4 ms·

I respectfully disagree. To put this straight, I am all in on free speech (which is one of our basic rights). Entirely independent on whether I agree with the c

I respectfully disagree. To put this straight, I am all in on free speech (which is one of our basic rights). Entirely independent on whether I agree with the content or not. However, at some point most countries realized that it is not okay to speak some things. Most of these things essentially revolve around planning to kill people, or violently fighting results of fair elections. Yes, both is happening on the Internet for ages, and yes, it will always happen, no matter what. But the radicalization of the past years culminated in the events of the last days. We can either tolerate that and wait until these actions destroy our democracies (this effect is called the "Paradox of Tolerance"; if you don't know it, look it up), or carefully act against it. Asking Parler to moderate content to not call for violence and putting an end to spreading lies about the election result is legitimate and in the interest of all of us, it is such a careful act. Now Parler has the choice to become a platform for conservative thinkers and opionions - or a platform of hate fueling violence against "others". Blocking the former would be grave mistake, as you say yourself. As for blocking the later, I think I made my point clear. Over & out, unless you make a really good counter argument.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Paradox of tolerance is a hypocritical bullshit, I commented about it a couple of hours ago [1] As for blocking calls for violence. I stand on a position that allowing such calls is an acceptable price for a free speech. I come from Russia, where all restrictions on free speech are made on the pretemse of 'calls to extremism', people who are against Putin are jailed, and sentenced, for exactly this. So no, I've seen where this road leads to. If people gather on Parler to storm the Capitol, find them using police measures and prosecute them. It's harder than bans, but has much fewer harmful side-effects, like eventual authoritatian state. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25692644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25692644
- archi42 6y ago
  That just an assertion, not an argument. Or put it otherwise: A lot of these people believe that the "vote has been stolen" from them. The way a lot of those people look at the world, their actions are the only the logical consequence. Now, you say it is okay to prosecute them, but it is not okay to prevent false information to be spread? But if you tolerate lies and hate, then why do you not tolerate people acting on these? Look in the mirror, and you'll see the Paradox of Tolerance staring right back at you. If you need personal positions: Even here in Germany (in the past we were pretty good at ignoring the inconvenient truths, one should think we [and the world?] may have learned from that) some people honestly believe those Q crap of how rich people living virtually forever due to some substance that's harvested from literal child abuse (and obviously the gov is in on it). I-forgot-half-of-the-BS fighting against robots under the surface of the earth? Got you covered (also, the gov is in on it, obviously). Immigrants come here to replace the old populace? Those people believe that, and, needless to say, the gov is in on this as well. Last but not least: Covid is a fake, and the vaccine actually is a chip that looks very much like the circuit of a guitar effect pedal and not like a real IC? You bet the gov is doing that (with the help of Bill Gates). And, I repeat: Some people are believing this. They think the world is exactly like that. And of course they think someone should really do something about it. You see where this is leading? Bad actors seeding lies and misinformation for their end (overthrow the gov and put those in charge who "spread the truth"). Of course you can jail the occasional shooter (politicians and synagogues are targets of choice), but by letting these bad actors continue "in the name of tolerance", you're creating a society which is tolerant in theory, but in practice you might need to be careful what you say because you end up on the wrong end of a baseball bat (lucky you) or bullet (less nice than the bat). This doesn't happen over a year, but in the long game, this will end badly. Oh, and yes, this is: The Paradox of Tolerance. It's not like we're talking about minimum wage or the right amount of social welfare here. I mean, one can argue about these and there is no objective truth of what's best - at least none that we can measure without a time machine and/or infinite multiverses.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

Paradox of tolerance is a hypocritical bullshit, I commented about it a couple of hours ago [1] As for blocking calls for violence. I stand on a position that allowing such calls is an acceptable price for a free speech. I come from Russia, where all restrictions on free speech are made on the pretemse of 'calls to extremism', people who are against Putin are jailed, and sentenced, for exactly this. So no, I've seen where this road leads to. If people gather on Parler to storm the Capitol, find them using police measures and prosecute them. It's harder than bans, but has much fewer harmful side-effects, like eventual authoritatian state. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25692644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25692644

archi42 6y ago
That just an assertion, not an argument. Or put it otherwise: A lot of these people believe that the "vote has been stolen" from them. The way a lot of those people look at the world, their actions are the only the logical consequence. Now, you say it is okay to prosecute them, but it is not okay to prevent false information to be spread? But if you tolerate lies and hate, then why do you not tolerate people acting on these? Look in the mirror, and you'll see the Paradox of Tolerance staring right back at you. If you need personal positions: Even here in Germany (in the past we were pretty good at ignoring the inconvenient truths, one should think we [and the world?] may have learned from that) some people honestly believe those Q crap of how rich people living virtually forever due to some substance that's harvested from literal child abuse (and obviously the gov is in on it). I-forgot-half-of-the-BS fighting against robots under the surface of the earth? Got you covered (also, the gov is in on it, obviously). Immigrants come here to replace the old populace? Those people believe that, and, needless to say, the gov is in on this as well. Last but not least: Covid is a fake, and the vaccine actually is a chip that looks very much like the circuit of a guitar effect pedal and not like a real IC? You bet the gov is doing that (with the help of Bill Gates). And, I repeat: Some people are believing this. They think the world is exactly like that. And of course they think someone should really do something about it. You see where this is leading? Bad actors seeding lies and misinformation for their end (overthrow the gov and put those in charge who "spread the truth"). Of course you can jail the occasional shooter (politicians and synagogues are targets of choice), but by letting these bad actors continue "in the name of tolerance", you're creating a society which is tolerant in theory, but in practice you might need to be careful what you say because you end up on the wrong end of a baseball bat (lucky you) or bullet (less nice than the bat). This doesn't happen over a year, but in the long game, this will end badly. Oh, and yes, this is: The Paradox of Tolerance. It's not like we're talking about minimum wage or the right amount of social welfare here. I mean, one can argue about these and there is no objective truth of what's best - at least none that we can measure without a time machine and/or infinite multiverses.