6 ms·

It truly depends on what the opinion being expressed is. I think this is where our conversation begins to fall apart because there are cases that warrant an ang

by glenda 6y ago

It truly depends on what the opinion being expressed is. I think this is where our conversation begins to fall apart because there are cases that warrant an angry mob, but usually not. Personally, I think this is a phase because people will quickly learn that they're just alienating people further. Real, open discussion promotes better understanding for everyone.

donw 6y ago
> I think this is where our conversation begins to fall apart because there are cases that warrant an angry mob, but usually not. There is never a case where the actions of an individual warrant an angry mob. Never. That is the test of morality. Not how well you treat your friends, but how you behave towards the most vile and despicable people in existence. Unquestionable evil. Stalin. Hitler. Mao. The worst and most horrible criminals. All of them deserve a fair trial for their crimes, and equal treatment under the law. Not because we are being "soft" on them. But because we are better than them.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  You're playing semantic games here. GP was using "angry mob" in the twitter sense. An angry twitter "mob" isn't going to murder you. That doesn't mean people never deserve to be deplatformed or fired. And those things (rightfully) don't require a trial.
  - donw 6y ago
    > An angry twitter "mob" isn't going to murder you. Sometimes they do. SWATting is a thing, and the targets of Twitter mobs are ripe targets for domestic terrorists looking to make a statement. But that's besides the point. There are many flavors of violence other than outright murder. > That doesn't mean people never deserve to be deplatformed or fired. "Deplatformed" is one of those words that Orwell wrote about in "Politics and the English Language" -- a euphemism that hides the real meaning. The word you are looking for is "silenced". Being silenced or fired is violence. You are being deprived of the human right to free speech, or of the means to feed yourself and provide for your loved ones, by an anonymous mob. The only way to avoid the cycle of escalating violence is to not get on it in the first place. Because if not, the US is on the fast track to turn into Venezuela, or Maoist China, or late-1930s Germany, and none of those is a place you want to live, even if you support the regime. I'm speaking up more about this because I'm seeing smoke, and would rather avoid a full-on fire.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > "Deplatformed" is one of those words that Orwell wrote about in "Politics and the English Language" -- a euphemism that hides the real meaning. Except that it's not. Someone who has been deplatformed can still say whatever they want, it's just that fewer people choose to listen to them or to help amplify them. Much as your right to move your fist ends at my face, your right to say whatever you want ends at my megaphone. I'm under no obligation to amplify your message. You are still welcome to say whatever the hell you want. I'm just not obligated to help.
      - donw 6y ago
        It's a question of scale and monopoly. Imagine an Old West town. There's a street running through the middle, and right in the middle, a public square, with a saloon where everybody goes to drink and gossip, and a soapbox right out front. Anybody can stand on the soapbox, and speak to the people in the square. Of course, the folks in the saloon are going to hear them. Now, one day, the saloon owner gets fed up. She's tired of all those abolitionists arguing that we have a moral duty to end slavery. And she's the wealthiest person in the town -- most of the profits from the local mine end up being spent at her saloon. So, one day, she buys up the town square, and tells the townspeople that they can only use the soapbox if you say things that she support. And she's got money, so the local police will enforce those laws. The square is where people gather. Regardless of ownership, it is not just a public spaces, but the public space where discourse, is held and it is in the public interest to ensure that, in that space, the human right to free speech is not trampled by a politically motivated oligarch. > I'm under no obligation to amplify your message. You, personally, are not. But Twitter, Facebook, and Google are large enough where they dominate everything else, and regulating them to prevent human rights abuses is in the public interest. Same reason we want to impose environmental regulations on oil companies. Honestly, I doubt I'll manage to convince you with this. But I should hope that you would not want to live in a world where what you can say is regulated by the richest person in the town.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        I reject this analogy. Google and Twitter and Facebook aren't providing a government service (they never "bought up" the pre-existing public land). They aren't using violence or government services to enforce their rules (the police), and there are still other places to speak. The actual analogy would be that the most popular saloon owner bans white supremacists, and they get pissy because the white supremacy saloon isn't popular enough to stay open, so the only place they can go is the public park, but no one hangs out there because there are only white supremacists there. And man, that sounds like a great situation! Edit: And I'll once again stress that these differences matter. They're profoundly important. You not being able to say a particular thing on a particular website is not an existential threat to free speech. The government being able to decree that certain entities are not entitled to their own 1A protection is. And that's exactly what you're requesting: that things you define as "platforms" lose first amendment protections. That's more of a threat to free speech than anything a single platform can do.

