5 ms·

Many liberals, like myself, are appalled by deplatforming as well and are rethinking our support for the modern left. It is an peculiar era indeed where champi

Many liberals, like myself, are appalled by deplatforming as well and are rethinking our support for the modern left. It is an peculiar era indeed where championing freedom of speech, a core part of the Enlightenment philosophy that gave birth to liberalism, is condemned as being right wing.

Larrikin 6y ago
Your post history has a lot of defenses of conservative views but you call out that you are a liberal to try to bolster your conservative points. What liberal views do you believe in?
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  Here's a convenient primer for my beliefs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
  - Larrikin 6y ago
    Thanks for the specifics. Your post history and that generic wikipedia article help show your actual views
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
      A flippant response is all that a bad faith question merits. It may surprise you but I would encourage people to read my post history as well, all of it. Anybody not hopelessly mired in today's hyperpartisanship will see that I am criticizing the left from a liberal perspective.
- simonh 6y ago
  Liberalism and left wing aren’t the same thing, it’s not conservatism either. Take Milton Friedman for example. Right wing right? No, liberal. He believed in free markets and the power of free enterprise, but he also believed unions were important as an expression of individual freedom of association. He even advocated a negative income tax for low earners so he was a redistributionist. I still think that would be far better than a basic income, but I digress.
- kortilla 6y ago
  A big chunk of the Democrat party abandoned liberalism (I.e. against globalism, free speech, etc). So you end up in scenarios where “liberals” aren’t really Liberal and call the Liberal people right-wing or centrist.
  - bra-ket 6y ago
    the far left squeezed out the middle.
- Veen 6y ago
  Liberals and even traditional leftists seem conservative (or fascist) to modern progressives, who mistakenly think of themselves as liberal.
voidhorse 6y ago
Sure, I think it's totally fine to be appalled by deplatforming. I do think people should have a voice, I also think it's the right of platform owners to decide what terms of service they set and what discourse they consider ok. The point is not to say deplatforming should be ok in all and any cases, the point is to highlight the hypocrisy, or perhaps abandonment of so-called core/staunchly held beliefs, that emerges once those beliefs are suddenly at odds with maintaining power. edit: to put it another way, it unveils that one of the identifying principles of the ideology is not a principle but a convention, upheld so long as its convenient.
- drak0n1c 6y ago
  Yes, corporations can and should be criticized for legal actions that are within their right (and oftentimes should stay within their right). Whether that is pollution, poor employment practices, or applying censorship unevenly.
enumjorge 6y ago
As a champion of freedom of speech, you must be aware that it does not protect speech that would likely incite something like a riot, which is exactly what happened this week.
- beerandt 6y ago
  Incitement of violence is an incredibly high legal bar. Hypotheticals, don't count. Hints don't count. Dogwhistles don't count. Impassioned political speech doesn't count. The fire in a theatre quote that everyone seems to know is even from an overturned case. (Schenk v US) The Brandenburg case that overturned Schenk held: If a threat is not immediate OR If it's non-specific/ non-literal Then it's not criminal incitement, because it's protected free speech. Interpretations of "what Trump meant" don't count, even if you believe with all your heart that he meant something other than the literal words spoken.
tehjoker 6y ago
As a leftist, I am torn as the President did just incite a coup attempt, but this is a decisive demonstration that mega-corporations can just discipline the speech of the president (really the enemies of the DNC currently, though that will change to Rs in future elections). I think they will exploit these powers to a far greater extent going forward. There is nothing to celebrate here. Trump's base of support is insane, but somewhat independent of control by Washington (versus the Democratic party electorate which loyally votes for the chosen leader). The establishment is finally asserting its power to lay down the law. Unfortunately, the country is spinning out of control for reasons they can't or won't manage so this will only be a band-aid though it's gonna hurt for us.
- yyyymmddhhmmss 6y ago
  As a Marxist and student of history, I know the president did not attempt a coup and could not even if he wanted to because the structural allegiance of the US military is to private industry above any particular executive administration. That said, I think we are most likely looking at a Patriot Act 2.0 to come out of this.
- ulucs 6y ago
  Calling that a coup is pretty insensitive towards people who have actually been through coups, especially since it's usually the US establishment govenments funding and protecting the perpetrators.
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    It wasn't successful or nearly successful, but I saw some potential for creating a drawn out process that could create the space for more support for them (but they failed). I am well aware of the hideous things the US does around the world and organize to try to stop further interventions. This was not on the same level, but I don't think it's helpful to deny that the objective of these guys was to overturn the election and they had institutional support from the President, legislators, and it appears the Capitol Police. Off duty cops and military were in the crowd. It just wasn't sufficient or well enough planned. In my opinion, what we witnessed is the farce part of the classic quote: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."
esoterica 6y ago
Twitter has the freedom of speech/association right to ban whomever they want from posting on their privately owned servers. Freedom of speech and association cuts both ways, and your freedom of speech rights do not extend to other people's property without their permission.
- barbacoa 6y ago
  Free speech rules are more complicated than that. [0] When a person or company owns a "public square" that is open to the general public under some circumstances they can become defacto state actors and lose their right to discriminate what people are allowed to say on their property. We have never seen that be applied to the internet but in principle twitter is very much the modern day town square of discourse. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
  - caseysoftware 6y ago
    And what's interesting is that Trump's Twitter account specifically was declared a "public square" when he was forced to unblock users in 2018. Since that's the case (as ruled), blocking EVERYONE from accessing that account seems like a larger violation. The suit argued that Trump blocked the plaintiffs after they criticized the president, which constituted "viewpoint discrimination.” Being that the President’s Twitter, @RealDonaldTrump, is a public forum, that would be in violation of their First Amendment rights to free speech. U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan agreed with the plaintiffs. Ref: https://mashable.com/article/trump-unblocks-twitter-accounts/ https://mashable.com/article/trump-unblocks-twitter-accounts...
    - rswail 6y ago
      The argument that @realDonaldTrump was viewpoint discrimination is because that twitter account was being used as a defacto mouthpiece of the US government. As such, people engaging with it are entitled to 1A protection. That doesn't mean that Donald Trump is entitled, either as an individual, or as POTUS, to have a Twitter account.
Krollifi 6y ago
These platforms are really just websites. If you don't like them, you are free to make your own website. If you create a website would you really want the government to interfere with it?

