10 ms·
All of these HN comments are defending shouting "Fire!" falsely in a theater under the guise of it being a slippery slope before all speech is lost. I have lost
by th0ma5 6y ago
All of these HN comments are defending shouting "Fire!" falsely in a theater under the guise of it being a slippery slope before all speech is lost. I have lost a lot of respect for these slippery slope arguments because they are easy to make and ignore the obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated... Especially intolerant or harmful speech.
- matz1 6y ago> which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated who get to decide what should/shouln't be tolerated ? harmful/harmful ? facebook ?
- minimaxir 6y ago"Inciting a coup" is a pretty unambiguous bar for harmful speech.
- stevenhubertron 6y agoand even if you didn't think that was enough. The fact that if they would have been successful it would have meant a certain civil war which would have been bad for Facebook's business. So even from a completely revenue based view it is good business for Facebook to do this at this time.
- matz1 6y agoApparently not, in this thread alone, there is plenty of people who disagree let alone harmful.
- throwawaysea 6y agoCan you share a specific piece of evidence where Trump is inciting a coup?
- danhak 6y agoThe video where he says "You're special! We love you!" to his followers as they actively besiege the U.S. Capitol and ransack congressional offices. That good enough?
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoHere's the thing. If you have an expectation that every event in history is accompanied by the instigators writing/saying "Let's all go do an X" (where X might be "coup" or "revolution" or whatever), you're going to be disappointed. Most often, it's only historical hindsight that forms the narrative in which "X said Y which led to Z". If you're somewhat sympathetic towards Trump, then likely only utterly unambiguous language - "So listen up everyone, I want you, in fact I order you, to go to the Capitol, get inside, prevent the certification from taking place, by any means necessary, including violence" - would convince you that he had incited a coup (and perhaps not even that). Out in the real world, few people speak in such unambiguous ways even if their goals are clear. That's why we often need trials to establish whether or not certain language had intent A or intent B, because the language used was not unambiguous (often deliberately so).
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ianai 6y agoIf it matters what “speech” exists on a platform then that platform probably has gotten too big for societal good. Ie it doesn’t matter what balls or strikes they call. Just leave the platform if you disagree with it and go with a competitor. If you can’t do that then we’re in monopoly power situation. Break em up. The only speech assured by the constitution is from your literal mouth. Anything else is not free speech.
- bzbarsky 6y ago> The only speech assured by the constitution is from your literal mouth Even if you are going to narrowly interpret freedom of speech as "constitutionally protected rights only", the US Constitution explicitly says: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "of the press" is not "from your literal mouth", pretty much by definition. So please, let's not misrepresent what the constitutional right is about, even if we debate what "of the press" means in today's technology and media environment.
- lambda_obrien 6y agoThe newspaper doesn't have to publish your letters and neither does facebook or twitter. Feel free, as in free speech, to setup your own website.
- Taurenking 6y agoSure, only to have each and every company disavow services from said "own website" when _they_ feel like it. The "build your own x" argument doesn't take into account that as technology evolves not everyone has the means/skills to "build" their digital public town square, hence why the existing once ought to be regulated by governments once they get too big.
- ianai 6y agoI feel like the “right to a personal webpage” comes sometime after the point where people agree basic shelter, food, and water are a basic human right.
- Spivak 6y agoWe do. You act like collective decision making is impossible while living in a democracy based on it. Who gets to decide our taxes, criminal code, safety regulations, or election rules?
- matz1 6y ago> Who gets to decide our taxes, criminal code, safety regulations, or election rules? Whoever have the stronger power/influence.
- svara 6y agoAnd that's where you've checked out of the political philosophy that built the modern world. You should feel right at home living under the Chinese communist party? Cynicism can really lead you astray as your comment proves.
- matz1 6y ago>political philosophy that built the modern world Can you explain this and how that contradict my statement >You should feel right at home living under the Chinese communist party? I don't feel right at home about it but it doesn't contradict my statement Chinese communist party get to decide the rule because they are currently the one who have stronger power/influence, this is has nothing to do with how I feel.
- actusual 6y agowell...yes, facebook gets to decide. It's their platform after all. They have a responsibility to their shareholders, not some nebulous definition of "freedom of speech", or the American people, or anything else. They are a business designed to make money. If they lose advertisers because they have given Trump a platform, it is their responsibility (to their shareholders) to remove him from the platform. Build a public option if you want an alternative.
- Fnoord 6y agoYup, Facebook decides about that.. on Facebook. Its only censorship if/when the government restricts freedom of speech, and it wass never absolute to begin with.
- nobody9999 6y ago>who get to decide what should/shouln't be tolerated ? harmful/harmful ? facebook ? On Facebook's platform, that would be Facebook. In my home, that would be me. In your home, that would be you. I could go on, but I trust you get the point, yes?
- charia 6y agoSo uh, who's going to be the arbiter of what exactly constitutes intolerant or harmful speech? You? Me? Facebook? The government? Twitter? Whoever gets the power to define what's acceptable and not acceptable speech is given too much power. You might trust that arbiter now, tomorrow, but do you honestly believe their incentives will always remain pure?
