10 ms·

> I don't want to live in a world without American freedom of speech - where we can't be blunt and speak our minds. I take issue with this. I'm not hugely adep

> I don't want to live in a world without American freedom of speech - where we can't be blunt and speak our minds. I take issue with this. I'm not hugely adept at history but from my understanding there has never been a time where you can just blurt out a communication and have it be "accepted" by society - this seems to me very American and appears very detached from reality and real world experience. Yes, you are accountable for the communications you make, whether via keybord, orally, or any other way. Yes, you can be killed for the communications you make - this is not new, neither shocking and has been a staple of humanity from the beginning. Yes, you will be cancelled if your joke is taken out of context, or if some journalist finds a tweet and somebody is on an airplane and at the center of a multi-national storm [0]. Textareas like the one you typed in to make your comment give you a lot of freedom, but also a lot of power, and humans are learning with great power wields responsibility. People will take offense at your crass jokes and delete you for it, perhaps it's best to step away and not click "reply" afterall. Your conversation with a friend may be recorded or overheard, perhaps somebody is stalking you and waiting for a golden opportunity to "get" you, perhaps it's possible to form a narrative the media can use that's pieced together just to convince a group then let it spread like wildfire. None of these things are new to humanity, and sometimes there's just nothing within your power you can do to stop it if somebody is motivated enough to want to inflict harm upon you. That's what the world has taught us lately, more people would be wise to learn and take notes. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI

