3 ms·

How have the ACLU and EFF suffered from inertial rot, in your opinion? Are there any smaller nonprofits that you know with similar mission statements?

soganess 6y ago
I'm actually really interested in this as well. Those are the two largest orgs I hold in high esteem. I'd love to be corrected so I am not walking around like an oblivious fool.
mc32 6y ago
They are not as bad as the rest up there. But the ACLU is populated by old timers. And from time to time they have vacillated so has the EFF. The EFF tried hard to placate Twitter and Facebook banning accounts on account that they are public companies and they could do as they pleased with regard to speech. That's not arguing for freedom. That's playing politics. Now Twitter feels free to ban things like Sci-Hub. And who knows who's next. That's the thing, if you don't stand for your principles, because you disagree with someone's politics, then you don't have principles, or at least not the right principles to defend the primary principle you are set up to defend. It's like saying you believe in due process upholding the law, but then a murderer comes around and you say, nope, sorry, I cannot defend murderer in court. If that's your stance, then you actually don't believe in due process and the law.
- jhanschoo 6y ago
  > The EFF tried hard to placate Twitter and Facebook banning accounts on account that they are public companies and they could do as they pleased with regard to speech. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/eff-response-social-media-companies-decision-block-president-trumps-accounts https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/eff-response-social-me... > The decisions by Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and others to suspend and/or block President Trump’s communications via their platforms is a simple exercise of their rights, under the First Amendment and Section 230, to curate their sites. We support those rights. Nevertheless, we are always concerned when platforms take on the role of censors, which is why we continue to call on them to apply a human rights framework to those decisions. We also note that those same platforms have chosen, for years, to privilege some speakers—particularly governmental officials—over others, not just in the U.S., but in other countries as well. A platform should not apply one set of rules to most of its users, and then apply a more permissive set of rules to politicians and world leaders who are already immensely powerful. Instead, they should be precisely as judicious about removing the content of ordinary users as they have been to date regarding heads of state. Going forward, we call once again on the platforms to be more transparent and consistent in how they apply their rules—and we call on policymakers to find ways to foster competition so that users have numerous editorial options and policies from which to choose. This doesn't read like placating these companies to me. It affirms their general legal right (it can be more harmful to regulate this right if done incorrectly), and yet criticizes them for not properly wielding this right responsibly.
pseudo0 6y ago
Compare and contrast the ACLU in 2017 [0] and the ACLU in 1977 [1]. [0] - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/charlottesville-violence-prompts-aclu-change-policy-hate-groups-protesting-guns https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/charlottesville-violence... [1] - https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/skokie-case-how-i-came-represent-free-speech-rights-nazis https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/sk...
- jonny_eh 6y ago
  Those who seek to remove free speech (aka Nazis) don't deserve to be defended. It was a mistake for the ACLU to ever defend them.
  - syshum 6y ago
    Those who do not defend the principle of free speech, even the speech of those who would not honor it themselves, will be shocked when the censor comes for them... Your position that only "acceptable" speech should be defended shows you have no respect for free speech at all

soganess 6y ago

I'm actually really interested in this as well. Those are the two largest orgs I hold in high esteem. I'd love to be corrected so I am not walking around like an oblivious fool.

mc32 6y ago

They are not as bad as the rest up there. But the ACLU is populated by old timers. And from time to time they have vacillated so has the EFF. The EFF tried hard to placate Twitter and Facebook banning accounts on account that they are public companies and they could do as they pleased with regard to speech. That's not arguing for freedom. That's playing politics. Now Twitter feels free to ban things like Sci-Hub. And who knows who's next. That's the thing, if you don't stand for your principles, because you disagree with someone's politics, then you don't have principles, or at least not the right principles to defend the primary principle you are set up to defend. It's like saying you believe in due process upholding the law, but then a murderer comes around and you say, nope, sorry, I cannot defend murderer in court. If that's your stance, then you actually don't believe in due process and the law.

jhanschoo 6y ago
> The EFF tried hard to placate Twitter and Facebook banning accounts on account that they are public companies and they could do as they pleased with regard to speech. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/eff-response-social-media-companies-decision-block-president-trumps-accounts https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/eff-response-social-me... > The decisions by Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and others to suspend and/or block President Trump’s communications via their platforms is a simple exercise of their rights, under the First Amendment and Section 230, to curate their sites. We support those rights. Nevertheless, we are always concerned when platforms take on the role of censors, which is why we continue to call on them to apply a human rights framework to those decisions. We also note that those same platforms have chosen, for years, to privilege some speakers—particularly governmental officials—over others, not just in the U.S., but in other countries as well. A platform should not apply one set of rules to most of its users, and then apply a more permissive set of rules to politicians and world leaders who are already immensely powerful. Instead, they should be precisely as judicious about removing the content of ordinary users as they have been to date regarding heads of state. Going forward, we call once again on the platforms to be more transparent and consistent in how they apply their rules—and we call on policymakers to find ways to foster competition so that users have numerous editorial options and policies from which to choose. This doesn't read like placating these companies to me. It affirms their general legal right (it can be more harmful to regulate this right if done incorrectly), and yet criticizes them for not properly wielding this right responsibly.

pseudo0 6y ago

Compare and contrast the ACLU in 2017 [0] and the ACLU in 1977 [1]. [0] - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/charlottesville-violence-prompts-aclu-change-policy-hate-groups-protesting-guns https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/charlottesville-violence... [1] - https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/skokie-case-how-i-came-represent-free-speech-rights-nazis https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/sk...

jonny_eh 6y ago
Those who seek to remove free speech (aka Nazis) don't deserve to be defended. It was a mistake for the ACLU to ever defend them.
- syshum 6y ago
  Those who do not defend the principle of free speech, even the speech of those who would not honor it themselves, will be shocked when the censor comes for them... Your position that only "acceptable" speech should be defended shows you have no respect for free speech at all