4 ms·

Let’s compare these sets of people: 1. who reacts most strongly to this story about deplatforming porn 2. who reacts most strongly to stories about deplatform

Let’s compare these sets of people: 1. who reacts most strongly to this story about deplatforming porn 2. who reacts most strongly to stories about deplatforming hate speech and incitement And try to figure out if the two groups have different principles about free expression, or perhaps the principles are irrelevant and only function as justifications when convenient for some kind of tribalism.

ceejayoz 6y ago
Government deplatforming and private industry deplatforming are vastly different things, especially at a Constitutional level.
- imwillofficial 6y ago
  They aren’t when tax dollars go into the pockets of BigTech, of which every single one of them has massive government contracts. Every one.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    That's not how the First Amendment works. At all.
    - imwillofficial 6y ago
      Your tired argument falls flat. Yes, the first admenement applies to government, but when government and private companies are so unified in task and purpose, as well as value exchange, the distinction between the two is meaningless. So no “muh private companies” holds zero water. At all.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
  Sure, but there have been proposed laws requiring deplatforming of hate speech, and some have even passed: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/tech/french-hate-speech-social-media-law/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/tech/french-hate-speech-socia... Many keyboards have been worn out debating about the difference between the first amendment and free speech, but can we isolate to one case or the other here and set that issue aside in one thread?
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > French parliament C'mon.
    - fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
      So when debating the merits of government policy, we can’t talk about Utah and France in the same conversation? I understand that this would make it harder to fit into local tribalist conflicts.
      - vinger 6y ago
        Both are church driven societies
  - lallysingh 6y ago
    Which government and which people? The link's about French laws. The parent article is a state in the USA. Different beliefs in many areas.
    - fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
      Ok, if a law that passed in France isn’t relevant, let’s look at proposals from politicians in the US: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/3/20965459/tech-2020-candidate-policies-section230-facebook-misinformation-hate-speech https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/3/20965459/t... I enjoy splitting hairs too, but I feel that the distinction between government and platform authority, and Europe and US law, would be used by either side of the porn-deplatforming-supporter and hate-speech-deplatforming-supporter dichotomy when convenient, so is not really a relevant distinction. We can probably locate similar proposals from each of the government/commercial (authority) and porn/hate-speech (content) quadrants, and observe the same dichotomy of reactions. I feel these are all just justifications that people will deploy when applicable to the tribe they are defending, they don’t explain away the tribes.
      - lallysingh 6y ago
inglor_cz 6y ago
I am one of those people who dislikes both. Not least because they complement and reinforce each other, plus the mania of the woke really looks like a redirected religious fervor to me. Perhaps people cannot really exist without some ersatz religion, so if Christianity goes away, something else takes its place. If you can filter out X, you can filter out Y, and once you have a censorship system in place, the list of banned things will only get longer and longer, especially if the main qualification is that someone feels offended by that.
bitdizzy 6y ago
What do you mean by tribalism? What is inconsistent about thinking hate speech should be deplatformed and porn shouldn't be? Or vice versa? It seems to me like you're implying that the only reasonable and honest principle of free expression is completely absolute and anything else is cynical. People can agree on the value of free expression and agree that there should be limits which align with their values while their values diverge. Is people having different values tribalism?
- fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
  I think it’s consistent to believe that free expression allows for deplatforming, and then to have a belief about when deplatforming is necessary. I don’t think it’s consistent to think that deplatforming is wrong, but only when the type of deplatforming that was most recently brought to your attention is a kind you don’t like. I think “free expression” in this context is more like a tool for argumentation than a real principle that people hold, so people forget about it when convenient. (people who always or never support deplatforming get points for consistency)
  - bitdizzy 6y ago
    Do you think the distinction between government interdiction and private is immaterial? I think I regard the distinction between business and government a lot less than most but still understand that there are significant differences between the two and some people think those differences are extremely important. But what is meant by tribalism?
    - fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
      In this other thread I point out examples of government passing and proposing regulations about hate speech deplatforming: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26363013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26363013 By tribalism, I mean that people have an intuition for whether the deplatforming is promoted by, or used against, people who they identify with, and that guides their views on whether deplatforming is appropriate. For example, people in one tribe have recently been identifying with people who got deplatformed for hate speech or incitement and they believe these efforts are driven by the repressive values of another tribe. Others read the story about porn and think about how Utah legislators are part of some other tribe, and that leads that to make some argument from free expression (I think the highest rated comment here about “small government” is a good example). You could make an argument that’s more tribe-independent like this: “limiting freedom of expression by deplatforming is appropriate, but only to prevent a legitimate harm”. Then the two tribes would try to justify their side by debating about which harms are legitimate, which at least has a chance of being data-driven. People who say that deplatforming is never or always appropriate get points for consistency. But I suspect that their comments will mostly be upvoted on stories where the principle aligns with the more prevalent tribe.
vinger 6y ago
Deplatforming anyone is foolish. Anyone who thinks otherwise will be deplatformed.