- klank 6y agoThe problem I see with that line of argument is that it basically means you're arguing we can't do anything about it and just have to accept whatever actions people take regardless of the impacts of those actions. It reads to me like "it's hard, so let us just do nothing".
- hairytrog 6y agoThat's right. You have to have a society with enough moral fiber that it self-polices and restrains itself almost down to the individual level.
- jayd16 6y agoWhen even downvotes are considered censorship what form of self policing society can exist?
- jschwartzi 6y agoSure, but you seem to be implying that government has no place in how we self-police and restrain ourselves. Nothing could be further from the truth. Government is not an external entity which subjugates us, it is the tool by which we settle our grievances with each other without beating each other to death with rocks. To facilitate that, we give government the exclusive right to police us. And I would argue part of that duty extends to ensuring that the populace is informed and aware of the facts of the situation. In our rush to condemn the reprehensible aspects of government we have lost sight of the goal, which is to promote civil society and respect for our fellow man.
- mikkergp 6y ago
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago> ignore the obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated We must embrace intolerance to snuff out intolerance?
- mrlala 6y agoWhy does Facebook owe anyone a voice? If you want a 'voice' then the GOVERNMENT should make a social media platform in which NO ONE at all can be censured. Because your silly free speech argument doesn't have anything to do with private companies, although you already knew that, but conveniently ignore it. If Trump decides to start posting on HN, does HN owe him a voice? You are the one making slippery slope arguments, not the other way around.
- josephagoss 6y agoI think you and the op are in agreement...
- throwawaysea 6y agoThe problem is that companies like Facebook and Twitter are already operating like the public town square. They are so big that they have greater influence and reach than virtually all countries, in a product space that is highly dependent on network effects. They are, for all intents and purposes, a public utility. And they should be held accordingly to the standards - namely that they cannot censor content, in support of free speech principles.
- nobody9999 6y ago>The problem is that companies like Facebook and Twitter are already operating like the public town square. The operative word in the above sentence is 'like'. FB and Twitter are not the town square and never have been. They are the platforms of private corporations driven by profit from advertising sales. And they haven't been shy about explaining exactly what you can and cannot do on their property either (cf. the relevant sites' TOS). That many people treat them like public squares is a result of those people's ignorance of or misapprehension about the platforms, not any subterfuge on the part of FB or Twitter. And the only reason they have any influence is because those people gave it to them. Don't use those platforms and they have no influence over you. In the United States at least, they have the right to censor whoever and whatever they like. Whether that be Donald J. Trump or, anything concerning puff pastry or even tasty, tasty jelly beans.
- noctua 6y ago> the obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated... Especially intolerant or harmful speech. Many people, both anarchists and non-anarchists, would strongly disagree with that statement. And not all of those people are uneducated edgelords whose main argument is that it's a slippery slope.
- guerrilla 6y agoThis isn't really true. You won't be allowed on most anarchist servers unless you agree not to be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
- stouset 6y agoSo you’re telling me that these platforms, operated by private entities, do have the power to moderate what content they allowed to be published? I find it ironic that the same people who question whether or not Facebook should be allowed to do this seemingly have no problem with the moderation on Hacker News. Trump’s account would have been restricted within days here after repeated warnings. And yet few seem to question that @dang’s moderation is precisely how we continue to (mostly) have high-level, thoughtful discussion around these topics. Fewer still question HN’s right to perform moderation in general. And yet when it comes to Donald Trump’s calls—from a seat of power—to overthrow the results of free, fair, and democratic elections so that he can stay in office, we’re supposed to simply throw our hands up in the air and accept it? When he uses thinly-veiled (and sometimes completely open) language encouraging his supporters to use violence to achieve his goals, we’re supposed to accept that there’s just nothing to be done? Anyone making this argument should be deeply, deeply ashamed.
- noctua 6y agoI'm not active on any online anarchist servers so I can't comment on that. But the anarchists I know in real life, at least based on the conversations we've had, support absolute free speech.
- slutd 6y ago
- protonimitate 6y agoThe "slippery slope" / "free speech" arguments are boring, and come into play almost anytime Facebook gets mentioned on HN. "Slippery slope" is also most commonly a fallacy, which a lot of people seem to ignore. > the fallacy of arguing that a certain course of action is undesirable or that a certain proposition is implausible because it leads to an undesirable or implausible conclusion via a series of tenuously connected premises [1] Anyone arguing these points, especially related to Facebook, are arguing just for the sake of it. Playing devil's advocate is not a noble cause, and doesn't really add anything to the discussion at large. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/slippery-slope-argument https://www.britannica.com/topic/slippery-slope-argument [1]
- ineedasername 6y agoSlippery slope arguments only retain validity of each link in the chain is demonstrably probably. Even then, for something like resisting dangerous speech, what does the slope matter? If the original thing is good to do, don't worry about the slippery slope, just make the right decision. Then of it goes to far and you're on the edge of a slope, that's where you fight. If guidelines about violent speech are abused, then fight to fix it. Don't avoid the correct decision just because doing it right will be hard work.
