9 ms·

I've never understood people's conflation of "I do not like your speech" with "censorship." A bookstore refusing to carry books by certain authors is in no way

I've never understood people's conflation of "I do not like your speech" with "censorship." A bookstore refusing to carry books by certain authors is in no way censorship, for instance (the books still exist, just not in that bookstore), yet when we bring things into the digital realm for some reason people seem to lose the distinction. Let me put it this way. Nothing is stopping hateful people from creating their own video hosting platform and hosting their drivel. Hence, free speech. But nothing in the entirety of free speech, whether the legal notions or the philosophical notions, requires platforms to give that speech a place to live. The whole "marketplace of ideas" concept fundamentally works by having the community at large reject hateful speech. Free speech does not mean each instance of speech needs to be weighed and evaluated equally by the community. From a far more practical perspective, allowing this sort of thing onto your platform spells death for any content-platform startup. Seeing this sort of thing is going to immediately (a) drive sensible content consumers -- your actual users -- away from the platform, and (b) draw other hate speech creators to you like flies to shit. If that's what the platform wants to do, then nothing in the world is stopping them, but they will never gain mainstream success.

core-questions 6y ago
> Nothing is stopping hateful people from creating their own video hosting platform and hosting their drivel. Cloudflare and domain registrar bans, payment processor bans and deplatforming, etc. would beg to differ.
- wlll 6y ago
  You can still do it, you don't need to use cloudflare, you don't need to use that registrar. You don't even need to use the Internet, paint it on a sign and walk around the street with it on a pole. You're not having your free speech impeded by any of this, because refusing to carry someone elses speech isn't censorship, it's just that when you say things that are repulsive to people they won't want to help promote it. If you want free speech go to your door, walk outside, start taking. You got your free speech. Everything else is a bonus.
  - tristor 6y ago
    > If you want free speech go to your door, walk outside, start taking. You got your free speech. Everything else is a bonus. This argument is reductio ad absurdum, except executed against an argument you support. De-platforming online is in opposition to free speech, and the fact you can walk out your front door with a sign does not mitigate the loss of equal power behind your speech that others enjoy by using Internet services. You standing on the street with a sign is in no way equivalent in character or reach to writing what your sign says on Twitter. So here we are, the Internet is a thing, it exists, and so do digital platforms. Free and open access to web platforms is a core philosophical requirement to ensure freedom of speech, and de-platforming people damages that. It's okay to be opposed to freedom of speech, it's okay to be opposed to the open web, but don't act as if you are not while advocating de-platforming as being an acceptable behavior.
    - core-questions 6y ago
      Well, here's the thing: their actual opposition is not truly to _free speech_ per se, it's to particular ideas that they want to quash. Whether or not there's a legitimate reason to dissuade people from thinking about those ideas is a different question.
      - cortesoft 6y ago
        It's not always about dissuading people from thinking about those ideas, it is about me not wanting to hear them.
        yeetfaraway 6y ago
        Then run some blocking software locally on your own devices. If that's not enough, then it's obvious your concern is more about preventing everyone else from hearing opinions you don't approve of.
        cortesoft 6y ago
- ilikehurdles 6y ago
  There is nothing unreasonable about choosing alternatives for any of those.
  - core-questions 6y ago
    Sorry, are you telling people to simply "start their own payment processor"? Do you realize what kind of an ask that is?
    - ilikehurdles 6y ago
      You're not entitled to Square or Visa or Paypal or Mastercard payments. If you're reduced to cryptocurrency and cash, it is what is is. Profiting from your speech in one specific way over another is not enshrined in some code of human rights.
      - yeetfaraway 6y ago
