8 ms·

Almost any kind of censorship could be justified with the argument that some voices are "drained out" by others, so to protect the former, the latter most be ce

Almost any kind of censorship could be justified with the argument that some voices are "drained out" by others, so to protect the former, the latter most be censored, which is not actually "an encroachment on free speech but a necessary impediment to keep the spirit of free speech and free society intact". WTF does this mean? The internet is not a room where some people have to be silent so that you can hear the others. You can simply ignore people you don't like, or you deem "intolerant", etc.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
> You can simply ignore people you don't like, or you deem "intolerant", etc. No, that's not how the Internet - or people in general - work.
- whoisburbansky 6y ago
  The "ignore voices you don't like" argument completely fails to account for the effect of those voices on the millions of people around you, and the effect of their changed actions as a result, on you in turn. It's like saying "pretend you're the only person in the world."
  - nostromo 6y ago
    Censorship still isn't the answer. If you don't like the way other people are thinking, you have to have a conversation with them and try to change their views the hard way. Censorship may even protect people with views you find objectionable -- because that person is shielded from having disagreements with others.
    - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      > If you don't like the way other people are thinking, you have to have a conversation with them and try to change their views the hard way. Again, that’s not how people work. “The marketplace of ideas” is an idealism, a mini-utopia. It does not account for known and unpatched vulnerabilities in human psychology - and a fix from the vendor is not expected any time soon.
      - nostromo 6y ago
        It is how people work, as evidenced over and over again by a widening view of compassion for others. Just look at the past 20 years and the success of the gay rights movement. Views changed because of millions of one-on-one conversations between people who disagreed on gay marriage. No censorship was required for progress. In fact, censorship would have been counterproductive, as I believe it is here. It's no coincidence that the countries with the least free speech also tend to be the most regressive on civil rights and some of the worst places to be an ethnic minority.
        grasshopperpurp 6y ago
        >It's no coincidence that the countries with the least free speech also tend to be the most regressive on civil rights and some of the worst places to be an ethnic minority. Feels like this is an attempt to simplify something complex. Most Western European countries have more restrictions on speech than the US, but many of them do a better job of upholding civil rights. Just today someone posted a thread about the broken bail system in the US - for example.
        nostromo 6y ago
        It's not a perfect correlation, but even if you just look in Europe, the countries with more freedom of speech have more civil liberties. It's also worth noting that only half of the EU member states have legal gay marriage -- something that all Americans have access to.
        heylook 6y ago
        Political change of this magnitude happens because different people are voting, not because the same person changed their mind. Literally it’s because the old people died before they could pass 100% of their bigotry to the next generation.
        nostromo 6y ago
        This isn't true. Approval for gay marriage has gone up for all generations. It's now at 45% approval among people born before 1945, up from just 17% in 2003. https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga...
    - glasss 6y ago
      > If you don't like the way other people are thinking, you have to have a conversation with them and try to change their views the hard way. You and I have a right to not do anything with those people. But for the sake of discussion, I'm willing to do that with people where we disagree on reasonable things. I'm not willing to have a civil discourse with people that adamantly refuse to believe facts and think I'm a part of a larger conspiracy. Does that mean censorship of all of these people / ideas is the answer? I don't think so. But I know that if I ran a platform where people were discussing holocaust denial I would ban them. I'm willing to admit I might be a hypocrite on that front, but alas I am a human.
