4 ms·

To take it away from this political moment for a second, do you believe it's acceptable to allow someone to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or do you think

To take it away from this political moment for a second, do you believe it's acceptable to allow someone to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or do you think these people aren't actually yelling, "Fire!", and when we determine someone is yelling, "Fire!", those private institutions should still stop them?

sneak 6y ago
I don't think private institutions, especially when there are a small number of extremely powerful ones that exert control over publishing, should be applying or enforcing subjective standards on publishing. This isn't a legal opinion but a personal one: people who decide unilaterally for other adults what they should be allowed to read or see are assholes. My web host is in many senses like my ISP: I don't pay them to editorialize. In the US there is already a huge and well- (and perhaps over-)funded machinery for investigating and enforcing the law. If the laws are being broken, why not let them handle it? (This has the added benefit of applying the existing body of legal wisdom regarding state censorship.) If the laws aren't being broken, what's the problem?
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  Does, "This won't make us any money, and could further result in the company going under or otherwise severely being hindered in the market due to the negative backlash and resulting decline in business." count as a subjective standard that you believe a private institution should not be applying? What are corporations allowed to do then, in your mind?
  - sneak 6y ago
    Allow me to dodge answering directly: If gigantic multinationals and infrastructure providers stop hosting anything that might be unpopular or generate bad PR, then we quickly approach a world where the tyranny of sheep logic[1] (not what people think, but what people think other people think) will dictate the very narrow range of what products, services, media, literature, and art are available. That world sucks and we should avoid it. This has already mostly happened for concert venues in the US, as well as video hosting. Already we've made a world where the basic human unclothed form is all but outlawed except in clinical (or apparently yoga) settings online. I don't think there's any upper bound to what a culture can contort into believing is unacceptable. [1]: https://www.epsilontheory.com/sheep-logic/ https://www.epsilontheory.com/sheep-logic/
    - TameAntelope 6y ago
      This implies there's better logic than sheep logic, and that some subset of humanity is privy to it, which feels like the source of the problem in the first place; people thinking that they're better than other people and reacting to that feeling. Wouldn't another definition of "sheep logic" just be "society", and don't we kind of all agree that society (though not without drawbacks) is vastly superior to no society? This argument feels like frustration with the price we pay for allowing others to exist alongside us.
      - sneak 6y ago
        Perhaps we should stick to what we in society generally agree on: the rule of law and equal application of it. Having non-mainstream beliefs or opinions isn't illegal, and I don't think people should be losing their accounts and data for things that aren't illegal. We already take that approach for public utilities; your water can't be shut off because of your political affiliation or membership in some unprotected class like BDSM practitioners. Perhaps web and infrastructure hosting (app stores and communications systems (ie social media) included) should be approached in a similar fashion.
        high_density 6y ago
        this. Current outright banning and gagging will surely backfire. The pro-trumps will raise the question: "what are the other-side so afraid of, that they are trying to shut us off?" So instead of calming them down, it'll actually have the opposite effect - the feeling that the other side is much more evil than imaginable. And the questions for bystanders will be "If the powers-that-be can snuff that side, what guarantees that I/we won't be snuffed?" If you see the foundations of democracy, 'Freedom-of-speech' is actually a device to ensure no political party can have dictatorial powers over what the public can know. Moreover, democratic societies are actually more resilient due to these 'room-to-wiggle' - the other option will be much more violent 'revolution' experienced by dictator-states at their end. Anyway, the other side is producing gibberish, then so be it. Just refute them properly inside a shared platform.
        6y ago
raxxorrax 6y ago
This is not comparable because screaming fire in a theatre isn't an opinion, which free speech set out to protect. It is a dishonest argument to justify cracking down on dissent from my perspective.
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  So you think I know better and am intentionally mischaracterizing the two as equivalent?

sneak 6y ago

I don't think private institutions, especially when there are a small number of extremely powerful ones that exert control over publishing, should be applying or enforcing subjective standards on publishing. This isn't a legal opinion but a personal one: people who decide unilaterally for other adults what they should be allowed to read or see are assholes. My web host is in many senses like my ISP: I don't pay them to editorialize. In the US there is already a huge and well- (and perhaps over-)funded machinery for investigating and enforcing the law. If the laws are being broken, why not let them handle it? (This has the added benefit of applying the existing body of legal wisdom regarding state censorship.) If the laws aren't being broken, what's the problem?

TameAntelope 6y ago
Does, "This won't make us any money, and could further result in the company going under or otherwise severely being hindered in the market due to the negative backlash and resulting decline in business." count as a subjective standard that you believe a private institution should not be applying? What are corporations allowed to do then, in your mind?
- sneak 6y ago
  Allow me to dodge answering directly: If gigantic multinationals and infrastructure providers stop hosting anything that might be unpopular or generate bad PR, then we quickly approach a world where the tyranny of sheep logic[1] (not what people think, but what people think other people think) will dictate the very narrow range of what products, services, media, literature, and art are available. That world sucks and we should avoid it. This has already mostly happened for concert venues in the US, as well as video hosting. Already we've made a world where the basic human unclothed form is all but outlawed except in clinical (or apparently yoga) settings online. I don't think there's any upper bound to what a culture can contort into believing is unacceptable. [1]: https://www.epsilontheory.com/sheep-logic/ https://www.epsilontheory.com/sheep-logic/
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    This implies there's better logic than sheep logic, and that some subset of humanity is privy to it, which feels like the source of the problem in the first place; people thinking that they're better than other people and reacting to that feeling. Wouldn't another definition of "sheep logic" just be "society", and don't we kind of all agree that society (though not without drawbacks) is vastly superior to no society? This argument feels like frustration with the price we pay for allowing others to exist alongside us.
    - sneak 6y ago
      Perhaps we should stick to what we in society generally agree on: the rule of law and equal application of it. Having non-mainstream beliefs or opinions isn't illegal, and I don't think people should be losing their accounts and data for things that aren't illegal. We already take that approach for public utilities; your water can't be shut off because of your political affiliation or membership in some unprotected class like BDSM practitioners. Perhaps web and infrastructure hosting (app stores and communications systems (ie social media) included) should be approached in a similar fashion.
      - high_density 6y ago
        this. Current outright banning and gagging will surely backfire. The pro-trumps will raise the question: "what are the other-side so afraid of, that they are trying to shut us off?" So instead of calming them down, it'll actually have the opposite effect - the feeling that the other side is much more evil than imaginable. And the questions for bystanders will be "If the powers-that-be can snuff that side, what guarantees that I/we won't be snuffed?" If you see the foundations of democracy, 'Freedom-of-speech' is actually a device to ensure no political party can have dictatorial powers over what the public can know. Moreover, democratic societies are actually more resilient due to these 'room-to-wiggle' - the other option will be much more violent 'revolution' experienced by dictator-states at their end. Anyway, the other side is producing gibberish, then so be it. Just refute them properly inside a shared platform.
      - 6y ago

raxxorrax 6y ago

This is not comparable because screaming fire in a theatre isn't an opinion, which free speech set out to protect. It is a dishonest argument to justify cracking down on dissent from my perspective.

TameAntelope 6y ago
So you think I know better and am intentionally mischaracterizing the two as equivalent?