- merpnderp 6y agoBecause it is so easy to stop the government from doing absurd things once it gets the power to do them? Like kicking in a door guns ablazing because someone might have smelled weed? Yeah, we stopped that the first time it happened, didn't we...
- ineedasername 6y agoLiterally any thing the government might have authority over or acknowledge as a freedom could have things get absurd. So the argument that it might get absurd doesn't mean the thing is wrong. It just means that, likely any action, there's potential for consequences, and you deal with them. You don't back down from a good thing just because it might be hard to implement. So then it just comes down to whether you think removing speech that incites violence is a good think or not. If you think it's good in itself but could be abused so maybe not do it? No, you do it and deal with the hard questions that come along every time you make those decisions.
- jturpin 6y agoFreedom of speech is important enough to where the logic of disallowing shouting fire in a theater should not be taken for granted. There are few if any black and white cases to be had here - it might seem like that since we are living in times where "reasonable" speech has always been well tolerated and supported, so it seems like a non-issue for us.
- linuxftw 6y agoThe fire analogy is flawed. Nobody is preventing you from shouting fire. If you shout fire and there is not one, you may be prosecuted. This is important because it requires a demonstration of actual harm (not 'my feelings').
- rndgermandude 6y ago>some speech shouldn't be tolerated I agree that some speech shouldn't be tolerated. But it cannot be Zuckerberg, or Trump, or Biden, or you, or me, who unilaterally decides what speech is fine, and what speech is banned.
- nobody9999 6y ago>I agree that some speech shouldn't be tolerated. But it cannot be Zuckerberg, or Trump, or Biden, or you, or me, who unilaterally decides what speech is fine, and what speech is banned. Actually, in my home, I most certainly can unilaterally ban whatever speech I like. And that's a good thing. If the price of my freedom of speech (of which controlling what speech is allowed a platform on my property is a part) is allowing Facebook, Twitter or you to have the same rights, I'm okay with that.
- rndgermandude 6y agoI am not, facebook.com is not facebook's home, it's their place of business and it's "critical infrastructure" at this point. It's very different to your house. Zuckerberg and/or you can make rules for your respective actual residence(s) all you want. You have "editorial control" and the associated liability over who comes to your home and what happens in it. facebook.com does not. You will be thrown in prison when somebody uses your kitchen to plan violent attacks, facebook (or Zuckerberg) is not thrown in prison when somebody uses a facebook group to do the same. I also do not agree that corporations are people, in general.
- nobody9999 6y agoI won't address your other points except to point you here: https://www.facebook.com/terms.php https://www.facebook.com/terms.php Think of it as the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rules of Facebook. And they are fully within their rights to have them. Don't like it? There are ways to change the laws. Depending on what it is that you'd like changed, I'd likely support you. >I also do not agree that corporations are people, in general. Sadly (and I'm not being ironic), the law disagrees. See my above comment about changing the law.
- esoterica 6y agoThe argument about whether it's legal to yell fire in. a theater isn't even relevant because it's the theater who's kicking you out and banning you, not the government. Of course they have the right to do that, regardless of your interpretation of the first amendment.
- null0ranje 6y agoThe argument is not whether or not the theater owner can kick you out. The argument is whether the government can also criminalize the behavior.
- stouset 6y agoNot only is Trump shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater, but he’s been inviting crowds of people to theaters virtually for the sole purpose of doing so.
- suyash 6y agoYes, people are not seeing the big precedent being set here, If US President's voice is being shut down, one can only imagine how powerful the biased censorship on social media platforms is. We either need to find/create alternate platforms or set strict rules for everyone and not at the whims/moods of these CEO's.
- danaliv 6y agoThis is no longer just the “President’s voice” being shut down. This is the shutdown of a man who incited a mob to attack the US Capitol.
- dionian 6y agoFor example, saying we should march on congress and 'cheer on' congress? The problem is you will brand anything you dont like as intolerant or hate, and might makes right!
- austincheney 6y ago> Especially intolerant or harmful speech. That is far too vague.
- zzleeper 6y agoA lot of people over here are very pro-trump, and just use this as a way to defend him. It's the same reason why anything non-tech gets flagged nowadays until dang removes protects the threads: they don't want to see news attacking their "Dear Leader", so they flag it as non-relevant. If it was a story about a democrat doing something wrong, I'm pretty sure they won't get flagged as quickly. Dang: would be REALLY interesting to compare who is flagging with their comments in these and other threads.
- collyw 6y agoYou clearly don't get the point of free speech.
- T-hawk 6y agoThe problem with prohibiting hate speech is that you can prohibit any speech by calling it hate.
- wussboy 6y agoSure. But this is not the only issue in human experience where nuance or subtlety may be required, and we seem to have navigated many of those other issues okay. I do not believe this sort of dichotomous thinking is useful.
- notahacker 6y agoYou can prohibit any speech by calling it obscenity, adult content or spam, but for some reason people are much more willing to argue for special privileges for hate...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]