    - whoisburbansky 6y ago
      How does this work with people who are dead set from the beginning to refuse to listen to what you have to say, and refuse to reason in good faith?
  - amadeuspagel 6y ago
    Sure, the effects of speech on the real world has always been the reason for censorship. "Ignore voices you don't like" isn't a refutation of that old and honest argument in favor of censorship, it's a refutation of the new and dishonest argument that censorship actually protects freedom of speech.
    - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      > censorship actually protects freedom of speech I believe it does. And I don’t believe it’s a dishonest argument. But I sincerely respect your position (to use the cliché: I understand where you’re coming from...). And I agree to disagree. Will you agree to disagree with me, though?
      - raxxorrax 6y ago
        Yes.
    - skrowl 6y ago
      > it's a refutation of the new and dishonest argument that censorship actually protects freedom of speech Once you convince people that the other side is evil and your side must win at all costs, they'll rationalize any behavior. This includes censoring and de-platforming voices that don't agree with them. After you've convinced yourself that "I believe that we should hire whoever is the most qualified, regardless of their ethnicity" or "I believe that all lives matter equally, none more than any other" are HATE SPEECH, it's very easy to convince yourself to ban people with those opinions from being able to speak their opinion. This is why throwing around "Nazi!", "White Supremacist!" for people not actually exhibiting those behaviors is so dangerous. Once you de-humanize someone, it's easier to convince yourself to take away their human rights (like free speech).
      - throwaway2048 6y ago
        Just to reground the rhetoric, we are talking about facebook removing posts by people that try to convince others that one of the largest genocides in human history didn't happen, not about all that other stuff.
pjc50 6y ago
> You can simply ignore people you don't like, or you deem "intolerant", etc. Simply ignore the internet-radicalised mass shooters! Ignore the people raising funds for murderers. Ignore the people gathering molotovs to protest, and the others encouraging each other to run them over with cars. I'm sure none of that stuff will ever happen to you.
- refurb 6y ago
  Those things you worry about are already illegal. Direct threats of violence (through speech) are already illegal. Funding raising for terrorism is already illegal, including fundraising through speech.
  - _jal 6y ago
    Facebook is not the legislature. You can make Lessig-style Code Is Law arguments, but the fact remains they are not defining the bounds of legality, they are defining the bounds of acceptable on their platform.
    - refurb 6y ago
      Yeah, everyone already knows that. Facebook can do what they want. But they can't claim they support free speech at the same time they censor their platform. If they came out and said "Facebook does not support free speech on it's platform", then at least they'd be hoenst.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    > Those things you worry about are already illegal. This is where free speech absolutists lose me. They say that all speech should be protected and as soon as they find an exception that is just labeled "not speech". Why then can't we use a definition of "not speech" that includes Blood Libel?
    - slg 6y ago
      Exactly. This is not a binary choice between free speech and no free speech. It is a debate over where to place the line. We have plenty of speech that already falls on the illegal side of the line such as threats or libel. Some people want to move the line so a few more things are on the illegal side. Free speech absolutists aren't making a fair argument when they respond to that good faith request with "any change means the end of free speech".

