26 ms·

Misinformation and hate speech are clearly important issues. But loosing free speech would be a colossal mistake. I used to live in a country with no free speec

Misinformation and hate speech are clearly important issues. But loosing free speech would be a colossal mistake. I used to live in a country with no free speech, trust me the USA in its current state is hundred million times better and more just. Free speech is just super fundamental. So, in my opinion, nothing restricting free speech is acceptable - the downsides of that are just too enormous. We need to learn to live in a society where information is easily available and free speech has absolute protection. And yes, this involves learning to be able to detect misinformation, manipulation, etc. without outright banning it. Voltaire put it well: ""I disagree with what you have to say, sir, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it."

tayo42 6y ago
No one in america is restricting your free speech. Go buy server space and write what ever you want.
- rllearneratwork 6y ago
  There are then questions of monopolies and utilities. Cloud providers won't allow you to host certain content and if you buy your own server your internet provided can and will restrict the kind of content you can host. Also there are de-facto monopolies on communications and social networks.
  - tayo42 6y ago
    > Cloud providers won't allow you to host certain content and if you buy your own server your internet provided can and will restrict the kind of content you can host. yeah because in practice free speech isn't black and white like these internet discussions like to pretend it is. Is not being allowed to host child porn a violation of my free speech? there's nuance when defining free speech. Similar to the paradox of tolerance, you need to draw the line somewhere otherwise you'll be drowned out and taken over by speech that doesn't happen in good faith.
    - rllearneratwork 6y ago
      > "Is not being allowed to host child porn a violation of my free speech?" - No, in that specific case it would clearly violate the rights of individuals depicted in the content you are hosting and therefore must be taken down.
    - djsumdog 6y ago
      Child porn is not protected speech. Every country has limits to freedom of speech. In the US you can't lie to a Federal Officer, you can't distribute or possess images of child abuse and you cannot advocate for a direct an imminent threat of an individual. Those are all pretty reasonable. You CAN have a fictional representation of child abuse (writing/drawing) which is illegal in the UK, Australia and pretty much any other country except Japan. Speech is tricky. Every country has limitations. China has freedom of speech in their constitution, so a law by itself is not enough to ensure you actually have that freedom.
      - tayo42 6y ago
        Right free speech isn't straight forward.I think that is lost on alot of these commenters. But there's two layers here, does free speech apply to social media. No it doesn't, it's not the government. What would be free speech violation is if you criticized the government then had the government tell the social media company to remove something. Then there's the hypothetical, if social media companies had to listen free speech. Is spreading manipulative false information protected free speech? That seems abusive to me, close to slander.That's not protected speech.
        djsumdog 6y ago
        > slander Slander isn't criminal, it's a civil issue. And social media companies don't have to worry about that _because_ of section 203 protections. Under US law, yes, social media companies can do what they want in this particular case. But should they? They are massive and they control narratives. The fact that we have real freedom of speech proves this because we have other channels to discuss and bring attention to this issue. There is another angle: Because of FB/Twitters massive size and control over their audiences, is allowing some stories and blocking others election interference? It most certainly is.
- rllearneratwork 6y ago
  your argument is also similar to saying: "don't like your water company? - Drill your own water well!", "Don't like your power company? - Install your own power sources", etc.
  - esoterica 6y ago
    In many places utility companies have a monopoly. Twitter doesn't have a monopoly on the Internet, there are a billion other places you can post content.
    - crehn 6y ago
      Can you name a few of the billion places? Of course with similar potential impact as Twitter, and without the censorship.
      - rcoc 6y ago
        No one says anyone has a right to be listened to. The right to free speech does not guarantee a right to an audience.
        RonanTheGrey 6y ago
        In the physical world, the analog here is "you are standing on a box in front of the courthouse, shouting today's particular theory on some regressive tax, and nobody is listening (but nobody is pulling you down and shoving a sock in your mouth either)" The online equivalent of the image I have painted above is, "You go on Twitter and you post something, and nobody is interested and it just gets ignored." Twitter removing it is the same as someone pulling you off the box and shoving a sock in your mouth. Until that actual public square exists online, Twitter, while they may have the legal right to silence you, have an ethical responsibility not to - because THEY chose to provide the platform that they knew everyone would use. If they want ideological filtering they should make it part of the signup requirements.
        6y ago
- djsumdog 6y ago
  Until every cloud provider on the planet removed your site and disallows you to even register a domain name: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/the-new-era-of-corporate-censorship/ https://battlepenguin.com/politics/the-new-era-of-corporate-...
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    You realize that you can rent a VPS and host a website for a few dollars a month in almost any country in the world right? Maybe you should link a real source instead of your own website.
mdoms 6y ago
Counter point, I live in a country with no constitutional free speech and a government with a censorship office, and this country is free and open and a wonderful place to live. So you're going to have to find a better causation theory.
- legolas2412 6y ago
  Maybe you are part of the group suppressing speech of the oppressed? How can there be censorship and everyone be happy?
- rllearneratwork 6y ago
  A lot (a majority?) of people in Russia and North Korea genuinely happy about the kinds of systems and leaders they have.
- dudul 6y ago
  Maybe it's a wonderful place for you because your specific speech is not suppressed. Maybe not all your citizens think that way. Based on the description I would be interested to know which country we're talking about.
  - mdoms 6y ago
    New Zealand.
subliun1 6y ago
> Voltaire put it well ... Voltaire did not say this.
- rllearneratwork 6y ago
  I actually don't care who said it, I like that quote because of its meaning and not due to the authority (or lack of thereof) of whom could have been its author.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    If Voltaire wanted to say it, we would certainly support his preference in the matter...

