5 ms·

The deafening silence in these comments is telling of how boned free speech proper actually is. Hope you all are enjoying the "free speech for me, but not for

The deafening silence in these comments is telling of how boned free speech proper actually is. Hope you all are enjoying the "free speech for me, but not for thee" attitude of this neo-feudalism that we live in.

adamcstephens 6y ago
We don’t let the democratically elected government ban speech but unaccountable private corporations are free to censor. These problems aren’t easy, and while I’ve lessened my free speech absolutism a tiny bit, I’m still quite concerned. We have to find a better way.
- slackfan 6y ago
  Considering the media propping up stories about how free speech is unnecessary and barbaric in our new and modern society, and making censorship a cultural norm - giving an inch is more than giving a mile.
  - JuliusPullo 6y ago
    In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.
- dmwallin 6y ago
  Yes, we don’t let our government, with the tools of state violence and the exclusive right to imprison us, ban speech. However, groups of private citizens, whose powers over the marketplace are/can be heavily limited through existing laws such as antitrust law, enforced by our democratically elected government have no requirement to carry speech they disagree with. It’s surprising to me how quickly the Big Business/Small Government Republican Party switched as soon as they realized that big businesses don’t always have their interests in mind. I suggest looking over to the far left, as they have been discussing ways to curb power of large businesses for decades and also have a healthy respect of the dangers of giving the government too much power as the frequent target of said powers.
  - cudgy 6y ago
    Seems like the roles have switched...far left is now in bed with big corp and the right has drifted towards curbing restrictions on free speech by recent surge of big tech social platforms. Makes sense if you think about it. Secular shifts in society away from religion and traditional family structure are more acceptable to far left but less palatable to the right.
    - jjj1232 6y ago
      Far right is 100% in bed with corporations as well. Free speech arguments by those in power on the right are mostly symbolic, and will never get close to _actually_ threatening capital in any way.
      - cudgy 6y ago
        “100%” and “never” are quite unconvincing.
    - dmwallin 6y ago
      The center of the democratic party has been pro-business for decades now (see neo-liberal), albeit with republicans using stronger rhetoric. Another way of looking at it, the center of both parties have been extremelly pro-business, with both the far-left and far-right having some anti-corporate tendencies. Due to recent trends the centers of both parties have lost influence, even more so on the republican side due to a recent far-right presidency. It seems logical that there would be a shift in perception but I think it's really more of a shift in the Overton window. I'm personally very pro free speech but the wrong way to go about it is to give the government more power to compel speech from third parties. Use the tools available to prevent mega corporations from sucking up all the air in the room, then create your own platforms to spread the speech you want to enable. The easy approach of just trying to use government to compel these companies to carry your speech has too many dangerous second and third order effects to seriously consider, especially if your goal is free-speech.
  - adamcstephens 6y ago
    When we actually use antitrust laws to limit these massive private companies I may be more on board with letting them do as they please with censor. As it is right now, they’re the lifeline and public square for much of modern life. As you clearly point out, the government can and should hold these companies accountable for their size and actions. The left has plenty of respect for the dangers of both private and public power, but our system doesn’t listen to them because it requires a reflection on the bad parts of capitalism. Twitter and Facebook profit off of speech on their platforms, and actively drive users to content that increase engagement. Furthermore they have no accountability when they cancel people and businesses, which again, the left knows about. We can change the incentives and repercussions without encouraging them to censor speech they unilaterally don’t like.
larrydag 6y ago
"The mission we serve as Twitter, Inc. is to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers. Our business and revenue will always follow that mission in ways that improve – and do not detract from – a free and global conversation." https://investor.twitterinc.com/contact/faq/default.aspx https://investor.twitterinc.com/contact/faq/default.aspx
- bitlax 6y ago
  This is just corporate doublespeak which clarifies nothing.
m-p-3 6y ago
To be fair, I'm seeing so much bullshit on social media that I've probably reached the threshold of apathy to just don't care and let it all burn.
2pEXgD0fZ5cF 6y ago
I don't feel confident enough to actually represent any group, but what you are saying is wrong, it's just that no one wants to listen when "we" say that the grip of megacorps on the internet is too tight and that we need more support for free software and open protocols instead of walled gardens. We are here, it's just that this is only a part within the things we have been talking about for years, even if it might come as a surprise to the kind of people that probably cheered when things like net neutrality were crippled in the US. I certainly won't defend far right and conspiracy portals that make a career out of harassing people and that don't know the difference between free speech and "freedom of consequence no matter what I say"/"everyone should be forced to listen to me". However at the same time Twitter does not deserve any praise for such a decision. The part we all should agree on (and hopefully do) is that Twitter/Facebook/Google apply their rules pretty much arbitrarily at this point, they might as well remove them because in prominent cases they clearly don't matter. Majority of discourse on the internet should not be subject to the pure arbitrariness of only a few corporations.
silicon2401 6y ago
Civilizations have fallen before, and I worry that this trend of attacking free speech will be looked back on as an early stage in the fall of our current world. It's becoming a cliche now that cyberpunk dystopias more and more resemble our current world
threatofrain 6y ago
Would you feel bothered if Wikipedia banned Project Veritas as a source, and also banned IP's related to Project Veritas? In many ways the stakes are much higher on Wikipedia. How would Project Veritas's freedom of speech translate to Wikipedia's obligation to host and broadcast?
rektide 6y ago
Project Vertias has been at the forefront of free lying for a decade[1]. They have been manipulative, entrapping, dissembling corrupt foes of information & democracy seemingly their entire life. Good riddance. Part of free speech is the public forming an opinion that some voices are wrong, and malicious. The public has a right to defend itself against it's foes, of which Vertias is one, one of a radical extremist & underhanded bent. It IS unfortunate that our public spaces are all operated by a couple communicative-capitalist super-entities, and I wish people would try more to use freer places, devise their own defenses. But here, the private companies made the right call, and protected democracy & the value of speech, by banning some particularly flagrant opponents of civic decency. Beyond simply too much of the public being run by corporations, it is also deeply unsettling that getting kicked off a corporate network is determined based on single incidents. It is a wide array of behaviors that makes Vertias entirely unsuitable to have their voice supported & hosted by these communicative-capitalist giants, makes them an ill voice to carry. More honest assessments are due, their being kicked off should reflect a broadscale misbehavior, not a single incident. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas