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago

> You can simply ignore people you don't like, or you deem "intolerant", etc. No, that's not how the Internet - or people in general - work.

whoisburbansky 6y ago
The "ignore voices you don't like" argument completely fails to account for the effect of those voices on the millions of people around you, and the effect of their changed actions as a result, on you in turn. It's like saying "pretend you're the only person in the world."
- nostromo 6y ago
  Censorship still isn't the answer. If you don't like the way other people are thinking, you have to have a conversation with them and try to change their views the hard way. Censorship may even protect people with views you find objectionable -- because that person is shielded from having disagreements with others.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    > If you don't like the way other people are thinking, you have to have a conversation with them and try to change their views the hard way. Again, that’s not how people work. “The marketplace of ideas” is an idealism, a mini-utopia. It does not account for known and unpatched vulnerabilities in human psychology - and a fix from the vendor is not expected any time soon.
    - nostromo 6y ago
      It is how people work, as evidenced over and over again by a widening view of compassion for others. Just look at the past 20 years and the success of the gay rights movement. Views changed because of millions of one-on-one conversations between people who disagreed on gay marriage. No censorship was required for progress. In fact, censorship would have been counterproductive, as I believe it is here. It's no coincidence that the countries with the least free speech also tend to be the most regressive on civil rights and some of the worst places to be an ethnic minority.
      - grasshopperpurp 6y ago
        >It's no coincidence that the countries with the least free speech also tend to be the most regressive on civil rights and some of the worst places to be an ethnic minority. Feels like this is an attempt to simplify something complex. Most Western European countries have more restrictions on speech than the US, but many of them do a better job of upholding civil rights. Just today someone posted a thread about the broken bail system in the US - for example.
        nostromo 6y ago
        It's not a perfect correlation, but even if you just look in Europe, the countries with more freedom of speech have more civil liberties. It's also worth noting that only half of the EU member states have legal gay marriage -- something that all Americans have access to.
      - heylook 6y ago
        Political change of this magnitude happens because different people are voting, not because the same person changed their mind. Literally it’s because the old people died before they could pass 100% of their bigotry to the next generation.
        nostromo 6y ago
        This isn't true. Approval for gay marriage has gone up for all generations. It's now at 45% approval among people born before 1945, up from just 17% in 2003. https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga...
  - glasss 6y ago
    > If you don't like the way other people are thinking, you have to have a conversation with them and try to change their views the hard way. You and I have a right to not do anything with those people. But for the sake of discussion, I'm willing to do that with people where we disagree on reasonable things. I'm not willing to have a civil discourse with people that adamantly refuse to believe facts and think I'm a part of a larger conspiracy. Does that mean censorship of all of these people / ideas is the answer? I don't think so. But I know that if I ran a platform where people were discussing holocaust denial I would ban them. I'm willing to admit I might be a hypocrite on that front, but alas I am a human.
  - whoisburbansky 6y ago
    How does this work with people who are dead set from the beginning to refuse to listen to what you have to say, and refuse to reason in good faith?
- amadeuspagel 6y ago
  Sure, the effects of speech on the real world has always been the reason for censorship. "Ignore voices you don't like" isn't a refutation of that old and honest argument in favor of censorship, it's a refutation of the new and dishonest argument that censorship actually protects freedom of speech.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    > censorship actually protects freedom of speech I believe it does. And I don’t believe it’s a dishonest argument. But I sincerely respect your position (to use the cliché: I understand where you’re coming from...). And I agree to disagree. Will you agree to disagree with me, though?
    - raxxorrax 6y ago
      Yes.
  - skrowl 6y ago
    > it's a refutation of the new and dishonest argument that censorship actually protects freedom of speech Once you convince people that the other side is evil and your side must win at all costs, they'll rationalize any behavior. This includes censoring and de-platforming voices that don't agree with them. After you've convinced yourself that "I believe that we should hire whoever is the most qualified, regardless of their ethnicity" or "I believe that all lives matter equally, none more than any other" are HATE SPEECH, it's very easy to convince yourself to ban people with those opinions from being able to speak their opinion. This is why throwing around "Nazi!", "White Supremacist!" for people not actually exhibiting those behaviors is so dangerous. Once you de-humanize someone, it's easier to convince yourself to take away their human rights (like free speech).
    - throwaway2048 6y ago
      Just to reground the rhetoric, we are talking about facebook removing posts by people that try to convince others that one of the largest genocides in human history didn't happen, not about all that other stuff.

pjc50 6y ago

> You can simply ignore people you don't like, or you deem "intolerant", etc. Simply ignore the internet-radicalised mass shooters! Ignore the people raising funds for murderers. Ignore the people gathering molotovs to protest, and the others encouraging each other to run them over with cars. I'm sure none of that stuff will ever happen to you.

refurb 6y ago
Those things you worry about are already illegal. Direct threats of violence (through speech) are already illegal. Funding raising for terrorism is already illegal, including fundraising through speech.
- _jal 6y ago
  Facebook is not the legislature. You can make Lessig-style Code Is Law arguments, but the fact remains they are not defining the bounds of legality, they are defining the bounds of acceptable on their platform.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Yeah, everyone already knows that. Facebook can do what they want. But they can't claim they support free speech at the same time they censor their platform. If they came out and said "Facebook does not support free speech on it's platform", then at least they'd be hoenst.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  > Those things you worry about are already illegal. This is where free speech absolutists lose me. They say that all speech should be protected and as soon as they find an exception that is just labeled "not speech". Why then can't we use a definition of "not speech" that includes Blood Libel?
  - slg 6y ago
    Exactly. This is not a binary choice between free speech and no free speech. It is a debate over where to place the line. We have plenty of speech that already falls on the illegal side of the line such as threats or libel. Some people want to move the line so a few more things are on the illegal side. Free speech absolutists aren't making a fair argument when they respond to that good faith request with "any change means the end of free speech".