        Yet.
      - heartbeats 6y ago
        What if you get a letter from the bank telling you to withdraw all your money and cough up the value of the mortgage in a week or be evicted?
        ilikehurdles 6y ago
        Anyone who would sign a contract that would give a bank that level of free reign over the terms of your mortgage is a pretty big fool.
        heartbeats 6y ago
        Pretty much all personal bank accounts have a unilateral termination clause. I would be surprised to see a mortgage where the bank can't totally wreck you if they feel like it. Anyhow, you still need a bank account to get paid. If you can only work jobs that pay you in cash and don't need any access to bank accounts or the Internet themselves, that rules out 99% of businesses that could employ you.
colesantiago 6y ago
Gab looks like it's doing well, being the largest mastodon node with lots of non technical users. That's about as 'mainstream' as you can get in the fediverse.
- andrewzah 6y ago
  It's absolutely hilarious they switched to mastodon, given the nature of the overall mastodon culture.
chii 6y ago
> A bookstore refusing to carry books by certain authors is in no way censorship so i have to make my own bookstore just to sell that book? I'd say that's pretty close to censorship. Even tho the constitution doesn't stop private censorship (only gov't censorship), it isn't a good outcome imo.
- ilikehurdles 6y ago
  If you own a bookstore, you should be able to curate its content at your leisure, which includes but is not limited to removing content that you find objectionable. I don't see how this is a bad outcome, because the alternative -- being forced to carry books on your shelves that you have no power to remove sounds like a much worse outcome. I, a terrible author, am not entitled to your bookstore's audience.
- FridgeSeal 6y ago
  Is this not "the market" simply deciding not to support something? Is that not one of tenets of free-market capitalism? In the market of video providers, none of them are interested in hosting a particular viewpoint, then the creators of the video either have to put up with that or go make their own.
- kelnos 6y ago
  If you can't find even one existing bookstore to carry your book, perhaps your views or ideas are so toxic that you should rethink them. Either way: still not censorship.
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    Or perhaps the society I live in is so toxic that my sane ideas can't reach out. To spell it out, your reasoning assumes that the prevailing consensus in any society is good.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    Do you know what censorship means? It’s quite literally the textbook definition (explicitly blocking books because of the ideas in them) so I’m curious what you think censorship is. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship
kortilla 6y ago
> bookstore refusing to carry books by certain authors is in no way censorship It’s fucking textbook definition of censorship. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship Are you conflating “government censorship” with censorship?
- p1necone 6y ago
  What do you think the alternative is? You want the government to mandate that every book store carries all books? Book stores have a right to curate their selection as they see fit in exactly the same way that authors have a right to write what they see fit.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    It’s censorship, I didn’t make any judgments about when censorship should be allowed/encouraged. It’s just the literal definition of censorship and you’re being defensive because you think it’s a bad thing.
BurningFrog 6y ago
Every era has its things it considers beyond decency to discuss. Most people agree with them, and even if they don't, they know to keep quiet. Those who agree with the norms of 2020 also think many of the norms of past times were awful. Homosexuality was considered beyond decency not long ago. Race mixing, premarital sex as well. The list can be made very long. So what are the chances that mainstream decency right now has found the perfect set of correct values, that never needs to be challenged?
Covzire 6y ago
The problem with your analogy is how you define bookstore. If there were dozens of Youtube "bookstores" in every major city this wouldn't be an issue but functionally speaking every city or town or hamlet has the same 2 or 3 bookstores to choose from and they're all awful at supporting freedom of speech.

