6 ms·
Often we confuse there being precedent for an event with the precedent being actually right. I understand both perspectives here: what's "morally" right and wh
by gxs 6y ago
Often we confuse there being precedent for an event with the precedent being actually right.
I understand both perspectives here: what's "morally" right and what is strictly by the book right.
Personally, I lean towards the latter. As the famous quote says (paraphrased), I may not agree with what you say, but I'll always defend your right to say it.
At the very least it should go through due process, not be at the whim of some private organization.
- JohnTHaller 6y agoYou're welcome to say it. Others should not be forced to listen, repeat, or amplify what you say.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- _Microft 6y agoThat’s why I don’t like „retweets are not endorsements“. Spreading a message is endorsement, one way or another. They have the choice to retweet or not and when they choose to spread the message, they become co-responsible for its consequences.
- gxs 6y agoBut the key word is forced isn't it? Do we really have to police what people are allowed to endorse?
- strangattractor 6y agoThere is a difference between letting someone speak freely and handing them a megaphone. The Constitution does not give individuals the freedom to incite violence. It is designed to prevent it. Russia is putting Parler back online - at least they believe in free speech.
- La1n 6y ago>Russia is putting Parler back online - at least they believe in free speech. This is not a given conclusion, they could just be interested in speech that negatively affects a geopolitical rival.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoRussia believes in free speech when that speech incites social unrest in the US. When it incites social unrest in Russia? Not so much.
- ratsmack 6y ago> Russian-based firm DDoS-Guard said in a statement to The Hill it started servicing Parler on Sunday night. The firm said Parler is not using DDoS-Guard as a hosting site, but did not detail what services it is providing the platform. I don't know if your statement is true, and since this thread is about "truth", maybe this needs further investigation.
- engineer_22 6y agoFine - let's run with this. We set up a system where certain ideas are not tolerated. There is a preferential system for use of mass communication platforms. Only officially sanctioned speakers or patterns of thought are allowed to be broadcast to the mass. A step further: Who decides what is acceptable? And on what grounds shall we suspend the speech of others? What stops this from becoming suppression of political speech?
- shadowgovt 6y agoI believe you've described something akin to the existing infrastructure for issuing radio broadcast licenses via the FCC. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-pr... There is likely some guidance to be had on this topic from studying the way the FCC has navigated the Scylla and Charybdis of authorizing broadcast licenses vs. trampling the First Amendment rights of American citizens.
- jakelazaroff 6y agoThis is a little like saying that we shouldn't have speed limits, because who decides what speed is safe for driving? We all decide, collectively. That is how society works: a group of people making tradeoffs. Individual sacrifices for the benefit of the group. Obviously, no tradeoff will make every single person happy. But that doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and let people do 90 in a school zone.
- gxs 6y agoThe difference is our constitution doesn't explicitly say to remove speed limits. If it did, we'd have to go through proper process to get the constitution amended.
- jakelazaroff 6y agoSure, a constitution is just a formalization of those tradeoffs. But the US Constitution has nothing to do with this article or the parallel current events.
- klmadfejno 6y agoPerhaps there's a middleground between allowing someone to say something privately and providing them a platform to broadcast that message to the world though
- engineer_22 6y agoGood point. But it begs the next question: where exactly is the line between the two?
- gedy 6y agoThe answer seems to be from nearly everyone: "It's obvious, whatever my side agrees is acceptable of course." (Which does not help of course.)
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y agoWhen you use someone else's capital. The issue was that Coughlin was using other broadcasters infra to disseminate his message. If he had his own tower then it wouldn't have been a problem.
- 52-6F-62 6y agoI'd argue the abstractions, at best, are getting in the way; at worst they're being intentionally manipulated to suit. Infrastructural requirements are cooperative requirements at their core—they're not detachable from the people that use, operate, and maintain them. Infrastructure that delivers such a mass of information isn't automatic, it's a concerted effort of many people. If the people you are relying on to amplify your message do not want to cooperate with you, should they be forced to? How it appears to me is that we've reached a point, a rare point, in which the majority of the people involved in those works have decided against cooperating with delivering the messaging of some people because they don't want to be a party to it. Not out of fear of reprisal, but out of disagreement with the stated goals of it.
- engineer_22 6y agoThis is an interesting point, and you're an excellent writer. So the obvious question: is it acceptable for the group of people you described (large corporations) to read your messages and insert themselves in private conversation?