He never got shit from anyone for merely offering unpopular opinions, his history (and present) is much more complicated and fucked up than that. He’s definitely on a short list of people for whom humanity in general is worse off overall for having him in it. Like a negative contributor on a team who just makes work for other people, he’s a negative contributor in many, many ways for all of humanity, and not just from spreading transparent lies and obvious disinformation. He never got in trouble for simply saying something someone else disagreed with, he got in trouble for directly fucking with the lives of victims of horrible tragedies, over and over again.
baddox 6y ago
I don't understand this attitude that we shouldn't say "don't do bad things" because someone else might come along and disagree about which things are bad.
- unishark 6y ago
  I think you mean "don't say bad things".
GoofballJones 6y ago
What does this even mean? Are you suggesting a private company should be forced to host content they don't want to? Should Fox News be forced to host Rachael Maddow and a Huffpost show? Is Fox News "censoring" Huffpost by not hosting a show on their network?
- Reedx 6y ago
  No, none of that. This is different. Imagine a public town square. Would you want any company acting as the gatekeeper, deciding what speech is allowed or not in that setting? YouTube, Twitter and a few others are effectively the new town square. I don't think we want to end up in a position where a few corporations are dictating acceptable speech and open debate.
  - chillwaves 6y ago
    What about a private business is "public town square" and why doesn't it apply to Rachel Maddow being hosted by Fox News?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - leereeves 6y ago
      Even the Supreme Court has called social media "the modern public square". > what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square. The power to ban someone from social media is the power to cut them off from society. That's too much power for any private corporation to hold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina
CamperBob2 6y ago
First they came for Alex Jones, but I said nothing, because screw that guy. Let's see if this goes any further. If it doesn't, there's no problem.
sagichmal 6y ago
Just because you can apply a rule with one set of nouns and achieve an unjust outcome doesn't mean the rule is bad. There's no daylight between "we can't restrict shitty speech because one day we might restrict non-shitty speech" and "we can't have laws against bad things because one day we might have laws against non-bad things". It's an obviously stupid argument and it's not any less stupid because the operating verb is speech.
unethical_ban 6y ago
Nothing is set in stone. Everything is a spectrum, and fights for where to draw lines on a spectrum will continue in society in perpetuity. You are absolutely right. Right now, it isn't an issue, because Alex Jones is a legitimately awful, possibly insane human being who contributes nothing to actual political discourse, and directs hatred at parents of murdered children for his schtick. It's Youtube, not the federal government. And while I do believe "The Internet" is the public square, I don't think Youtube is /quite/ that protected yet, and I don't think Alex Jones deserves that protection. Other people may get shut down like AJ did, and I may not like it, and I'll argue against it. https://wannabewonk.com/gab-and-free-speech-on-the-internet/ https://wannabewonk.com/gab-and-free-speech-on-the-internet/ tldr - AJ can set up a server at home or on AWS. He may have to do compressed audio only.

It's not an issue if you happen to agree this time. Next time you might not. And then it's too late, you've made your bed.

by Reedx 6y ago

It's not an issue if you happen to agree this time. Next time you might not. And then it's too late, you've made your bed.

mwfunk 6y ago

That only makes sense if you consider someone like Alex Jones to be “just another person who happens to have different opinions about some things than some other people”. He never got shit from anyone for merely offering unpopular opinions, his history (and present) is much more complicated and fucked up than that. He’s definitely on a short list of people for whom humanity in general is worse off overall for having him in it. Like a negative contributor on a team who just makes work for other people, he’s a negative contributor in many, many ways for all of humanity, and not just from spreading transparent lies and obvious disinformation. He never got in trouble for simply saying something someone else disagreed with, he got in trouble for directly fucking with the lives of victims of horrible tragedies, over and over again.

baddox 6y ago

I don't understand this attitude that we shouldn't say "don't do bad things" because someone else might come along and disagree about which things are bad.

unishark 6y ago
I think you mean "don't say bad things".

GoofballJones 6y ago

What does this even mean? Are you suggesting a private company should be forced to host content they don't want to? Should Fox News be forced to host Rachael Maddow and a Huffpost show? Is Fox News "censoring" Huffpost by not hosting a show on their network?

Reedx 6y ago
No, none of that. This is different. Imagine a public town square. Would you want any company acting as the gatekeeper, deciding what speech is allowed or not in that setting? YouTube, Twitter and a few others are effectively the new town square. I don't think we want to end up in a position where a few corporations are dictating acceptable speech and open debate.
- chillwaves 6y ago
  What about a private business is "public town square" and why doesn't it apply to Rachel Maddow being hosted by Fox News?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - leereeves 6y ago
    Even the Supreme Court has called social media "the modern public square". > what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square. The power to ban someone from social media is the power to cut them off from society. That's too much power for any private corporation to hold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina

CamperBob2 6y ago

First they came for Alex Jones, but I said nothing, because screw that guy. Let's see if this goes any further. If it doesn't, there's no problem.

sagichmal 6y ago

Just because you can apply a rule with one set of nouns and achieve an unjust outcome doesn't mean the rule is bad. There's no daylight between "we can't restrict shitty speech because one day we might restrict non-shitty speech" and "we can't have laws against bad things because one day we might have laws against non-bad things". It's an obviously stupid argument and it's not any less stupid because the operating verb is speech.

unethical_ban 6y ago

Nothing is set in stone. Everything is a spectrum, and fights for where to draw lines on a spectrum will continue in society in perpetuity. You are absolutely right. Right now, it isn't an issue, because Alex Jones is a legitimately awful, possibly insane human being who contributes nothing to actual political discourse, and directs hatred at parents of murdered children for his schtick. It's Youtube, not the federal government. And while I do believe "The Internet" is the public square, I don't think Youtube is /quite/ that protected yet, and I don't think Alex Jones deserves that protection. Other people may get shut down like AJ did, and I may not like it, and I'll argue against it. https://wannabewonk.com/gab-and-free-speech-on-the-internet/ https://wannabewonk.com/gab-and-free-speech-on-the-internet/ tldr - AJ can set up a server at home or on AWS. He may have to do compressed audio only.