by glenda 6y ago

donw 6y ago

> I think this is where our conversation begins to fall apart because there are cases that warrant an angry mob, but usually not. There is never a case where the actions of an individual warrant an angry mob. Never. That is the test of morality. Not how well you treat your friends, but how you behave towards the most vile and despicable people in existence. Unquestionable evil. Stalin. Hitler. Mao. The worst and most horrible criminals. All of them deserve a fair trial for their crimes, and equal treatment under the law. Not because we are being "soft" on them. But because we are better than them.

joshuamorton 6y ago
You're playing semantic games here. GP was using "angry mob" in the twitter sense. An angry twitter "mob" isn't going to murder you. That doesn't mean people never deserve to be deplatformed or fired. And those things (rightfully) don't require a trial.
- donw 6y ago
  > An angry twitter "mob" isn't going to murder you. Sometimes they do. SWATting is a thing, and the targets of Twitter mobs are ripe targets for domestic terrorists looking to make a statement. But that's besides the point. There are many flavors of violence other than outright murder. > That doesn't mean people never deserve to be deplatformed or fired. "Deplatformed" is one of those words that Orwell wrote about in "Politics and the English Language" -- a euphemism that hides the real meaning. The word you are looking for is "silenced". Being silenced or fired is violence. You are being deprived of the human right to free speech, or of the means to feed yourself and provide for your loved ones, by an anonymous mob. The only way to avoid the cycle of escalating violence is to not get on it in the first place. Because if not, the US is on the fast track to turn into Venezuela, or Maoist China, or late-1930s Germany, and none of those is a place you want to live, even if you support the regime. I'm speaking up more about this because I'm seeing smoke, and would rather avoid a full-on fire.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > "Deplatformed" is one of those words that Orwell wrote about in "Politics and the English Language" -- a euphemism that hides the real meaning. Except that it's not. Someone who has been deplatformed can still say whatever they want, it's just that fewer people choose to listen to them or to help amplify them. Much as your right to move your fist ends at my face, your right to say whatever you want ends at my megaphone. I'm under no obligation to amplify your message. You are still welcome to say whatever the hell you want. I'm just not obligated to help.
    - donw 6y ago
      It's a question of scale and monopoly. Imagine an Old West town. There's a street running through the middle, and right in the middle, a public square, with a saloon where everybody goes to drink and gossip, and a soapbox right out front. Anybody can stand on the soapbox, and speak to the people in the square. Of course, the folks in the saloon are going to hear them. Now, one day, the saloon owner gets fed up. She's tired of all those abolitionists arguing that we have a moral duty to end slavery. And she's the wealthiest person in the town -- most of the profits from the local mine end up being spent at her saloon. So, one day, she buys up the town square, and tells the townspeople that they can only use the soapbox if you say things that she support. And she's got money, so the local police will enforce those laws. The square is where people gather. Regardless of ownership, it is not just a public spaces, but the public space where discourse, is held and it is in the public interest to ensure that, in that space, the human right to free speech is not trampled by a politically motivated oligarch. > I'm under no obligation to amplify your message. You, personally, are not. But Twitter, Facebook, and Google are large enough where they dominate everything else, and regulating them to prevent human rights abuses is in the public interest. Same reason we want to impose environmental regulations on oil companies. Honestly, I doubt I'll manage to convince you with this. But I should hope that you would not want to live in a world where what you can say is regulated by the richest person in the town.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        I reject this analogy. Google and Twitter and Facebook aren't providing a government service (they never "bought up" the pre-existing public land). They aren't using violence or government services to enforce their rules (the police), and there are still other places to speak. The actual analogy would be that the most popular saloon owner bans white supremacists, and they get pissy because the white supremacy saloon isn't popular enough to stay open, so the only place they can go is the public park, but no one hangs out there because there are only white supremacists there. And man, that sounds like a great situation! Edit: And I'll once again stress that these differences matter. They're profoundly important. You not being able to say a particular thing on a particular website is not an existential threat to free speech. The government being able to decree that certain entities are not entitled to their own 1A protection is. And that's exactly what you're requesting: that things you define as "platforms" lose first amendment protections. That's more of a threat to free speech than anything a single platform can do.