3 ms·

This is pretty explicitly the type of speech that doesn't need protection by 1A. The absolutism of it is really an ideal that practically achieved would lead to

This is pretty explicitly the type of speech that doesn't need protection by 1A. The absolutism of it is really an ideal that practically achieved would lead to some ugliness. But I'm wondering how this extends to banning conservatives, conspiracy theory pages, or even jokes? When is it going too far over the line, which is drawn at different points for different people/groups? Because my fear is the government doesn't crackdown like 1984, but the public is convinced there is a much broader definition of wrongthink that people call each other on, leading to less creative expression even if it's offensive (with context) and essentially the same as CCP limitations of speech. For instance I think we're mostly over the days of racial one-liners that are just dumb and play on stereotypes, but how do we convince people still thinking those jokes are appropriate to cease using them? Education and compassion may help in some cases but not all.

shuntress 6y ago
Lets start by condemning and removing organized genocide. There is (hopefully) enough space between "actively organizing genocide" and "conservatives, conspiracy theory pages, or even jokes" to allow room for a reasonable line. >how do we convince people still thinking those jokes are appropriate to cease using them By restricting their ability to make those jokes in a way that is clearly tied to the act of making those jokes.
- iateanapple 6y ago
  > There is (hopefully) enough space between "actively organizing genocide" and "conservatives, conspiracy theory pages, or even jokes" to allow room for a reasonable line. There is no trust to allow anything resembling a reasonable line.
  - shuntress 6y ago
    Could you please expand on that? Trust between who?
mhoad 6y ago
I'd kind of make the argument that to me at least, it's not really a story about "finding the right balance" between free speech absolutism and a generally pleasant society. To me that is a somewhat interesting conversation for sure, but the point here I think is that we have a huge number of cases where real live violence and harassment is occurring directly and indirectly as a result of Facebook's choice to NOT properly moderate content that we seem to both agree is most certainly not the kind of speech worth defending. Facebook will say that there is no way that they could possibly do a sufficient job on this and will remind you that they are "always seeking to improve" but the reality of the matter is that they have made a decision for reasons that aren't actually clear as to why they decided to dedicate this specific amount of resources on the problem. A lot of people in society think that they should be spending more on trying to fix that problem. I happen to be one of them and I think that is the conversation I am trying to have. What is a good way for society to provide their feedback on how tech has impacted their relationships? Seems to me that very few people actually like social media but many are addicted because these Facebook spent untold amounts of time and money finding new ways to optimize for "engagement" without ever really considering all of the shitty impacts on society that might have.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
No speech on private platforms is protected. 99% of Americans just don't know how the constitution works.

shuntress 6y ago

Lets start by condemning and removing organized genocide. There is (hopefully) enough space between "actively organizing genocide" and "conservatives, conspiracy theory pages, or even jokes" to allow room for a reasonable line. >how do we convince people still thinking those jokes are appropriate to cease using them By restricting their ability to make those jokes in a way that is clearly tied to the act of making those jokes.

iateanapple 6y ago
> There is (hopefully) enough space between "actively organizing genocide" and "conservatives, conspiracy theory pages, or even jokes" to allow room for a reasonable line. There is no trust to allow anything resembling a reasonable line.
- shuntress 6y ago
  Could you please expand on that? Trust between who?

mhoad 6y ago

I'd kind of make the argument that to me at least, it's not really a story about "finding the right balance" between free speech absolutism and a generally pleasant society. To me that is a somewhat interesting conversation for sure, but the point here I think is that we have a huge number of cases where real live violence and harassment is occurring directly and indirectly as a result of Facebook's choice to NOT properly moderate content that we seem to both agree is most certainly not the kind of speech worth defending. Facebook will say that there is no way that they could possibly do a sufficient job on this and will remind you that they are "always seeking to improve" but the reality of the matter is that they have made a decision for reasons that aren't actually clear as to why they decided to dedicate this specific amount of resources on the problem. A lot of people in society think that they should be spending more on trying to fix that problem. I happen to be one of them and I think that is the conversation I am trying to have. What is a good way for society to provide their feedback on how tech has impacted their relationships? Seems to me that very few people actually like social media but many are addicted because these Facebook spent untold amounts of time and money finding new ways to optimize for "engagement" without ever really considering all of the shitty impacts on society that might have.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

No speech on private platforms is protected. 99% of Americans just don't know how the constitution works.