core-questions 6y ago

> Nothing is stopping hateful people from creating their own video hosting platform and hosting their drivel. Cloudflare and domain registrar bans, payment processor bans and deplatforming, etc. would beg to differ.

wlll 6y ago
You can still do it, you don't need to use cloudflare, you don't need to use that registrar. You don't even need to use the Internet, paint it on a sign and walk around the street with it on a pole. You're not having your free speech impeded by any of this, because refusing to carry someone elses speech isn't censorship, it's just that when you say things that are repulsive to people they won't want to help promote it. If you want free speech go to your door, walk outside, start taking. You got your free speech. Everything else is a bonus.
- tristor 6y ago
  > If you want free speech go to your door, walk outside, start taking. You got your free speech. Everything else is a bonus. This argument is reductio ad absurdum, except executed against an argument you support. De-platforming online is in opposition to free speech, and the fact you can walk out your front door with a sign does not mitigate the loss of equal power behind your speech that others enjoy by using Internet services. You standing on the street with a sign is in no way equivalent in character or reach to writing what your sign says on Twitter. So here we are, the Internet is a thing, it exists, and so do digital platforms. Free and open access to web platforms is a core philosophical requirement to ensure freedom of speech, and de-platforming people damages that. It's okay to be opposed to freedom of speech, it's okay to be opposed to the open web, but don't act as if you are not while advocating de-platforming as being an acceptable behavior.
  - core-questions 6y ago
    Well, here's the thing: their actual opposition is not truly to _free speech_ per se, it's to particular ideas that they want to quash. Whether or not there's a legitimate reason to dissuade people from thinking about those ideas is a different question.
    - cortesoft 6y ago
      It's not always about dissuading people from thinking about those ideas, it is about me not wanting to hear them.
      - yeetfaraway 6y ago
        Then run some blocking software locally on your own devices. If that's not enough, then it's obvious your concern is more about preventing everyone else from hearing opinions you don't approve of.
        cortesoft 6y ago
ilikehurdles 6y ago
There is nothing unreasonable about choosing alternatives for any of those.
- core-questions 6y ago
  Sorry, are you telling people to simply "start their own payment processor"? Do you realize what kind of an ask that is?
  - ilikehurdles 6y ago
    You're not entitled to Square or Visa or Paypal or Mastercard payments. If you're reduced to cryptocurrency and cash, it is what is is. Profiting from your speech in one specific way over another is not enshrined in some code of human rights.
    - yeetfaraway 6y ago
      Yet.
    - heartbeats 6y ago
      What if you get a letter from the bank telling you to withdraw all your money and cough up the value of the mortgage in a week or be evicted?
      - ilikehurdles 6y ago
        Anyone who would sign a contract that would give a bank that level of free reign over the terms of your mortgage is a pretty big fool.
        heartbeats 6y ago
        Pretty much all personal bank accounts have a unilateral termination clause. I would be surprised to see a mortgage where the bank can't totally wreck you if they feel like it. Anyhow, you still need a bank account to get paid. If you can only work jobs that pay you in cash and don't need any access to bank accounts or the Internet themselves, that rules out 99% of businesses that could employ you.

colesantiago 6y ago

Gab looks like it's doing well, being the largest mastodon node with lots of non technical users. That's about as 'mainstream' as you can get in the fediverse.

andrewzah 6y ago
It's absolutely hilarious they switched to mastodon, given the nature of the overall mastodon culture.

chii 6y ago

> A bookstore refusing to carry books by certain authors is in no way censorship so i have to make my own bookstore just to sell that book? I'd say that's pretty close to censorship. Even tho the constitution doesn't stop private censorship (only gov't censorship), it isn't a good outcome imo.

ilikehurdles 6y ago
If you own a bookstore, you should be able to curate its content at your leisure, which includes but is not limited to removing content that you find objectionable. I don't see how this is a bad outcome, because the alternative -- being forced to carry books on your shelves that you have no power to remove sounds like a much worse outcome. I, a terrible author, am not entitled to your bookstore's audience.
FridgeSeal 6y ago
Is this not "the market" simply deciding not to support something? Is that not one of tenets of free-market capitalism? In the market of video providers, none of them are interested in hosting a particular viewpoint, then the creators of the video either have to put up with that or go make their own.
kelnos 6y ago
If you can't find even one existing bookstore to carry your book, perhaps your views or ideas are so toxic that you should rethink them. Either way: still not censorship.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  Or perhaps the society I live in is so toxic that my sane ideas can't reach out. To spell it out, your reasoning assumes that the prevailing consensus in any society is good.
- kortilla 6y ago
  Do you know what censorship means? It’s quite literally the textbook definition (explicitly blocking books because of the ideas in them) so I’m curious what you think censorship is. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship

kortilla 6y ago

> bookstore refusing to carry books by certain authors is in no way censorship It’s fucking textbook definition of censorship. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship Are you conflating “government censorship” with censorship?

p1necone 6y ago
What do you think the alternative is? You want the government to mandate that every book store carries all books? Book stores have a right to curate their selection as they see fit in exactly the same way that authors have a right to write what they see fit.
- kortilla 6y ago
  It’s censorship, I didn’t make any judgments about when censorship should be allowed/encouraged. It’s just the literal definition of censorship and you’re being defensive because you think it’s a bad thing.

BurningFrog 6y ago

Every era has its things it considers beyond decency to discuss. Most people agree with them, and even if they don't, they know to keep quiet. Those who agree with the norms of 2020 also think many of the norms of past times were awful. Homosexuality was considered beyond decency not long ago. Race mixing, premarital sex as well. The list can be made very long. So what are the chances that mainstream decency right now has found the perfect set of correct values, that never needs to be challenged?

Covzire 6y ago

The problem with your analogy is how you define bookstore. If there were dozens of Youtube "bookstores" in every major city this wouldn't be an issue but functionally speaking every city or town or hamlet has the same 2 or 3 bookstores to choose from and they're all awful at supporting freedom of speech.