ceejayoz 6y ago

Government deplatforming and private industry deplatforming are vastly different things, especially at a Constitutional level.

imwillofficial 6y ago
They aren’t when tax dollars go into the pockets of BigTech, of which every single one of them has massive government contracts. Every one.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  That's not how the First Amendment works. At all.
  - imwillofficial 6y ago
    Your tired argument falls flat. Yes, the first admenement applies to government, but when government and private companies are so unified in task and purpose, as well as value exchange, the distinction between the two is meaningless. So no “muh private companies” holds zero water. At all.
fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
Sure, but there have been proposed laws requiring deplatforming of hate speech, and some have even passed: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/tech/french-hate-speech-social-media-law/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/tech/french-hate-speech-socia... Many keyboards have been worn out debating about the difference between the first amendment and free speech, but can we isolate to one case or the other here and set that issue aside in one thread?
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > French parliament C'mon.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
    So when debating the merits of government policy, we can’t talk about Utah and France in the same conversation? I understand that this would make it harder to fit into local tribalist conflicts.
    - vinger 6y ago
      Both are church driven societies
- lallysingh 6y ago
  Which government and which people? The link's about French laws. The parent article is a state in the USA. Different beliefs in many areas.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
    Ok, if a law that passed in France isn’t relevant, let’s look at proposals from politicians in the US: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/3/20965459/tech-2020-candidate-policies-section230-facebook-misinformation-hate-speech https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/3/20965459/t... I enjoy splitting hairs too, but I feel that the distinction between government and platform authority, and Europe and US law, would be used by either side of the porn-deplatforming-supporter and hate-speech-deplatforming-supporter dichotomy when convenient, so is not really a relevant distinction. We can probably locate similar proposals from each of the government/commercial (authority) and porn/hate-speech (content) quadrants, and observe the same dichotomy of reactions. I feel these are all just justifications that people will deploy when applicable to the tribe they are defending, they don’t explain away the tribes.
    - lallysingh 6y ago

inglor_cz 6y ago

I am one of those people who dislikes both. Not least because they complement and reinforce each other, plus the mania of the woke really looks like a redirected religious fervor to me. Perhaps people cannot really exist without some ersatz religion, so if Christianity goes away, something else takes its place. If you can filter out X, you can filter out Y, and once you have a censorship system in place, the list of banned things will only get longer and longer, especially if the main qualification is that someone feels offended by that.

bitdizzy 6y ago

What do you mean by tribalism? What is inconsistent about thinking hate speech should be deplatformed and porn shouldn't be? Or vice versa? It seems to me like you're implying that the only reasonable and honest principle of free expression is completely absolute and anything else is cynical. People can agree on the value of free expression and agree that there should be limits which align with their values while their values diverge. Is people having different values tribalism?

fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
I think it’s consistent to believe that free expression allows for deplatforming, and then to have a belief about when deplatforming is necessary. I don’t think it’s consistent to think that deplatforming is wrong, but only when the type of deplatforming that was most recently brought to your attention is a kind you don’t like. I think “free expression” in this context is more like a tool for argumentation than a real principle that people hold, so people forget about it when convenient. (people who always or never support deplatforming get points for consistency)
- bitdizzy 6y ago
  Do you think the distinction between government interdiction and private is immaterial? I think I regard the distinction between business and government a lot less than most but still understand that there are significant differences between the two and some people think those differences are extremely important. But what is meant by tribalism?
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
    In this other thread I point out examples of government passing and proposing regulations about hate speech deplatforming: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26363013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26363013 By tribalism, I mean that people have an intuition for whether the deplatforming is promoted by, or used against, people who they identify with, and that guides their views on whether deplatforming is appropriate. For example, people in one tribe have recently been identifying with people who got deplatformed for hate speech or incitement and they believe these efforts are driven by the repressive values of another tribe. Others read the story about porn and think about how Utah legislators are part of some other tribe, and that leads that to make some argument from free expression (I think the highest rated comment here about “small government” is a good example). You could make an argument that’s more tribe-independent like this: “limiting freedom of expression by deplatforming is appropriate, but only to prevent a legitimate harm”. Then the two tribes would try to justify their side by debating about which harms are legitimate, which at least has a chance of being data-driven. People who say that deplatforming is never or always appropriate get points for consistency. But I suspect that their comments will mostly be upvoted on stories where the principle aligns with the more prevalent tribe.

vinger 6y ago

Deplatforming anyone is foolish. Anyone who thinks otherwise will be deplatformed.