risky_opinions 6y ago
> perhaps it's best to step away and not click "reply" afterall. This is censorship. It's why I'm posting anonymously for the first time in a long time. > there has never been a time where you can just blurt out a communication and have it be "accepted" by society We're in a new era where algorithms amplify rage and "mobs" are a composite of real people, anonymous users, and bots. You can't fight against it, and there's no due process or forgiveness.
- aboringusername 6y ago
  If you think there's been a period of history where you can say what you want, when you want, how you want and not end up dead in a ditch then I'd kindly ask you to reconsider that belief. There are many examples of people who have said things only to end up in a bad way as a result. People have always been targeted for their words, or their beliefs, and sure, we have new ways of amplifying the narrative these days via social media and algorithms/AI, but I wanted to stress this is not new to humanity. All it takes is one motivated human and they can wreck havoc on your life - it may be because you said something they took offense to or simply because they decided they no longer like you. There's a lesson in all of this, think before you speak, and before you tweet. As many examples have taught us it will come back to haunt you. If you want to be a public figure that comes with the job I'm afraid.
  - silasdavis 6y ago
    I don't think anyone in this thread was alluding to a period of history. I think they were making a normative statement.
- soco 6y ago
  "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence": can you please indicate the particular age when it was tolerated to speak your mind freely? Or at least more free than today.
- Trixter 6y ago
  > This is censorship. It's why I'm posting anonymously for the first time in a long time. I think you're confusing censorship with accountability.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    The difference is pretty easy to tell. Censorship is what happens to me. Accountability is what happens to you.
incrudible 6y ago
> Yes, you are accountable for the communications you make, whether via keybord, orally, or any other way. I agree that you are accountable for the things you say. Unfortunately, people are attempting to hold RMS accountable for things he did not say. This situation is the result of willful misinterpretation and dishonest and sensationalist media reporting. The principle of charity must be applied, particularly with people on the Autism spectrum, who aren't necessarily tuned to the sensibilities of society around them.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Roark66 6y ago
  > Yes, you are accountable for the communications you make, whether via keybord, orally, or any other way. I agree that you are accountable for the things you say. Unfortunately, people are attempting to hold RMS accountable for things he did not say. This situation is the result of willful misinterpretation and dishonest and sensationalist media reporting. Hold on here for a moment. We're in our collective two minutes of hate. You have to hate or you WILL be the next object of hate. Truth has nothing to do with it. It really saddens me deeply that our civilisation regressed so much in last few dacades. There are really important topics we should be able to discuss and make better that we can't because of it.
azangru 6y ago
> Yes, you are accountable for the communications you make... > Yes, you can be killed for the communications you make... > Yes, you will be cancelled if your joke is taken out of context... I guess the question here is whether anything can be done to change this. After all, the society has progressed to the point where it has proclaimed freedom of thought / conscience to be an important value, and, ostensibly, has stopped discriminating on religious grounds. There's no significant difference, in my opinion, between writing something in a textarea and collectively praying to a god or proselytizing on the streets.
- moistbar 6y ago
  > the society has progressed to the point where it has proclaimed freedom of thought / conscience to be an important value And then regressed over the course of about 10 years until people started screaming from the rooftops that freedom of speech is a cancer and needs to be outlawed.
ikerdanzel 6y ago
Fully agreed. Unfortunately, being snowflakes and snowflaking because their feelings are hurt blindsided them to what matters. They are a lot of them.
yorwba 6y ago
> People will take offense at your crass jokes and delete you for it, perhaps it's best to step away and not click "reply" afterall. Or do click "reply", because there are billions of people out there and some may take offense, but who cares? Billions of people don't. You can delete them right back, and billions of people will keep not caring. That textarea only gives you a tiny bit of power and it gives everyone else the same tiny bit of power, so why should you fear their power more than they should fear yours?
- Daho0n 6y ago
  Most of those billions are not known or public figures. They don't get canceled out of their job.
astorgard 6y ago
> Yes, you are accountable for the communications you make, whether via keybord, orally, or any other way. Just for the purpose of debating let me bring up my (very unpopular) point of view. I have always thought that anyone should be able to say anything and not have legal consequences (ex: go to prison, pay a fine). Notice that this statement covers all scenarios as long as the person involved "only speaks" (or publishes). In other words, the moment he does something illegal, then he should (in my opinion) be judged according to the rules of the society he lives in. Now... I have never in my live encountered one single person that agrees 100% with me in that regard. They always come up with exceptions, such as these ones: 1) An author writes a book about having sex with minors. 2) A general tells one of his soldiers to shoot a prisoner. 3) My neighbor starts publishing ads on the local newspaper falsely accusing me of being a drug dealer. These are my responses: 1) As long as we don't catch him having sex with minors, that's ok with me. We should encourage all types of debates, even those (specially those!) we are not comfortable with. In the worst case, each one will walk home thinking the other side is wrong; in the best case, maybe we will learn something from each other (maybe we can better understand how the brain of that author works and how we can help him). Simply banning a taboo topic won't make it disappear from society... openly discussing the topic will (in my opinion) be a better long term solution for all. 2) In this case the general is not just "saying" something. Due to the chain of command, the soldier can end up imprisoned or dead if he doesn't comply. I would still defend the right for some random person to publicly state that "we should kill all xxx", not because I agree with him, but because we should be able to discuss the reasons and try to convince him to do otherwise. 3) This is the most tricky one. I still think my neighbor should be able to do that because I expect others who read the newspaper ad to fact check his claims instead of blindly believe them. No one I have ever met agrees with me on this one... and I think that is because people always consider others to be "dumber" than themselves and thus need to be protected from non curated news in case they end up believing them. I really think this is not the case: I never believe anything I read on the newspaper (or online) until I get confirmation from several places and I know most people do the same, no matter how others like to "look down" at "average Joe". I enjoy discussing the limits of "freedom of speech/ideas". Let me know what you (or any other) think :)
- YarickR2 6y ago
Shish2k 6y ago
> None of these things are new to humanity The speed and the scale at which “a random throwaway comment to a friend” can be taken out of context and used to ruin a person’s life are pretty new
- frereubu 6y ago
  Jon Ronson is particularly good on this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07hj3ky https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07hj3ky
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
illustriousbear 6y ago
There is a big difference between fair accountability and the internet mobs that want to wipe out your whole reputation/career. We don't let internet mobs run courts yet we allow them to ruin people's lives for some reason.

risky_opinions 6y ago

> perhaps it's best to step away and not click "reply" afterall. This is censorship. It's why I'm posting anonymously for the first time in a long time. > there has never been a time where you can just blurt out a communication and have it be "accepted" by society We're in a new era where algorithms amplify rage and "mobs" are a composite of real people, anonymous users, and bots. You can't fight against it, and there's no due process or forgiveness.