adamcstephens 6y ago

We don’t let the democratically elected government ban speech but unaccountable private corporations are free to censor. These problems aren’t easy, and while I’ve lessened my free speech absolutism a tiny bit, I’m still quite concerned. We have to find a better way.

slackfan 6y ago
Considering the media propping up stories about how free speech is unnecessary and barbaric in our new and modern society, and making censorship a cultural norm - giving an inch is more than giving a mile.
- JuliusPullo 6y ago
  In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.
dmwallin 6y ago
Yes, we don’t let our government, with the tools of state violence and the exclusive right to imprison us, ban speech. However, groups of private citizens, whose powers over the marketplace are/can be heavily limited through existing laws such as antitrust law, enforced by our democratically elected government have no requirement to carry speech they disagree with. It’s surprising to me how quickly the Big Business/Small Government Republican Party switched as soon as they realized that big businesses don’t always have their interests in mind. I suggest looking over to the far left, as they have been discussing ways to curb power of large businesses for decades and also have a healthy respect of the dangers of giving the government too much power as the frequent target of said powers.
- cudgy 6y ago
  Seems like the roles have switched...far left is now in bed with big corp and the right has drifted towards curbing restrictions on free speech by recent surge of big tech social platforms. Makes sense if you think about it. Secular shifts in society away from religion and traditional family structure are more acceptable to far left but less palatable to the right.
  - jjj1232 6y ago
    Far right is 100% in bed with corporations as well. Free speech arguments by those in power on the right are mostly symbolic, and will never get close to _actually_ threatening capital in any way.
    - cudgy 6y ago
      “100%” and “never” are quite unconvincing.
  - dmwallin 6y ago
    The center of the democratic party has been pro-business for decades now (see neo-liberal), albeit with republicans using stronger rhetoric. Another way of looking at it, the center of both parties have been extremelly pro-business, with both the far-left and far-right having some anti-corporate tendencies. Due to recent trends the centers of both parties have lost influence, even more so on the republican side due to a recent far-right presidency. It seems logical that there would be a shift in perception but I think it's really more of a shift in the Overton window. I'm personally very pro free speech but the wrong way to go about it is to give the government more power to compel speech from third parties. Use the tools available to prevent mega corporations from sucking up all the air in the room, then create your own platforms to spread the speech you want to enable. The easy approach of just trying to use government to compel these companies to carry your speech has too many dangerous second and third order effects to seriously consider, especially if your goal is free-speech.
- adamcstephens 6y ago
  When we actually use antitrust laws to limit these massive private companies I may be more on board with letting them do as they please with censor. As it is right now, they’re the lifeline and public square for much of modern life. As you clearly point out, the government can and should hold these companies accountable for their size and actions. The left has plenty of respect for the dangers of both private and public power, but our system doesn’t listen to them because it requires a reflection on the bad parts of capitalism. Twitter and Facebook profit off of speech on their platforms, and actively drive users to content that increase engagement. Furthermore they have no accountability when they cancel people and businesses, which again, the left knows about. We can change the incentives and repercussions without encouraging them to censor speech they unilaterally don’t like.