tayo42 6y ago

No one in america is restricting your free speech. Go buy server space and write what ever you want.

rllearneratwork 6y ago
There are then questions of monopolies and utilities. Cloud providers won't allow you to host certain content and if you buy your own server your internet provided can and will restrict the kind of content you can host. Also there are de-facto monopolies on communications and social networks.
- tayo42 6y ago
  > Cloud providers won't allow you to host certain content and if you buy your own server your internet provided can and will restrict the kind of content you can host. yeah because in practice free speech isn't black and white like these internet discussions like to pretend it is. Is not being allowed to host child porn a violation of my free speech? there's nuance when defining free speech. Similar to the paradox of tolerance, you need to draw the line somewhere otherwise you'll be drowned out and taken over by speech that doesn't happen in good faith.
  - rllearneratwork 6y ago
    > "Is not being allowed to host child porn a violation of my free speech?" - No, in that specific case it would clearly violate the rights of individuals depicted in the content you are hosting and therefore must be taken down.
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    Child porn is not protected speech. Every country has limits to freedom of speech. In the US you can't lie to a Federal Officer, you can't distribute or possess images of child abuse and you cannot advocate for a direct an imminent threat of an individual. Those are all pretty reasonable. You CAN have a fictional representation of child abuse (writing/drawing) which is illegal in the UK, Australia and pretty much any other country except Japan. Speech is tricky. Every country has limitations. China has freedom of speech in their constitution, so a law by itself is not enough to ensure you actually have that freedom.
    - tayo42 6y ago
      Right free speech isn't straight forward.I think that is lost on alot of these commenters. But there's two layers here, does free speech apply to social media. No it doesn't, it's not the government. What would be free speech violation is if you criticized the government then had the government tell the social media company to remove something. Then there's the hypothetical, if social media companies had to listen free speech. Is spreading manipulative false information protected free speech? That seems abusive to me, close to slander.That's not protected speech.
      - djsumdog 6y ago
        > slander Slander isn't criminal, it's a civil issue. And social media companies don't have to worry about that _because_ of section 203 protections. Under US law, yes, social media companies can do what they want in this particular case. But should they? They are massive and they control narratives. The fact that we have real freedom of speech proves this because we have other channels to discuss and bring attention to this issue. There is another angle: Because of FB/Twitters massive size and control over their audiences, is allowing some stories and blocking others election interference? It most certainly is.
rllearneratwork 6y ago
your argument is also similar to saying: "don't like your water company? - Drill your own water well!", "Don't like your power company? - Install your own power sources", etc.
- esoterica 6y ago
  In many places utility companies have a monopoly. Twitter doesn't have a monopoly on the Internet, there are a billion other places you can post content.
  - crehn 6y ago
    Can you name a few of the billion places? Of course with similar potential impact as Twitter, and without the censorship.
    - rcoc 6y ago
      No one says anyone has a right to be listened to. The right to free speech does not guarantee a right to an audience.
      - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
        In the physical world, the analog here is "you are standing on a box in front of the courthouse, shouting today's particular theory on some regressive tax, and nobody is listening (but nobody is pulling you down and shoving a sock in your mouth either)" The online equivalent of the image I have painted above is, "You go on Twitter and you post something, and nobody is interested and it just gets ignored." Twitter removing it is the same as someone pulling you off the box and shoving a sock in your mouth. Until that actual public square exists online, Twitter, while they may have the legal right to silence you, have an ethical responsibility not to - because THEY chose to provide the platform that they knew everyone would use. If they want ideological filtering they should make it part of the signup requirements.
        6y ago
djsumdog 6y ago
Until every cloud provider on the planet removed your site and disallows you to even register a domain name: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/the-new-era-of-corporate-censorship/ https://battlepenguin.com/politics/the-new-era-of-corporate-...
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  You realize that you can rent a VPS and host a website for a few dollars a month in almost any country in the world right? Maybe you should link a real source instead of your own website.

mdoms 6y ago

Counter point, I live in a country with no constitutional free speech and a government with a censorship office, and this country is free and open and a wonderful place to live. So you're going to have to find a better causation theory.

legolas2412 6y ago
Maybe you are part of the group suppressing speech of the oppressed? How can there be censorship and everyone be happy?
rllearneratwork 6y ago
A lot (a majority?) of people in Russia and North Korea genuinely happy about the kinds of systems and leaders they have.
dudul 6y ago
Maybe it's a wonderful place for you because your specific speech is not suppressed. Maybe not all your citizens think that way. Based on the description I would be interested to know which country we're talking about.
- mdoms 6y ago
  New Zealand.

subliun1 6y ago

> Voltaire put it well ... Voltaire did not say this.

rllearneratwork 6y ago
I actually don't care who said it, I like that quote because of its meaning and not due to the authority (or lack of thereof) of whom could have been its author.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  If Voltaire wanted to say it, we would certainly support his preference in the matter...