Larrikin 6y ago

Your post history has a lot of defenses of conservative views but you call out that you are a liberal to try to bolster your conservative points. What liberal views do you believe in?

ThrowawayR2 6y ago
Here's a convenient primer for my beliefs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
- Larrikin 6y ago
  Thanks for the specifics. Your post history and that generic wikipedia article help show your actual views
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
    A flippant response is all that a bad faith question merits. It may surprise you but I would encourage people to read my post history as well, all of it. Anybody not hopelessly mired in today's hyperpartisanship will see that I am criticizing the left from a liberal perspective.
simonh 6y ago
Liberalism and left wing aren’t the same thing, it’s not conservatism either. Take Milton Friedman for example. Right wing right? No, liberal. He believed in free markets and the power of free enterprise, but he also believed unions were important as an expression of individual freedom of association. He even advocated a negative income tax for low earners so he was a redistributionist. I still think that would be far better than a basic income, but I digress.
kortilla 6y ago
A big chunk of the Democrat party abandoned liberalism (I.e. against globalism, free speech, etc). So you end up in scenarios where “liberals” aren’t really Liberal and call the Liberal people right-wing or centrist.
- bra-ket 6y ago
  the far left squeezed out the middle.
Veen 6y ago
Liberals and even traditional leftists seem conservative (or fascist) to modern progressives, who mistakenly think of themselves as liberal.

voidhorse 6y ago

Sure, I think it's totally fine to be appalled by deplatforming. I do think people should have a voice, I also think it's the right of platform owners to decide what terms of service they set and what discourse they consider ok. The point is not to say deplatforming should be ok in all and any cases, the point is to highlight the hypocrisy, or perhaps abandonment of so-called core/staunchly held beliefs, that emerges once those beliefs are suddenly at odds with maintaining power. edit: to put it another way, it unveils that one of the identifying principles of the ideology is not a principle but a convention, upheld so long as its convenient.