larrydag 6y ago

"The mission we serve as Twitter, Inc. is to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers. Our business and revenue will always follow that mission in ways that improve – and do not detract from – a free and global conversation." https://investor.twitterinc.com/contact/faq/default.aspx https://investor.twitterinc.com/contact/faq/default.aspx

bitlax 6y ago
This is just corporate doublespeak which clarifies nothing.

m-p-3 6y ago

To be fair, I'm seeing so much bullshit on social media that I've probably reached the threshold of apathy to just don't care and let it all burn.

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 6y ago

I don't feel confident enough to actually represent any group, but what you are saying is wrong, it's just that no one wants to listen when "we" say that the grip of megacorps on the internet is too tight and that we need more support for free software and open protocols instead of walled gardens. We are here, it's just that this is only a part within the things we have been talking about for years, even if it might come as a surprise to the kind of people that probably cheered when things like net neutrality were crippled in the US. I certainly won't defend far right and conspiracy portals that make a career out of harassing people and that don't know the difference between free speech and "freedom of consequence no matter what I say"/"everyone should be forced to listen to me". However at the same time Twitter does not deserve any praise for such a decision. The part we all should agree on (and hopefully do) is that Twitter/Facebook/Google apply their rules pretty much arbitrarily at this point, they might as well remove them because in prominent cases they clearly don't matter. Majority of discourse on the internet should not be subject to the pure arbitrariness of only a few corporations.

silicon2401 6y ago

Civilizations have fallen before, and I worry that this trend of attacking free speech will be looked back on as an early stage in the fall of our current world. It's becoming a cliche now that cyberpunk dystopias more and more resemble our current world

threatofrain 6y ago

Would you feel bothered if Wikipedia banned Project Veritas as a source, and also banned IP's related to Project Veritas? In many ways the stakes are much higher on Wikipedia. How would Project Veritas's freedom of speech translate to Wikipedia's obligation to host and broadcast?

rektide 6y ago

Project Vertias has been at the forefront of free lying for a decade[1]. They have been manipulative, entrapping, dissembling corrupt foes of information & democracy seemingly their entire life. Good riddance. Part of free speech is the public forming an opinion that some voices are wrong, and malicious. The public has a right to defend itself against it's foes, of which Vertias is one, one of a radical extremist & underhanded bent. It IS unfortunate that our public spaces are all operated by a couple communicative-capitalist super-entities, and I wish people would try more to use freer places, devise their own defenses. But here, the private companies made the right call, and protected democracy & the value of speech, by banning some particularly flagrant opponents of civic decency. Beyond simply too much of the public being run by corporations, it is also deeply unsettling that getting kicked off a corporate network is determined based on single incidents. It is a wide array of behaviors that makes Vertias entirely unsuitable to have their voice supported & hosted by these communicative-capitalist giants, makes them an ill voice to carry. More honest assessments are due, their being kicked off should reflect a broadscale misbehavior, not a single incident. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas