4 ms·

How do you not get that this is the exact point? “Experts” in the US government and the “intelligence agencies” declared forcefully that it was true. You—-not a

How do you not get that this is the exact point? “Experts” in the US government and the “intelligence agencies” declared forcefully that it was true. You—-not an “expert” and not a member of “authoritative” US intelligence agency—-claiming that it was just “propagandistic patriotic fervor” would be “misinformation” stated “without evidence”. Stopping people from questioning the narrative is fundamentally against free speech and having a small group of people presume to be the final arbiters of truth with the power to suppress contrary speech is dystopian to the max. You want free speech when you agree with it and suppression when you disagree with it. That’s deeply unprincipled.

nobody9999 6y ago
>Stopping people from questioning the narrative is fundamentally against free speech and having a small group of people presume to be the final arbiters of truth with the power to suppress contrary speech is dystopian to the max. I am so sick to death of hearing this "argument." Because it's irrelevant to the situation. And I'll tell you why: In the United States, 1. Private entities are not bound by the First Amendment. That means they can host (or refuse to do so) any speech they choose, because that's the First Amendment right of all individuals and private entities; 2. The US government is forbidden to be the arbiter of speech, except in a few, clearly defined areas (advocating the violent overthrow of the government, making credible threats of violence, etc.); 3. If you don't like decisions about speech that a particular individual or private entity makes, you are perfectly free to speak out against those decisions, organize others to do so, and/or vote with your feet/wallet and don't engage with that individual or entity; 4. Unless you have a management and/or ownership role in a private organization (e.g., Twitter), you don't have the right to change their policies or speech; 5. You absolutely have the right to speak out and say just about anything, but you don't have the right to force others to host that speech on their private property. And that's a very good thing. If that weren't the case, I would have the right to blare midget furry porn or all-goatse-all-the-time projections or all manner of other offensive, hateful, disgusting things in your living room. I'm sure many will disagree with me. If you do, please engage me in discussion in addition to taking other action -- both of which (and thank you HN for making that possible) are your free expression.
- NE2z2T9qi 6y ago
  I agree that private entities can largely can do whatever they feel like. But there is something deeply obnoxious and unprincipled when these entities piss on your leg and tell you it’s raining. They’re actively suppressing non-establishment viewpoints while pretending to be a non-editorial, neutral platform. And, perhaps most insidiously, because of their secret suppression of ideas and voices, they make it seem as if certain mainstream viewpoints are actually unacceptable fringe ideas. Suppose I ran a forum used to discuss crimes in my city, but secretly hid anyone’s post unless the crime they were discussing had an Asian or Arab person as a suspect? And then, suppose I also secretly deleted any comments from people complaining about the secret editing. That’s not the style of forum people should be defending. It’s legally permissible but all types of dystopian.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >I agree that private entities can largely can do whatever they feel like. But there is something deeply obnoxious and unprincipled when these entities piss on your leg and tell you it’s raining. You won't get any argument about that from me. >That’s not the style of forum people should be defending. It’s legally permissible but all types of dystopian. I'm not defending any such forums. In fact, I avoid them like the plague. But I do support freedom of expression. And whether you (or I, for that matter) dislike Twitter or Facebook, or even Stormfront or the ACLU, while we are perfectly free to express our dislike, expose dishonesty or bias, recommend/create other forums and encourage others to do the same, we aren't allowed to block the speech of others. What would you suggest as a viable alternative to the status quo? I think Justice Brandeis[0] said it much more succinctly than I did: "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_v._California#Quotes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_v._California#Quotes

nobody9999 6y ago

>Stopping people from questioning the narrative is fundamentally against free speech and having a small group of people presume to be the final arbiters of truth with the power to suppress contrary speech is dystopian to the max. I am so sick to death of hearing this "argument." Because it's irrelevant to the situation. And I'll tell you why: In the United States, 1. Private entities are not bound by the First Amendment. That means they can host (or refuse to do so) any speech they choose, because that's the First Amendment right of all individuals and private entities; 2. The US government is forbidden to be the arbiter of speech, except in a few, clearly defined areas (advocating the violent overthrow of the government, making credible threats of violence, etc.); 3. If you don't like decisions about speech that a particular individual or private entity makes, you are perfectly free to speak out against those decisions, organize others to do so, and/or vote with your feet/wallet and don't engage with that individual or entity; 4. Unless you have a management and/or ownership role in a private organization (e.g., Twitter), you don't have the right to change their policies or speech; 5. You absolutely have the right to speak out and say just about anything, but you don't have the right to force others to host that speech on their private property. And that's a very good thing. If that weren't the case, I would have the right to blare midget furry porn or all-goatse-all-the-time projections or all manner of other offensive, hateful, disgusting things in your living room. I'm sure many will disagree with me. If you do, please engage me in discussion in addition to taking other action -- both of which (and thank you HN for making that possible) are your free expression.

NE2z2T9qi 6y ago
I agree that private entities can largely can do whatever they feel like. But there is something deeply obnoxious and unprincipled when these entities piss on your leg and tell you it’s raining. They’re actively suppressing non-establishment viewpoints while pretending to be a non-editorial, neutral platform. And, perhaps most insidiously, because of their secret suppression of ideas and voices, they make it seem as if certain mainstream viewpoints are actually unacceptable fringe ideas. Suppose I ran a forum used to discuss crimes in my city, but secretly hid anyone’s post unless the crime they were discussing had an Asian or Arab person as a suspect? And then, suppose I also secretly deleted any comments from people complaining about the secret editing. That’s not the style of forum people should be defending. It’s legally permissible but all types of dystopian.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >I agree that private entities can largely can do whatever they feel like. But there is something deeply obnoxious and unprincipled when these entities piss on your leg and tell you it’s raining. You won't get any argument about that from me. >That’s not the style of forum people should be defending. It’s legally permissible but all types of dystopian. I'm not defending any such forums. In fact, I avoid them like the plague. But I do support freedom of expression. And whether you (or I, for that matter) dislike Twitter or Facebook, or even Stormfront or the ACLU, while we are perfectly free to express our dislike, expose dishonesty or bias, recommend/create other forums and encourage others to do the same, we aren't allowed to block the speech of others. What would you suggest as a viable alternative to the status quo? I think Justice Brandeis[0] said it much more succinctly than I did: "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_v._California#Quotes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_v._California#Quotes