drak0n1c 6y ago
Yes, corporations can and should be criticized for legal actions that are within their right (and oftentimes should stay within their right). Whether that is pollution, poor employment practices, or applying censorship unevenly.

enumjorge 6y ago

As a champion of freedom of speech, you must be aware that it does not protect speech that would likely incite something like a riot, which is exactly what happened this week.

beerandt 6y ago
Incitement of violence is an incredibly high legal bar. Hypotheticals, don't count. Hints don't count. Dogwhistles don't count. Impassioned political speech doesn't count. The fire in a theatre quote that everyone seems to know is even from an overturned case. (Schenk v US) The Brandenburg case that overturned Schenk held: If a threat is not immediate OR If it's non-specific/ non-literal Then it's not criminal incitement, because it's protected free speech. Interpretations of "what Trump meant" don't count, even if you believe with all your heart that he meant something other than the literal words spoken.

tehjoker 6y ago

As a leftist, I am torn as the President did just incite a coup attempt, but this is a decisive demonstration that mega-corporations can just discipline the speech of the president (really the enemies of the DNC currently, though that will change to Rs in future elections). I think they will exploit these powers to a far greater extent going forward. There is nothing to celebrate here. Trump's base of support is insane, but somewhat independent of control by Washington (versus the Democratic party electorate which loyally votes for the chosen leader). The establishment is finally asserting its power to lay down the law. Unfortunately, the country is spinning out of control for reasons they can't or won't manage so this will only be a band-aid though it's gonna hurt for us.

yyyymmddhhmmss 6y ago
As a Marxist and student of history, I know the president did not attempt a coup and could not even if he wanted to because the structural allegiance of the US military is to private industry above any particular executive administration. That said, I think we are most likely looking at a Patriot Act 2.0 to come out of this.
ulucs 6y ago
Calling that a coup is pretty insensitive towards people who have actually been through coups, especially since it's usually the US establishment govenments funding and protecting the perpetrators.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  It wasn't successful or nearly successful, but I saw some potential for creating a drawn out process that could create the space for more support for them (but they failed). I am well aware of the hideous things the US does around the world and organize to try to stop further interventions. This was not on the same level, but I don't think it's helpful to deny that the objective of these guys was to overturn the election and they had institutional support from the President, legislators, and it appears the Capitol Police. Off duty cops and military were in the crowd. It just wasn't sufficient or well enough planned. In my opinion, what we witnessed is the farce part of the classic quote: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."

esoterica 6y ago

Twitter has the freedom of speech/association right to ban whomever they want from posting on their privately owned servers. Freedom of speech and association cuts both ways, and your freedom of speech rights do not extend to other people's property without their permission.

barbacoa 6y ago
Free speech rules are more complicated than that. [0] When a person or company owns a "public square" that is open to the general public under some circumstances they can become defacto state actors and lose their right to discriminate what people are allowed to say on their property. We have never seen that be applied to the internet but in principle twitter is very much the modern day town square of discourse. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
- caseysoftware 6y ago
  And what's interesting is that Trump's Twitter account specifically was declared a "public square" when he was forced to unblock users in 2018. Since that's the case (as ruled), blocking EVERYONE from accessing that account seems like a larger violation. The suit argued that Trump blocked the plaintiffs after they criticized the president, which constituted "viewpoint discrimination.” Being that the President’s Twitter, @RealDonaldTrump, is a public forum, that would be in violation of their First Amendment rights to free speech. U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan agreed with the plaintiffs. Ref: https://mashable.com/article/trump-unblocks-twitter-accounts/ https://mashable.com/article/trump-unblocks-twitter-accounts...
  - rswail 6y ago
    The argument that @realDonaldTrump was viewpoint discrimination is because that twitter account was being used as a defacto mouthpiece of the US government. As such, people engaging with it are entitled to 1A protection. That doesn't mean that Donald Trump is entitled, either as an individual, or as POTUS, to have a Twitter account.

Krollifi 6y ago

These platforms are really just websites. If you don't like them, you are free to make your own website. If you create a website would you really want the government to interfere with it?