3 ms·

There's a difference between "freely expressing your ideas" and eg. plotting a vigilante kidnapping. The former should be protected, the latter should be repor

by yarcob 6y ago

There's a difference between "freely expressing your ideas" and eg. plotting a vigilante kidnapping. The former should be protected, the latter should be reported to the police. A lot of the people who say they want free speech actually have some kind of anarchist fantasy where they can do whatever they want without consequences. It seems like you care about free speech, not anarchism, so I'm not sure why the blog post offends you so much? As I understood it, the blog post just makes it clear that "free speech" to them does not mean "lawless place where you can hide from the police". Nowhere in the blog post does it say that they will only allow content or opinions that they agree with.

busymom0 6y ago
Why are we letting tech companies become self appointed judge and jury, often forced to do so by online mobs? There's a full legal system to take care of those who actually incite violence/plot kidnapping etc. Nobody is talking about defending them.
- hamburglar 6y ago
  You’re talking about forcing a company like nfshost to help them in their illegal and/or immoral endeavors? Companies have a right to fire customers they don’t like, with a few very well-specified exceptions. You’re trying to take away that right?
- ajkjk 6y ago
  Well they're not really a judge and jury, they're reporting you to the police who involve the judge and jury. It's not like the web host is sending anyone to jail. They're just refusing to business with crappy people, which is something all business get to do.
- zeckalpha 6y ago
  The legal system requires companies to do so, not online mobs.
bluecatswim 6y ago
Maybe I'm reading too much into it but that blogpost doesn't sound like it's about anarchism or illegal content to me, it's sounds more like them justifying shutting down "problematic" content (like what happened with Gab or Parler). They also have a paragraph towards the end about how they don't want to host "racists".
adkadskhj 6y ago
Yea, this is where my line is. I absolutely believe in full free speech. However, i do not believe free speech is the same as a broadcast (televised, viral, etc). Yes, it's muddy water, but so is everything. There's nuance in threatening to kill someone. However i think we're in a new age, and we need to analyze where free speech changes into coordinated/group-think hysteria. Which isn't to say that we should tightly control coordinated communication. Rather it's just that i think the two are different, and i think the modern age requires us to recognize that and discuss it. We're in the age of misinformation. And a nutter yelling on a street corner is one thing, but giving him a TV Show in Prime Time is another. The damage he can do on a street corner? Minimal. The damage when broadcast to the world? That is the concern to me.

by yarcob 6y ago

busymom0 6y ago

Why are we letting tech companies become self appointed judge and jury, often forced to do so by online mobs? There's a full legal system to take care of those who actually incite violence/plot kidnapping etc. Nobody is talking about defending them.

hamburglar 6y ago
You’re talking about forcing a company like nfshost to help them in their illegal and/or immoral endeavors? Companies have a right to fire customers they don’t like, with a few very well-specified exceptions. You’re trying to take away that right?
ajkjk 6y ago
Well they're not really a judge and jury, they're reporting you to the police who involve the judge and jury. It's not like the web host is sending anyone to jail. They're just refusing to business with crappy people, which is something all business get to do.
zeckalpha 6y ago
The legal system requires companies to do so, not online mobs.

bluecatswim 6y ago

Maybe I'm reading too much into it but that blogpost doesn't sound like it's about anarchism or illegal content to me, it's sounds more like them justifying shutting down "problematic" content (like what happened with Gab or Parler). They also have a paragraph towards the end about how they don't want to host "racists".

adkadskhj 6y ago

Yea, this is where my line is. I absolutely believe in full free speech. However, i do not believe free speech is the same as a broadcast (televised, viral, etc). Yes, it's muddy water, but so is everything. There's nuance in threatening to kill someone. However i think we're in a new age, and we need to analyze where free speech changes into coordinated/group-think hysteria. Which isn't to say that we should tightly control coordinated communication. Rather it's just that i think the two are different, and i think the modern age requires us to recognize that and discuss it. We're in the age of misinformation. And a nutter yelling on a street corner is one thing, but giving him a TV Show in Prime Time is another. The damage he can do on a street corner? Minimal. The damage when broadcast to the world? That is the concern to me.