6 ms·

I watched a CNN segment pressuring AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Roku, etc. to remove Newsmax and OANN from their broadcasting. Politically you have folks on one sid

I watched a CNN segment pressuring AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Roku, etc. to remove Newsmax and OANN from their broadcasting. Politically you have folks on one side of the spectrum saying "your speech is disagreeable/fake/dangerous but you can say it" Other side says "your speech is disagreeable/fake/dangerous and you should not be allowed to say it" When avenues for open dialogue and discourse are no longer available, more violence ensues. I am surprised that otherwise well intentioned people appear to be missing this insight.

ajuc 6y ago
Ignoring ideology and human rights and focusing solely on practical effects there's 2 sides: 1. people who are already radicalized should have some place to talk so we can know what they are talking about and so they are more likely to talk instead of acting 2. people who can be radicalized - are, because there's places where they can encounter such ideas I've never seen any scientific study estimating which effect is more important. From ideological POV I'm in favor of more free speech when in doubt.
- fareesh 6y ago
  I tend to agree. What I neglected to say in my original comment was that the political camps tend to exaggerate the "dangerous rhetoric" of their opponents and downplay their own. This is especially true when the statements require some specific interpretation in order to be treated that way, since their plan spoken version is not in itself dangerous.
jonathanstrange 6y ago
> I am surprised that otherwise well intentioned people appear to be missing this insight. Because it's plain false. One of the lessons learned from the Weimarer Republic is that a democracy has to defend itself, that's the reason why modern days Germany has - by request and design from the US - laws to limit freedom of speech. It is false because certain types of calls for violence and hate speech have the uncanny ability to mobilize people who would otherwise never think of being violent. There are psychological reasons why otherwise normal people can be drawn fairly easily to violence and de-humanizing their opponents. With a few well-designed suggestions at the right time you can easily cause lynchings like in the Reichskristallnacht. Generally speaking, people in democratic societies far overestimate the force of their society's civility and culture. It takes but a scratch on the surface of society, and a threshold is reached that leads to a reign of terror. A recent example is the war in former Yugoslavia. Seemingly harmless family fathers in an advanced society started to torture opponents to death by raping them with steel pipes until they died of inner bleeding. They were encouraged by politicians. Things like that can occur in any country within just a few months of conflict and unhindered "free speech." There are large groups in the US who dream of a violent revolution, openly advocate "race wars", and so on. It's very reasonable to take away their megaphones and social network speech amplifiers.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Number157 6y ago
  > One of the lessons learned from the Weimarer Republic is that a democracy has to defend itself, that's the reason why modern days Germany has - by request and design from the US - laws to limit freedom of speech. That's exactly what the nazis did. // Goodwin
- Tomte 6y ago
  > that's the reason why modern days Germany has - by request and design from the US - laws to limit freedom of speech. A point that cannot be made too often. Additionally, the US military governor banned newspapers and then gave out licenses for publishing newspapers only to people the Americans deemed "politically reliable".
  - Synaesthesia 6y ago
    In France nazi memboribilia and imagery are illegal, as is holocaust denial. That's not the case in the USA which protects free speech. What's interesting is that France has a much bigger problem with holocaust denial whereas in the USA its sort of laughed at. I still think the approach to permit free speech is better.
    - Tomte 6y ago
      > What's interesting is that France has a much bigger problem with holocaust denial whereas in the USA its sort of laughed at. Sure, you're laughing about the Proud Boys and the gazillion other armed neonazi groups, until they storm the Capitol. Obviously no problem whatsoever.
      - Synaesthesia 6y ago
        I'm talking about holocaust denial as a serious published phenomenon among intellectuals. Not trying to downplay the serious right wing problem the US has. Sometimes trying to oppress these viewpoints paradoxically doesn't work.
getlawgdon 6y ago
This is nonsense. There are places everywhere to dialogue. Having an app removed is not an example of lack of dialogue, it's the same is removing a dangerous product from a shelf. it is a _recall_. You're also creating the false equivalency that one of those political sides would dialogue when they do not. Their actions have become extremist. So kindly quit creating a victim out of an app.
- kgantchev 6y ago
  Cancel culture is predominantly a left-wing phenomenon. To say it bluntly: "the left" labels speech they disagree with as violent and clearly wants it banned. "Extremism" is in the eyes of the beholder. We saw 6 months of violent insurrection by BLM and Antifa, which were organized on Twitter and Facebook. Apple, Google, and Amazon didn't ban either apps. People on the left called them "mostly peaceful protests." The Jan 6 events were organized, shared, and streamed on Facebook and Twitter. None of the Jan 6th events were organized on Parler, yet Parler gets removed. See the problem?
- fareesh 6y ago
  My comment was not about Parler though.
coolgeek 6y ago
"The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

