2 ms·

Yes, it is. It requires some impressive mental gymnastics to claim that on the one hand you have free speech, and on the other you have no realistic ability to

Yes, it is. It requires some impressive mental gymnastics to claim that on the one hand you have free speech, and on the other you have no realistic ability to exercise it. A right - especially a natural right - is only a right when it can be meaningfully exercised. In particular, free speech only applies to speech you don't like, because nobody is attempting to shut down memes of cute kittens.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago
If that's how you define it, nobody will ever have free speech. There are plenty of things people can say that would get them kicked out of my house, de-friended, or fired if they were my employee. I bet you could even think of some scenarios yourself. There will always be the possibility of consequences.
- chr1 6y ago
  The same thing said in one society can result in people kicking each other, killing each other then causing blood feud for centuries while in another society merely in a lawsuit. For economy to work, large number of people who dislike each other need to cooperate, so it is generally a good strategy for the society to arrange consequences in such a way as to not cause escalating chain of feud.
  - agiroth 6y ago
    This is an excellent point. I've been thinking about how to make it succinctly, I think this is as good a way as any.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    But violence is being planned on Parler, today. It is an incubator for the escalation you’re talking about. We’ve left the realm of the hypothetical. If there’s a bar where the owner lets a gang hang out and recruit members and plans crimes, the thing to do is shut down that bar. Not let it go unchecked because the gang will be mad about it.
    - olivermarks 6y ago
      'Violence' is probably being planned on Facebook, Signal, text messages etc etc by all sorts of 'evil doers' to quote GW Bush. This doesn't mean you ban the medium. section 230 defines bigTech as platforms, not publishers. You don't close down AT&T because someone organized a punch up via text messages.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        All reports of activity on Parler seem to indicate it’s basically a breeding ground for right wing extremism, so I think it’s incumbent on you to show why it’s more like text messaging than the aforementioned gang bar. That said, Parler is not being shut down. Also, Section 230 has nothing to do with AWS’s relationship with Parler.
    - chr1 6y ago
      > owner lets a gang hang out and recruit members and plans crime Then the thing to do is call the police, not gather a mob to shut down the bar. If people openly plan violence on Parler, then shutting it down will only make it harder for police to prevent it.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        No mob has gathered to shut down Parler, so I’m not really sure where that fits in (ironic, though, since people are using Parler to plan literal mob attacks). Parler’s business partners are abandoning it, sure, but that’s by no means a “mob”. It’s much more akin to the bar’s suppliers refusing to sell it ingredients for drinks, if we want to stick with this analogy.
- agiroth 6y ago
  You kicking someone out of your house doesn't change the fundamental balance of society. AWS, Apple and Google deciding on behalf of 3 billion people what they're allowed to read, most certainly does.
salawat 6y ago
Ding, ding, ding. No points for abiding viewpoints you don't vehemently object too. Disagree, loud and resolute by all means, but stifle not the discourse, lest civility lapse to violence.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago

If that's how you define it, nobody will ever have free speech. There are plenty of things people can say that would get them kicked out of my house, de-friended, or fired if they were my employee. I bet you could even think of some scenarios yourself. There will always be the possibility of consequences.

chr1 6y ago
The same thing said in one society can result in people kicking each other, killing each other then causing blood feud for centuries while in another society merely in a lawsuit. For economy to work, large number of people who dislike each other need to cooperate, so it is generally a good strategy for the society to arrange consequences in such a way as to not cause escalating chain of feud.
- agiroth 6y ago
  This is an excellent point. I've been thinking about how to make it succinctly, I think this is as good a way as any.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  But violence is being planned on Parler, today. It is an incubator for the escalation you’re talking about. We’ve left the realm of the hypothetical. If there’s a bar where the owner lets a gang hang out and recruit members and plans crimes, the thing to do is shut down that bar. Not let it go unchecked because the gang will be mad about it.
  - olivermarks 6y ago
    'Violence' is probably being planned on Facebook, Signal, text messages etc etc by all sorts of 'evil doers' to quote GW Bush. This doesn't mean you ban the medium. section 230 defines bigTech as platforms, not publishers. You don't close down AT&T because someone organized a punch up via text messages.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      All reports of activity on Parler seem to indicate it’s basically a breeding ground for right wing extremism, so I think it’s incumbent on you to show why it’s more like text messaging than the aforementioned gang bar. That said, Parler is not being shut down. Also, Section 230 has nothing to do with AWS’s relationship with Parler.
  - chr1 6y ago
    > owner lets a gang hang out and recruit members and plans crime Then the thing to do is call the police, not gather a mob to shut down the bar. If people openly plan violence on Parler, then shutting it down will only make it harder for police to prevent it.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      No mob has gathered to shut down Parler, so I’m not really sure where that fits in (ironic, though, since people are using Parler to plan literal mob attacks). Parler’s business partners are abandoning it, sure, but that’s by no means a “mob”. It’s much more akin to the bar’s suppliers refusing to sell it ingredients for drinks, if we want to stick with this analogy.
agiroth 6y ago
You kicking someone out of your house doesn't change the fundamental balance of society. AWS, Apple and Google deciding on behalf of 3 billion people what they're allowed to read, most certainly does.

salawat 6y ago

Ding, ding, ding. No points for abiding viewpoints you don't vehemently object too. Disagree, loud and resolute by all means, but stifle not the discourse, lest civility lapse to violence.