6 ms·

Man, it's sad that HN is going down the reddit rabbit hole, spam downvoting these kinds of well-though-out posts that (admittedly) go against the zeitgeist of S

• tyrust 6y ago
  I'm guessing that it was down-voted for the vitriol and personal attacks which aren't relevant to the arguments.
  • throwsadlfksjdf 6y ago
    The personal attacks were warranted, he said exactly how I felt reading that article.
• Analemma_ 6y ago
  It is not a well-thought-out post. It uses a bunch of emotionally-loaded but content-free trigger phrases like "elitist bullshit" and "nanny-state toadies" rather than well-supported arguments, and is being spam-downvoted for that reason.
  • dvt 6y ago
    It definitionally is elitist bullshit though -- Mattheij's entire post implies that he knows better. Sure the term might trigger you, but that doesn't make it any less true. To wit, I personally would've been much more scathing: I mean, has he even heard of John Stewart Mill? There's been a lot of trial and error here, and the blog post conveniently ignores it all.
    • tyrust 6y ago
      >has he even heard of John Stewart Mill I read On Liberty recently in the hopes of shining some light on the moderation debate. Unfortunately it came up short. I think Mill either ignored or did not anticipate just how dangerous a viral bad idea can be on a global scale. The closest he comes in the essay does argue that inflammatory speech should be punished: >No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity, when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion that corn‐dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn‐dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard. Is there some other writing from him that you're referring to that provides more relevant info?
      • nemo44x 6y ago
        Read “Kindly Inquisitors” by Johnathan Rausch and then read it again. It should be required reading in schools which, ironically, would be against his entire argument.
        • tyrust 6y ago
          Are you able to briefly summarize the ideas presented in it? "Go read $book" sort of ends the conversation otherwise.
          • nemo44x 6y ago
            “ His 1993 book Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought (published by the University of Chicago Press; expanded in 2013) defends free speech and robust criticism, even when it is racist or sexist and even when it hurts.” From the authors Website. Simple to Google - it has been reprinted Ted countless times and is very popular since being published in the early/mid 1990’s.
  • core-questions 6y ago
    Do I really need to think hard about my support for basic human freedoms, every single time I see someone write a "well thought out" post about why they want to take them away? Is this kind of tensiment worthy of some kind of "well supported argument"? Will citing the great philosophers of history change any minds here? Do I need to quote S. G. Tallentyre, will her tired catchphrase strike home? If the article had been about how we don't deserve the right to vote, or the right to free association, because we might vote for the wrong people or hang out with the wrong people, would you react the same way? Those rights are just as important, I believe. There comes a point at which the feeling is, oh great, here we go, we've found yet another moneyed professional who has decided that because they personally agree with everything the establishment says, does, and wants, there can be no reason why anyone would want to dissent without being immoral and evil and so forth. Time to shut down people's freedom so they stop saying such annoying things, and then we can finally relax, all the problems in society will be gone! If only we can make sure that only the Ministry of Truth vets every single thing before people say it, then we can make sure that pandemics never happen, that nobody ever gets mad enough to harm someone else, that nobody ever has a bad day ever again. It will be fantastic! It will be like LinkedIn, everywhere! Nobody will have anything negative to say, and so therefore nobody will ever have anything negative to think. Perfect. Can't wait. Yes, he's a nanny-state toady. Anyone who wants to use the powers of surveillance capitalism to tell me what I can and cannot say and think is precisely that. It's not meant to be a nice thing to day, it's meant to engage you emotionally, because your freedom is being threatened as much as mine is by sentiments like this. How much of an argument do I need to summon, when generations of my ancestors and those of many, many people in the west fought for these rights as a new pinnacle of human achievement? Do I really need to expend a ton of personal effort explaining to you why I don't think giving corporate HR departments the ultimate arbitrary authority over what is acceptable to say is the proper way to run society? Are you so hoodwinked? Are you a proud, outspoken person who somehow has zero critique of the current social order?
• throwaway45349 6y ago
  Agree with everything you said. My only concern is the political aspect. I see mainly establishment media, elites and politicians are the ones pushing for the censorship because they're afraid of free dissemination of information online. Most others are pushing for the exact opposite, except for some fringe groups who wish to weaponize censorship. The problem is that Google/Facebook now have to choose which side of a deeply political issue they will lie on, so of course they're siding with the powerful - the alternative would be risking breakup or regulation. No matter what they choose, a large number of people will be against them.
• erichocean 6y ago
  > Free speech is a virtue worth striving for Whether or not something is virtuous is irrelevant when trying to predict the likelihood of future regulation. Instead, ask yourself: • How does free speech help grow the economy? • How does free speech keep the population docile? (the most likely reason for restrictions, see other comments in this thread from "free speech absolutists") • How does free speech help elites retain power? If free speech doesn't enable or support those three objectives it will eventually be regulated into something that does, using whatever mechanism (government, education, propaganda, or private enterprise) that's best. I think elites would prefer we talk within a prescribed (Overton) window, in ways that don't inflame passions, and on topics that increase our GDP, so I expect elites to aggressively pursue restrictions inline with those principles. What non-elites want or think is virtuous is ultimately irrelevant when it comes to speech, as it is in every other area that has economic significance…. Update: For people who doubt me, consider current speech restrictions in Europe. That's our future once the demographics shift enough—only crusty Anglos have majority support for unregulated "free" speech in the US according to multiple Pew polls, so restrictions are coming. Nevertheless, we'll always be allowed to talk freely about any topic (e.g. science, technology) that's needed to grow the economy since open and free inquiry is the best way to proceed.
• PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  >As Juvenal asked almost two millenia ago: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Part of the last 2000 years has been the attempt to development systems of government which inherently reduce the importance of this question. For example, by enforcing churn on "custodes", by creating a culture in which radical transparency is the norm, by encouraging highly participatory democracy. Now, I will concede that these efforts have not born much fruit. Certainly not enough fruit to make Juvenal's question moot. But we are now in a situation where we may be faced with "draconian authoritarianism" because of the social and psychological impact of social media and its manipulation, so I'm not convinced that this "free speech vs. draconian authoritarianism" dialectic is really useful in an analysis of this issue. Asserting that there are only two ends of the spectrum: free speech or draconian authoritarianism is very typical American thing to do; other cultures have a much easier time dealing with the idea that while the slope may be slippery, we can choose to take some steps down it and then stop. (I'm not saying that I know you're American, merely that this sort of perspective is much more typical in the political and civic culture of America than most other countries in the world). And frankly, I don't think your arguments are sound, because they hinge on a hand-waving claim: >Disinformation -- to the detriment of the public -- is a price we're willing to pay (barring some narrow cases) You (and I, and the rest of us) don't know what that price really means.
  • PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    and to whoever decided to downvote this, how about you step up and explain what you think is wrong with it, rather than just hiding behind the downarrow?
  • acephal 6y ago
    >Part of the last 2000 years has been the attempt to development systems of government which inherently reduce the importance of this question. For example, by enforcing churn on "custodes", by creating a culture in which radical transparency is the norm, by encouraging highly participatory democracy. Majority of the last two thousand years in Western Europe was inept Roman dictatorship followed by Germanic warlords duking it out. More like the last 500 years, no? Saying 2000 years lends an air of credibility that shouldn't be there, though you may just be going for word play in response to the grandparent