5 ms·

Free speech absolutism is destructive. Facebook is an example of this. Climate change denialism is another. Holocaust denial is another.

core-questions 6y ago
> Free speech absolutism is destructive. OK, cool. So who gets to decide what speech is allowed? What do the parameters look like? What level of "consensus" gets to establish facts? What happens if there's consensus and someone discovers some new compelling counter-argument or evidence to the contrary for something? You'll find that even in places like Canada where there are hate speech laws, the restrictions are limited to speech that poses a credible threat or incitement to violence, in context. None of the things you've mentioned are illegal to talk about, just like flat eartherism or any other pseudoscientific concept. Again, you can find it as distasteful as you like; but there's a clean and simple solution to the problem, which is a button with an X on it, at the top of your window. Consider clicking it?
- ksenzee 6y ago
  > Who gets to decide what speech is allowed? In the public square? The courts. On a platform? That platform's owners decide. In fact, they have a moral obligation to monitor the speech they allow, because they're helping promulgate it.
  - cmrdporcupine 6y ago
    What's so insane about this is that it's the Internet... you can literally just go spend an afternoon and create a new forum using some off the shelf forum software and a hosting service. Platform owners making a decision to allow hate speech are letting hate speakers use an audience that the platform owner painstakingly helped build. That's just either idiocy, or being complicit.
    - glenstein 6y ago
      >What's so insane about this is that it's the Internet... you can literally just go spend an afternoon and create a new forum using some off the shelf forum software and a hosting service. Depending on which phase the moon is in, you'll hear defenders of hate speech alternate between saying (1) we shouldn't allow any efforts at moderating speech on platforms because it will make no difference,because people can just move to new platforms or create new platforms, or (2) mainstream platforms are de-facto public utilities and it's literal legal free speech that is infringed if they engage in moderation. I don't know how that contradiction is supposed to be reconciled, or what motivates the adoption of these conflicting views, but I suspect that (1) is motivated by a desire to prevent major platforms from engaging in any moderation because they support the speech that would be moderated and (2) is that arguments about "free speech" need to get around the private platform issue.
- suprfsat 6y ago
  Interesting how a simple complaint of "this video platform is promoting Nazis" is immediately escalated to "But it's not illegal speech!"
- d3nj4l 6y ago
  > So who gets to decide what speech is allowed? Do you want to make that decision before or after a hate crime happens?
throwa2233 6y ago
Your opinion is wrong, here is your ticket to the New Mexico Reeducation Camp #26. Sorry, I don't want to hear your counter-argument, off you go now.

core-questions 6y ago

> Free speech absolutism is destructive. OK, cool. So who gets to decide what speech is allowed? What do the parameters look like? What level of "consensus" gets to establish facts? What happens if there's consensus and someone discovers some new compelling counter-argument or evidence to the contrary for something? You'll find that even in places like Canada where there are hate speech laws, the restrictions are limited to speech that poses a credible threat or incitement to violence, in context. None of the things you've mentioned are illegal to talk about, just like flat eartherism or any other pseudoscientific concept. Again, you can find it as distasteful as you like; but there's a clean and simple solution to the problem, which is a button with an X on it, at the top of your window. Consider clicking it?

ksenzee 6y ago
> Who gets to decide what speech is allowed? In the public square? The courts. On a platform? That platform's owners decide. In fact, they have a moral obligation to monitor the speech they allow, because they're helping promulgate it.
- cmrdporcupine 6y ago
  What's so insane about this is that it's the Internet... you can literally just go spend an afternoon and create a new forum using some off the shelf forum software and a hosting service. Platform owners making a decision to allow hate speech are letting hate speakers use an audience that the platform owner painstakingly helped build. That's just either idiocy, or being complicit.
  - glenstein 6y ago
    >What's so insane about this is that it's the Internet... you can literally just go spend an afternoon and create a new forum using some off the shelf forum software and a hosting service. Depending on which phase the moon is in, you'll hear defenders of hate speech alternate between saying (1) we shouldn't allow any efforts at moderating speech on platforms because it will make no difference,because people can just move to new platforms or create new platforms, or (2) mainstream platforms are de-facto public utilities and it's literal legal free speech that is infringed if they engage in moderation. I don't know how that contradiction is supposed to be reconciled, or what motivates the adoption of these conflicting views, but I suspect that (1) is motivated by a desire to prevent major platforms from engaging in any moderation because they support the speech that would be moderated and (2) is that arguments about "free speech" need to get around the private platform issue.
suprfsat 6y ago
Interesting how a simple complaint of "this video platform is promoting Nazis" is immediately escalated to "But it's not illegal speech!"
d3nj4l 6y ago
> So who gets to decide what speech is allowed? Do you want to make that decision before or after a hate crime happens?

throwa2233 6y ago

Your opinion is wrong, here is your ticket to the New Mexico Reeducation Camp #26. Sorry, I don't want to hear your counter-argument, off you go now.