4 ms·

Respectful nitpick: maybe you mean "Freedom of speech/expression should be a right of every individual on this planet" Also, one thing is to wish for universal

Respectful nitpick: maybe you mean "Freedom of speech/expression should be a right of every individual on this planet" Also, one thing is to wish for universal freedom of speech, another one is for a given community, or country, to impose its views on free speech (and limitations thereof) to another community. Edit: typo

cblconfederate 6y ago
It is a Human Right according to the UN declaration. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ both Turkey and facebooks home, the US , have signed it
- sdeframond 6y ago
  That's correct. As an anecdote, I was pretty shocked when some foreigner friend told me "universal" human rights can actually be perceived as more of a "western imperialism" thing. While I still think human rights are a thing, I can understand that they have been used hypocritically many times through history. Regarding TFA, I am unsure whether I'd rather FB to impose US's views on freespeech to Turkey or to respect whatever the local government is telling it to do.
  - LegitShady 6y ago
    >Regarding TFA, I am unsure whether I'd rather FB to impose US's views on freespeech to Turkey or to respect whatever the local government is telling it to do. You have it backwards, facebook et al will slowly kill free speech in the US while claiming to be pro free speech. We have before us the greatest setup for fascism in history, and these tech companies should allow themselves to be banned from countries before cooperating with governments to silence speech. Instead expect them to help authoritarians silence dissent.
    - sdeframond 6y ago
      I am very wary of FB. In fact I deleted my account about 10 years ago (God knows I had to jump through hoops for this). Still using Whatsapp but mainly Signal. Truth is one does not need Facebook at all. Don't rely on it for getting news, don't rely on it for giving news. > these tech companies should allow themselves to be banned So you expect Big Corp to have a conscience? How cute :P
boomboomsubban 6y ago
>should be No, "is" is correct. Everybody has the same intrinsic right to free speech at birth. You think that given communities should choose for themselves whether that right can be infringed. This is basically the US' answer to the "divine right of monarchy." If you say that speech "should be" the right l of every individual, you are giving the government an automatic place of authority over the citizen,claiming they get to choose what rights people have.
- sdeframond 6y ago
  Yes it is correct, in theory at least ;)
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    There is no "theory," these things aren't based on science.
    - sdeframond 6y ago
      What I mean is that I don't know any community without practical limitations on free speech. The way I see it, we decided as a society that every individual was entitled to fundamental human rights. We also decided in practice that it would be good to put limits on some of these rights, especially when one interferes with another (try insulting a cop or denying the Shoah for example, or insulting the King in Thailand, etc etc). Different communities/countries have different views on what limitations to apply, even though they may all agree on these fundamental human rights. Regarding FB's policy in foreign countries, the case can made that they should respect those countries' choices, even though they are different from USA's choices. Otherwise it can arguably be perceived as US imperialism.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        Everything you mention is separate from my point, which has nothing to do with free speech. You're view is that practical limitations on free speech are limits placed on a freedom granted you, while I'd say they are infringements allowed on my inherent right. Your notion that this is a small nitpick, or a theory that may be disproved is the wrong way of looking at it. It's two separate ways of looking at the same thing, neither more or less true than the other.

cblconfederate 6y ago

It is a Human Right according to the UN declaration. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ both Turkey and facebooks home, the US , have signed it

sdeframond 6y ago
That's correct. As an anecdote, I was pretty shocked when some foreigner friend told me "universal" human rights can actually be perceived as more of a "western imperialism" thing. While I still think human rights are a thing, I can understand that they have been used hypocritically many times through history. Regarding TFA, I am unsure whether I'd rather FB to impose US's views on freespeech to Turkey or to respect whatever the local government is telling it to do.
- LegitShady 6y ago
  >Regarding TFA, I am unsure whether I'd rather FB to impose US's views on freespeech to Turkey or to respect whatever the local government is telling it to do. You have it backwards, facebook et al will slowly kill free speech in the US while claiming to be pro free speech. We have before us the greatest setup for fascism in history, and these tech companies should allow themselves to be banned from countries before cooperating with governments to silence speech. Instead expect them to help authoritarians silence dissent.
  - sdeframond 6y ago
    I am very wary of FB. In fact I deleted my account about 10 years ago (God knows I had to jump through hoops for this). Still using Whatsapp but mainly Signal. Truth is one does not need Facebook at all. Don't rely on it for getting news, don't rely on it for giving news. > these tech companies should allow themselves to be banned So you expect Big Corp to have a conscience? How cute :P

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>should be No, "is" is correct. Everybody has the same intrinsic right to free speech at birth. You think that given communities should choose for themselves whether that right can be infringed. This is basically the US' answer to the "divine right of monarchy." If you say that speech "should be" the right l of every individual, you are giving the government an automatic place of authority over the citizen,claiming they get to choose what rights people have.

sdeframond 6y ago
Yes it is correct, in theory at least ;)
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  There is no "theory," these things aren't based on science.
  - sdeframond 6y ago
    What I mean is that I don't know any community without practical limitations on free speech. The way I see it, we decided as a society that every individual was entitled to fundamental human rights. We also decided in practice that it would be good to put limits on some of these rights, especially when one interferes with another (try insulting a cop or denying the Shoah for example, or insulting the King in Thailand, etc etc). Different communities/countries have different views on what limitations to apply, even though they may all agree on these fundamental human rights. Regarding FB's policy in foreign countries, the case can made that they should respect those countries' choices, even though they are different from USA's choices. Otherwise it can arguably be perceived as US imperialism.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      Everything you mention is separate from my point, which has nothing to do with free speech. You're view is that practical limitations on free speech are limits placed on a freedom granted you, while I'd say they are infringements allowed on my inherent right. Your notion that this is a small nitpick, or a theory that may be disproved is the wrong way of looking at it. It's two separate ways of looking at the same thing, neither more or less true than the other.