4 ms·

The root cause of the things you describe aren’t free speech or filter bubbles. It’s a lack of confidence and trust in our governments and corporations. The fa

by dnh44 6y ago

The root cause of the things you describe aren’t free speech or filter bubbles. It’s a lack of confidence and trust in our governments and corporations. The fact that those same governments and corporations own our media makes it even worse. I think criminalising unpopular speech will make the symptoms of this problem worse rather than better.

glogla 6y ago
"Criminalizing unpopular speech" is a peculiar way to answer to "some speech might be harmful". Is sharing someone else's private information, publishing outright lies about safety of vaccines, or claiming some ethnicities or nationalities are subhuman and should be murdered right now "unpopular speech"? I mean, I sure as hell hope it is unpopular! But it is much more than just "unpopular speech". Framing it like "criminalizing unpopular speech" makes it sound like someone wants to criminalize saying "I think the Twilight series were genuinely good movies." but we're talking about people saying "All those <insert slur> should be killed." And yet, you are right that in some cases this happens - for example when some US states decided to solve problem of people complaining about animal cruelty by making filming on farms illegal. That's a complete bullshit and it is harmful to the society. But people who incite violence and Antivaxxers who actively hurt people by spreading diseases? I don't think so.
- dnh44 6y ago
  I’ll try to address all of your points. I’ll start by saying that inciting people to violence is already illegal so I don’t think this particular point needs addressing further. I use the term unpopular speech as a binary divider of speech between popular speech and unpopular speech. Popular speech doesn’t require protection by definition so the implication is that free speech laws exist to protect unpopular speech. I wasn’t suggesting that “I like Twilight” is equivalent to “<slurs> should be killed.” Yes I would describe lies about vaccines, claiming that some groups of humans are subhuman, and doxing as both harmful and as examples of unpopular speech. Also they are unpopular because they are harmful rather than because they are untrue (doxing people is harmful directly because the information is correct). All those things, despite being harmful, are legal. It seems that you are suggesting that we should consider banning some forms of unpopular speech because it is harmful. By banning it I assume you mean to make it illegal. If you mean something else please let me know!
  - glogla 6y ago
    Depending on where you are. I come from a place where saying "All <slur> deserve to be killed!" already is illegal and would already possibly land you in prison. Not vaccines though, but that might come to pass as well, since vaccine safety misinformation is basically manipulation that runs vulnerable people into biological weapons and that's pretty bad. And life is ... fine. We go on without having the (pretty much uniquely USian) 100 % unlimited free speech. Comparing different places is always difficult - Germany is understandably much harsher at limiting Nazis than US is - but saying there's less school shooters and domestic terrorists because of it probably doesn't see the whole truth like mental healthcare, quality of education and access to weapons etc. So I'm not sure what to make of it.

by dnh44 6y ago

glogla 6y ago

"Criminalizing unpopular speech" is a peculiar way to answer to "some speech might be harmful". Is sharing someone else's private information, publishing outright lies about safety of vaccines, or claiming some ethnicities or nationalities are subhuman and should be murdered right now "unpopular speech"? I mean, I sure as hell hope it is unpopular! But it is much more than just "unpopular speech". Framing it like "criminalizing unpopular speech" makes it sound like someone wants to criminalize saying "I think the Twilight series were genuinely good movies." but we're talking about people saying "All those <insert slur> should be killed." And yet, you are right that in some cases this happens - for example when some US states decided to solve problem of people complaining about animal cruelty by making filming on farms illegal. That's a complete bullshit and it is harmful to the society. But people who incite violence and Antivaxxers who actively hurt people by spreading diseases? I don't think so.

dnh44 6y ago
I’ll try to address all of your points. I’ll start by saying that inciting people to violence is already illegal so I don’t think this particular point needs addressing further. I use the term unpopular speech as a binary divider of speech between popular speech and unpopular speech. Popular speech doesn’t require protection by definition so the implication is that free speech laws exist to protect unpopular speech. I wasn’t suggesting that “I like Twilight” is equivalent to “<slurs> should be killed.” Yes I would describe lies about vaccines, claiming that some groups of humans are subhuman, and doxing as both harmful and as examples of unpopular speech. Also they are unpopular because they are harmful rather than because they are untrue (doxing people is harmful directly because the information is correct). All those things, despite being harmful, are legal. It seems that you are suggesting that we should consider banning some forms of unpopular speech because it is harmful. By banning it I assume you mean to make it illegal. If you mean something else please let me know!
- glogla 6y ago
  Depending on where you are. I come from a place where saying "All <slur> deserve to be killed!" already is illegal and would already possibly land you in prison. Not vaccines though, but that might come to pass as well, since vaccine safety misinformation is basically manipulation that runs vulnerable people into biological weapons and that's pretty bad. And life is ... fine. We go on without having the (pretty much uniquely USian) 100 % unlimited free speech. Comparing different places is always difficult - Germany is understandably much harsher at limiting Nazis than US is - but saying there's less school shooters and domestic terrorists because of it probably doesn't see the whole truth like mental healthcare, quality of education and access to weapons etc. So I'm not sure what to make of it.