3 ms·

>> That's not what free speech is. > The argument becomes more difficult the more widely used and essential a platform is. The solution is to not let any one

by ardy42 6y ago

>> That's not what free speech is. > The argument becomes more difficult the more widely used and essential a platform is. The solution is to not let any one platform get that big and essential as a matter of policy. For free speech to actually be positive, I'm starting to think it's actually pretty important for that speech to be subjected to some kind of peer review process before it's broadcast widely. We used to have that when broadcasting was more limited and expensive, but by destroying those limits, social media also weakened the peer review. People are more comfortable with smaller actors making editorial decisions, we need those kinds of decisions, so we need to keep the actors smaller.

ping_pong 6y ago
When people say the things that you say, what they really mean is "I believe in free speech, except for those opinions that I don't believe are right." Restricting free speech until it's vetted is literally counter to what free speech actually is. Free speech is allowing everyone to speak, even if it makes you nauseous. If you don't believe in free speech, then say so, that's your right as per free speech. But please don't try to gaslight people into thinking that "peer-reviewed free speech" is anything except censorship. What if the peers that review it don't agree with your world view and don't allow books published that you agree with? Will you calmly accept it, or will you claim censorship?
- ardy42 6y ago
  > When people say the things that you say, what they really mean is "I believe in free speech, except for those opinions that I don't believe are right." No they don't, since you misunderstood what I was saying. > Restricting free speech until it's vetted is literally counter to what free speech actually is. Free speech is allowing everyone to speak, even if it makes you nauseous. Again, I'm not advocating restricting anyone's speech, but rather emphasizing the value of a system with people who make editorial judgements. Amazon, like any publisher, should have the uncontroversial right to refuse to publish or sell any book it pleases for any reason it finds compelling. If its size makes people queasy about that, then it should be broken up to the point where that's not an issue. > But please don't try to gaslight people into thinking that "peer-reviewed free speech" is anything except censorship. So you're saying it's censorship that scientific journals refuse to publish the papers crackpots send them? It's worth remembering that the ultimate goal of free speech is for the truth to prevail, not to nauseate everyone by forcing them to sort through and disseminate mountains of garbage.
zarkov99 6y ago
The reviews are not coming from peers. The are exclusively coming from a niche section of the population: urban, young, affluent and left leaning. Not that this it would be OK even if it was a "diverse" gang of censors.

by ardy42 6y ago

ping_pong 6y ago

When people say the things that you say, what they really mean is "I believe in free speech, except for those opinions that I don't believe are right." Restricting free speech until it's vetted is literally counter to what free speech actually is. Free speech is allowing everyone to speak, even if it makes you nauseous. If you don't believe in free speech, then say so, that's your right as per free speech. But please don't try to gaslight people into thinking that "peer-reviewed free speech" is anything except censorship. What if the peers that review it don't agree with your world view and don't allow books published that you agree with? Will you calmly accept it, or will you claim censorship?

ardy42 6y ago
> When people say the things that you say, what they really mean is "I believe in free speech, except for those opinions that I don't believe are right." No they don't, since you misunderstood what I was saying. > Restricting free speech until it's vetted is literally counter to what free speech actually is. Free speech is allowing everyone to speak, even if it makes you nauseous. Again, I'm not advocating restricting anyone's speech, but rather emphasizing the value of a system with people who make editorial judgements. Amazon, like any publisher, should have the uncontroversial right to refuse to publish or sell any book it pleases for any reason it finds compelling. If its size makes people queasy about that, then it should be broken up to the point where that's not an issue. > But please don't try to gaslight people into thinking that "peer-reviewed free speech" is anything except censorship. So you're saying it's censorship that scientific journals refuse to publish the papers crackpots send them? It's worth remembering that the ultimate goal of free speech is for the truth to prevail, not to nauseate everyone by forcing them to sort through and disseminate mountains of garbage.

zarkov99 6y ago

The reviews are not coming from peers. The are exclusively coming from a niche section of the population: urban, young, affluent and left leaning. Not that this it would be OK even if it was a "diverse" gang of censors.