5 ms·

I wonder if the argument you've highlighted is a good idea, or a particularly dangerous one. Maybe we should discuss it and find out. Or maybe we should call wh

by ColanR 6y ago

I wonder if the argument you've highlighted is a good idea, or a particularly dangerous one. Maybe we should discuss it and find out. Or maybe we should call what you're saying 'propaganda' and ban it outright, since it might call for 'radical' and 'potentially destabilizing' 'changes to our democracy'. It would be too bad if you could only present it as an opinion, in limited arenas far away from anyone who might disagree. I wonder who the next 'protected minority' will be, and what, exactly, they will need to be 'protected' from. Aren't you glad we have freedom of speech, so that you can make this thought of yours known?

dagmx 6y ago
Nothing in their post or the article says that things shouldn't be up for discussion. That's not even the point of it. The point has been about whether more powerful figures can use their platform to drown out the free speech of others and the lack of accountability. The article is in fact calling for more accountability, which is precisely what your comment about discussion would be. You're in effect reinforcing both the articles point and the points shared by the person you're replying to
- UncleOxidant 6y ago
  > The point has been about whether more powerful figures can use their platform to drown out the free speech of others The article isn't focusing on that aspect, though. It's suggesting that falsehoods and propaganda can flood the zone with so much shit that people are just tired of trying to sort though it to figure out what's actually true and what isn't. The modern (post-modern?) demagogue doesn't bother with curtailing free speech, they just put out many false narratives like Putin does. "The spewing of falsehoods isn’t meant to win any battle of ideas. Its goal is to prevent the actual battle from being fought, by causing us to simply give up."
taxicab 6y ago
Since the point clearly went over your head or you just decided to give that snotty reply to a strawman you came up with: parent was saying good ideas don't win if demagogues can hold a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas in the same way that, say, the ISP industry can hold broadly anti-consumer policies that customers don't do anything about because it is locally not a free market. To expand it further, I would argue stuff like Twitter and Facebook that optimize for engagement are already not free speech since they are designed for only the most outrageous (and likely false) content to flourish.
- kneel 6y ago
  No one cared about free speech until Trump was elected. Propaganda isn't anything new, it's used by demagogues to blame society's woes on [insert scapegoat here] Rather than address society's woes (there are so many in the US) We're just told it's somehow different this time, because it's digital. This just doesn't hold up when you see that this story has played out many times in the past, it's predictable to anyone paying attention.
  - UncleEntity 6y ago
    I'd argue that no one cared about restricting free speech until Trump was elected -- unless that's what you meant. Just as no one really cared about political demonstrations until they turned violent. Not like Kent State violence but roving 'blocks' overturning cars and lighting things on fire.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >parent was saying good ideas don't win if demagogues can hold a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas Well, that's irrelevant, as free speech is not about "good ideas winning", but all ideas being able to be heard. Saying that some are "demagogues" is begging the question, and presumes one side has the good ideas, and the other doesn't. Which, whether is the case or not, should be irrelevant from the perspective of free speech. "Free speech for good ideas" is not free speech, it's a dictatorship of people prescribing and controlling which ideas are to be considering good. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
- betwixthewires 6y ago
  There's no straw man in the argument you're replying to. All that was said was "maybe the idea that things should be censored is a bad idea and should be censored." It is a very clever way to demonstrate the danger of what you're potentially prepared to embrace, and how it can be used against you. Nobody can hold a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas. Nobody. That genie is out of the bottle.
  - BlackFly 6y ago
bitdizzy 6y ago
I had to read your post and the GP post multiple times and I'm still confused. It doesn't seem like you're talking at all to what they said but are stating a very well worn argument for free speech, that is, if some speech is to be curtailed, then all speech is under threat of being curtailed. But the GP was precisely talking about how even though many would say "we have freedom of speech", what that actually means in practice falls far short of the mark. We "have freedom of speech" in the sense that many people hold the ideology. But holding an ideology is very different from having that ideology realized.
polishdude20 6y ago
In practice, free speech is easy to lose. Say we start with equal free speech for both sides of some spectrum. As some ideas from one spectrum take hold, they are selected for. After a while, the ideas of one spectrum slightly overtake the ideas of another, then it's easy for that side to now try and silence the other side and lose that freedom of speech. It's kind of like that common saying that pure evil is the belief that there is nothing left to know. That's what losing free speech does. It's society thinking "our system right now is the best" and not bothering to try and improve things.