ajuc 6y ago

Ignoring ideology and human rights and focusing solely on practical effects there's 2 sides: 1. people who are already radicalized should have some place to talk so we can know what they are talking about and so they are more likely to talk instead of acting 2. people who can be radicalized - are, because there's places where they can encounter such ideas I've never seen any scientific study estimating which effect is more important. From ideological POV I'm in favor of more free speech when in doubt.

fareesh 6y ago
I tend to agree. What I neglected to say in my original comment was that the political camps tend to exaggerate the "dangerous rhetoric" of their opponents and downplay their own. This is especially true when the statements require some specific interpretation in order to be treated that way, since their plan spoken version is not in itself dangerous.

jonathanstrange 6y ago

> I am surprised that otherwise well intentioned people appear to be missing this insight. Because it's plain false. One of the lessons learned from the Weimarer Republic is that a democracy has to defend itself, that's the reason why modern days Germany has - by request and design from the US - laws to limit freedom of speech. It is false because certain types of calls for violence and hate speech have the uncanny ability to mobilize people who would otherwise never think of being violent. There are psychological reasons why otherwise normal people can be drawn fairly easily to violence and de-humanizing their opponents. With a few well-designed suggestions at the right time you can easily cause lynchings like in the Reichskristallnacht. Generally speaking, people in democratic societies far overestimate the force of their society's civility and culture. It takes but a scratch on the surface of society, and a threshold is reached that leads to a reign of terror. A recent example is the war in former Yugoslavia. Seemingly harmless family fathers in an advanced society started to torture opponents to death by raping them with steel pipes until they died of inner bleeding. They were encouraged by politicians. Things like that can occur in any country within just a few months of conflict and unhindered "free speech." There are large groups in the US who dream of a violent revolution, openly advocate "race wars", and so on. It's very reasonable to take away their megaphones and social network speech amplifiers.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Number157 6y ago
> One of the lessons learned from the Weimarer Republic is that a democracy has to defend itself, that's the reason why modern days Germany has - by request and design from the US - laws to limit freedom of speech. That's exactly what the nazis did. // Goodwin
Tomte 6y ago
> that's the reason why modern days Germany has - by request and design from the US - laws to limit freedom of speech. A point that cannot be made too often. Additionally, the US military governor banned newspapers and then gave out licenses for publishing newspapers only to people the Americans deemed "politically reliable".
- Synaesthesia 6y ago
  In France nazi memboribilia and imagery are illegal, as is holocaust denial. That's not the case in the USA which protects free speech. What's interesting is that France has a much bigger problem with holocaust denial whereas in the USA its sort of laughed at. I still think the approach to permit free speech is better.
  - Tomte 6y ago
    > What's interesting is that France has a much bigger problem with holocaust denial whereas in the USA its sort of laughed at. Sure, you're laughing about the Proud Boys and the gazillion other armed neonazi groups, until they storm the Capitol. Obviously no problem whatsoever.
    - Synaesthesia 6y ago
      I'm talking about holocaust denial as a serious published phenomenon among intellectuals. Not trying to downplay the serious right wing problem the US has. Sometimes trying to oppress these viewpoints paradoxically doesn't work.

getlawgdon 6y ago

This is nonsense. There are places everywhere to dialogue. Having an app removed is not an example of lack of dialogue, it's the same is removing a dangerous product from a shelf. it is a _recall_. You're also creating the false equivalency that one of those political sides would dialogue when they do not. Their actions have become extremist. So kindly quit creating a victim out of an app.

kgantchev 6y ago
Cancel culture is predominantly a left-wing phenomenon. To say it bluntly: "the left" labels speech they disagree with as violent and clearly wants it banned. "Extremism" is in the eyes of the beholder. We saw 6 months of violent insurrection by BLM and Antifa, which were organized on Twitter and Facebook. Apple, Google, and Amazon didn't ban either apps. People on the left called them "mostly peaceful protests." The Jan 6 events were organized, shared, and streamed on Facebook and Twitter. None of the Jan 6th events were organized on Parler, yet Parler gets removed. See the problem?
fareesh 6y ago
My comment was not about Parler though.

coolgeek 6y ago

"The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance