2 ms·

> A) the marketplace of ideas is explicitly designed around the concept that some ideas win, at least at a broad cultural level. Right, but "this idea won in t

> A) the marketplace of ideas is explicitly designed around the concept that some ideas win, at least at a broad cultural level. Right, but "this idea won in this local market, therefore it must not be challenged in that global market and doing so is a hate crime" has giant issues. > B) the consensus doesn't need to be adopted by everyone and hasn't been adopted by everyone, but private communities aren't required to engage with ideas that aren't furthering their own conversations/goals. But that's not what's happening. If something gets defined as hate speech, it's not a private matter, it's a criminal matter. Once we accept that as a valid process, we're just asking "who has the power to define" and give them a carte blanche for criminal punishment. I find that deeply troubling, and given that definitions, majorities and power has changed, I believe so should everyone, as the weapons they build today might be turned on them tomorrow. A somewhat recent example for that was the introduction of FB's anti-hate-speech rules that suddenly outlawed "men are trash", much to the outrage of those who asked for the rules. Especially when it's on individual personal feelings and the only question we ask is "how man Twitter followers do you have" ("you have more, the market place of ideas has decided"), we're setting ourselves up for instability where it's best not to talk to anyone you don't 100% trust. I have relatives who lived under the Stasi, and that's pretty much what they described - if you don't know somebody very well, you limit yourself to talking about the weather and parroting the party line. > A lot of cancel culture falls into those bounds: I see people who are angry about boycotts, public criticism, markets responding to consumer demand, private communities like Twitter choosing who they host. I think there's a lot to say about what is a private community (and at what size it stops being one) and what they are allowed to do. Discrimination is generally considered bad, but the law enforces protection only for protected groups as it's assumed that everybody else will have no trouble to find a competing business. This cannot be said for the local monopolists on the web. Personally, I'd prefer to not get into all out war where you get cancelled and ostracized and need to move to some place where "your people" live (by whatever criteria you define that) because the local majority rules absolutely and destroys everything that is unlike them. That said: if anybody prefers the segregation, I'd love it if they were honest about it and said "I don't want to see that opinion, you must leave". The moralizing and pseudo-science rationalization of it makes everything hazy and dishonest, like an invisible mine-field that we must not acknowledge even exists, much less talk about and say where the mines are buried.

danShumway 6y ago
> If something gets defined as hate speech, it's not a private matter, it's a criminal matter. Wait, what? Hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. Nobody's being criminally prosecuted for being anti-trans. > A somewhat recent example for that was the introduction of FB's anti-hate-speech rules that suddenly outlawed "men are trash", much to the outrage of those who asked for the rules. Which is not a criminal matter, it's a private community deciding who they want to allow into their own space. Facebook is doing exactly what you want below: > I'd love it if they were honest about it and said "I don't want to see that opinion, you must leave" The reason they're saying that is because the anti-trans arguments are generally pretty poorly thought out and unhelpful, but it doesn't really matter why they're saying it. They have the right to say it. Legally, 1st Amendment protections today are extremely strong, arguably stronger than they have ever been. Culturally, people want control over their own communities and they want the freedom to choose who they associate with. I think that's completely consistent with free speech. Again, if you think that Facebook is too big and it's a defacto public square, then the solution is to break Facebook up and remove regulations around content scraping and adversarial interoperability that get in the way of competition. You can't protect free speech by telling people who they are and aren't allowed to criticize and associate with. It's cutting off your own nose to spite your face. I'm not old, but I'm old enough to remember when free speech advocates were against the Fairness Doctrine. What happened to those people?
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. Nobody's being criminally prosecuted for being anti-trans. Check your privilege! You'll be very much criminally prosecuted for hate speech in most (I believe all, but don't know the specifics of each) European countries. The definition of hate speech is similar (and it's a global debate, so they converge), only we do not have a concept of free speech that is similar. > Facebook is doing exactly what you want below Absolutely. I gave it as an example that looking to weaponize rules can backfire, as the weapon can be turned against you as well. The more aggressive the weaponization of rules becomes ("I am offended" as a general trigger for suspension would be the equivalent of "free nukes for everyone"), the larger the chance that unintended side-effects materialize ("I wanted to be safe from their attacks, but this also outlaws my attacks"). I'm do agree with you that breaking up the monopolists is the much better way to go. But that seems very unlikely, the utility route is the one that I consider much more probable.

danShumway 6y ago

> If something gets defined as hate speech, it's not a private matter, it's a criminal matter. Wait, what? Hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. Nobody's being criminally prosecuted for being anti-trans. > A somewhat recent example for that was the introduction of FB's anti-hate-speech rules that suddenly outlawed "men are trash", much to the outrage of those who asked for the rules. Which is not a criminal matter, it's a private community deciding who they want to allow into their own space. Facebook is doing exactly what you want below: > I'd love it if they were honest about it and said "I don't want to see that opinion, you must leave" The reason they're saying that is because the anti-trans arguments are generally pretty poorly thought out and unhelpful, but it doesn't really matter why they're saying it. They have the right to say it. Legally, 1st Amendment protections today are extremely strong, arguably stronger than they have ever been. Culturally, people want control over their own communities and they want the freedom to choose who they associate with. I think that's completely consistent with free speech. Again, if you think that Facebook is too big and it's a defacto public square, then the solution is to break Facebook up and remove regulations around content scraping and adversarial interoperability that get in the way of competition. You can't protect free speech by telling people who they are and aren't allowed to criticize and associate with. It's cutting off your own nose to spite your face. I'm not old, but I'm old enough to remember when free speech advocates were against the Fairness Doctrine. What happened to those people?

luckylion 6y ago
> Hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. Nobody's being criminally prosecuted for being anti-trans. Check your privilege! You'll be very much criminally prosecuted for hate speech in most (I believe all, but don't know the specifics of each) European countries. The definition of hate speech is similar (and it's a global debate, so they converge), only we do not have a concept of free speech that is similar. > Facebook is doing exactly what you want below Absolutely. I gave it as an example that looking to weaponize rules can backfire, as the weapon can be turned against you as well. The more aggressive the weaponization of rules becomes ("I am offended" as a general trigger for suspension would be the equivalent of "free nukes for everyone"), the larger the chance that unintended side-effects materialize ("I wanted to be safe from their attacks, but this also outlaws my attacks"). I'm do agree with you that breaking up the monopolists is the much better way to go. But that seems very unlikely, the utility route is the one that I consider much more probable.