by ColanR 6y ago

dagmx 6y ago

Nothing in their post or the article says that things shouldn't be up for discussion. That's not even the point of it. The point has been about whether more powerful figures can use their platform to drown out the free speech of others and the lack of accountability. The article is in fact calling for more accountability, which is precisely what your comment about discussion would be. You're in effect reinforcing both the articles point and the points shared by the person you're replying to

UncleOxidant 6y ago
> The point has been about whether more powerful figures can use their platform to drown out the free speech of others The article isn't focusing on that aspect, though. It's suggesting that falsehoods and propaganda can flood the zone with so much shit that people are just tired of trying to sort though it to figure out what's actually true and what isn't. The modern (post-modern?) demagogue doesn't bother with curtailing free speech, they just put out many false narratives like Putin does. "The spewing of falsehoods isn’t meant to win any battle of ideas. Its goal is to prevent the actual battle from being fought, by causing us to simply give up."

taxicab 6y ago

Since the point clearly went over your head or you just decided to give that snotty reply to a strawman you came up with: parent was saying good ideas don't win if demagogues can hold a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas in the same way that, say, the ISP industry can hold broadly anti-consumer policies that customers don't do anything about because it is locally not a free market. To expand it further, I would argue stuff like Twitter and Facebook that optimize for engagement are already not free speech since they are designed for only the most outrageous (and likely false) content to flourish.

kneel 6y ago
No one cared about free speech until Trump was elected. Propaganda isn't anything new, it's used by demagogues to blame society's woes on [insert scapegoat here] Rather than address society's woes (there are so many in the US) We're just told it's somehow different this time, because it's digital. This just doesn't hold up when you see that this story has played out many times in the past, it's predictable to anyone paying attention.
- UncleEntity 6y ago
  I'd argue that no one cared about restricting free speech until Trump was elected -- unless that's what you meant. Just as no one really cared about political demonstrations until they turned violent. Not like Kent State violence but roving 'blocks' overturning cars and lighting things on fire.
coldtea 6y ago
>parent was saying good ideas don't win if demagogues can hold a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas Well, that's irrelevant, as free speech is not about "good ideas winning", but all ideas being able to be heard. Saying that some are "demagogues" is begging the question, and presumes one side has the good ideas, and the other doesn't. Which, whether is the case or not, should be irrelevant from the perspective of free speech. "Free speech for good ideas" is not free speech, it's a dictatorship of people prescribing and controlling which ideas are to be considering good. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
betwixthewires 6y ago
There's no straw man in the argument you're replying to. All that was said was "maybe the idea that things should be censored is a bad idea and should be censored." It is a very clever way to demonstrate the danger of what you're potentially prepared to embrace, and how it can be used against you. Nobody can hold a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas. Nobody. That genie is out of the bottle.
- BlackFly 6y ago

bitdizzy 6y ago

I had to read your post and the GP post multiple times and I'm still confused. It doesn't seem like you're talking at all to what they said but are stating a very well worn argument for free speech, that is, if some speech is to be curtailed, then all speech is under threat of being curtailed. But the GP was precisely talking about how even though many would say "we have freedom of speech", what that actually means in practice falls far short of the mark. We "have freedom of speech" in the sense that many people hold the ideology. But holding an ideology is very different from having that ideology realized.

polishdude20 6y ago

In practice, free speech is easy to lose. Say we start with equal free speech for both sides of some spectrum. As some ideas from one spectrum take hold, they are selected for. After a while, the ideas of one spectrum slightly overtake the ideas of another, then it's easy for that side to now try and silence the other side and lose that freedom of speech. It's kind of like that common saying that pure evil is the belief that there is nothing left to know. That's what losing free speech does. It's society thinking "our system right now is the best" and not bothering to try and improve things.