2 ms·

> but meanwhile in America Twitter bans people or the NY Times refuses to publish literally anything anyone sends so they're censoring too!" more realistically

> but meanwhile in America Twitter bans people or the NY Times refuses to publish literally anything anyone sends so they're censoring too!" more realistically, a Twitter mob harasses your employer until you are fired, unemployable in your industry, and lose all of your friends. > so long as you don't fall for the disinformation that Free Speech means freedom from social consequences. There are consequences, like correcting someone or mild social opprobrium, and then there is the current endeavor of removing people from society for saying the wrong thing. I'd argue the later is almost always completely disproportionate to the offense. The accused have no recourse - they are judged by a jury of the most outraged people on the Internet and then destroyed for sport. No, Twitter does not literally shoot or beat would be dissidents, but it is routinely and purposefully weaponized to merely ruin peoples lives. That's certainly better than China... but regardless of the definition of Free Speech, lets not do that?

mbg721 6y ago
There's also the question of why employers think that caving to Twitter outrage is good or necessary for business.
- dnissley 6y ago
  I think that's obvious: because such outrage is infectious and is liable to spread from employee to employer.
  - mbg721 6y ago
    Except that the general public seems to care much less about the outrage than these businesses do. They're behaving like socially insecure teenagers, trying to prove to the bullies that they're cool. My theory is that it's an extension of the problems of online advertising--companies know there's a lot of money at stake, but still aren't good at measuring it.
- meowfly 6y ago
  You touch on a good point. The irony here is that "cancel culture" only works because labor's power is poor. If it is expensive (e.g Joe Rogan - Spotify deal) or difficult (e.g Steven Pinker - tenured) to fire people it seems much more difficult to cancel someone.

mbg721 6y ago

There's also the question of why employers think that caving to Twitter outrage is good or necessary for business.

dnissley 6y ago
I think that's obvious: because such outrage is infectious and is liable to spread from employee to employer.
- mbg721 6y ago
  Except that the general public seems to care much less about the outrage than these businesses do. They're behaving like socially insecure teenagers, trying to prove to the bullies that they're cool. My theory is that it's an extension of the problems of online advertising--companies know there's a lot of money at stake, but still aren't good at measuring it.
meowfly 6y ago
You touch on a good point. The irony here is that "cancel culture" only works because labor's power is poor. If it is expensive (e.g Joe Rogan - Spotify deal) or difficult (e.g Steven Pinker - tenured) to fire people it seems much more difficult to cancel someone.