aboringusername 6y ago
If you think there's been a period of history where you can say what you want, when you want, how you want and not end up dead in a ditch then I'd kindly ask you to reconsider that belief. There are many examples of people who have said things only to end up in a bad way as a result. People have always been targeted for their words, or their beliefs, and sure, we have new ways of amplifying the narrative these days via social media and algorithms/AI, but I wanted to stress this is not new to humanity. All it takes is one motivated human and they can wreck havoc on your life - it may be because you said something they took offense to or simply because they decided they no longer like you. There's a lesson in all of this, think before you speak, and before you tweet. As many examples have taught us it will come back to haunt you. If you want to be a public figure that comes with the job I'm afraid.
- silasdavis 6y ago
  I don't think anyone in this thread was alluding to a period of history. I think they were making a normative statement.
soco 6y ago
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence": can you please indicate the particular age when it was tolerated to speak your mind freely? Or at least more free than today.
Trixter 6y ago
> This is censorship. It's why I'm posting anonymously for the first time in a long time. I think you're confusing censorship with accountability.
- jfengel 6y ago
  The difference is pretty easy to tell. Censorship is what happens to me. Accountability is what happens to you.

incrudible 6y ago

> Yes, you are accountable for the communications you make, whether via keybord, orally, or any other way. I agree that you are accountable for the things you say. Unfortunately, people are attempting to hold RMS accountable for things he did not say. This situation is the result of willful misinterpretation and dishonest and sensationalist media reporting. The principle of charity must be applied, particularly with people on the Autism spectrum, who aren't necessarily tuned to the sensibilities of society around them.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Roark66 6y ago
> Yes, you are accountable for the communications you make, whether via keybord, orally, or any other way. I agree that you are accountable for the things you say. Unfortunately, people are attempting to hold RMS accountable for things he did not say. This situation is the result of willful misinterpretation and dishonest and sensationalist media reporting. Hold on here for a moment. We're in our collective two minutes of hate. You have to hate or you WILL be the next object of hate. Truth has nothing to do with it. It really saddens me deeply that our civilisation regressed so much in last few dacades. There are really important topics we should be able to discuss and make better that we can't because of it.

azangru 6y ago

> Yes, you are accountable for the communications you make... > Yes, you can be killed for the communications you make... > Yes, you will be cancelled if your joke is taken out of context... I guess the question here is whether anything can be done to change this. After all, the society has progressed to the point where it has proclaimed freedom of thought / conscience to be an important value, and, ostensibly, has stopped discriminating on religious grounds. There's no significant difference, in my opinion, between writing something in a textarea and collectively praying to a god or proselytizing on the streets.

moistbar 6y ago
> the society has progressed to the point where it has proclaimed freedom of thought / conscience to be an important value And then regressed over the course of about 10 years until people started screaming from the rooftops that freedom of speech is a cancer and needs to be outlawed.

ikerdanzel 6y ago

Fully agreed. Unfortunately, being snowflakes and snowflaking because their feelings are hurt blindsided them to what matters. They are a lot of them.

yorwba 6y ago

> People will take offense at your crass jokes and delete you for it, perhaps it's best to step away and not click "reply" afterall. Or do click "reply", because there are billions of people out there and some may take offense, but who cares? Billions of people don't. You can delete them right back, and billions of people will keep not caring. That textarea only gives you a tiny bit of power and it gives everyone else the same tiny bit of power, so why should you fear their power more than they should fear yours?

Daho0n 6y ago
Most of those billions are not known or public figures. They don't get canceled out of their job.

astorgard 6y ago

> Yes, you are accountable for the communications you make, whether via keybord, orally, or any other way. Just for the purpose of debating let me bring up my (very unpopular) point of view. I have always thought that anyone should be able to say anything and not have legal consequences (ex: go to prison, pay a fine). Notice that this statement covers all scenarios as long as the person involved "only speaks" (or publishes). In other words, the moment he does something illegal, then he should (in my opinion) be judged according to the rules of the society he lives in. Now... I have never in my live encountered one single person that agrees 100% with me in that regard. They always come up with exceptions, such as these ones: 1) An author writes a book about having sex with minors. 2) A general tells one of his soldiers to shoot a prisoner. 3) My neighbor starts publishing ads on the local newspaper falsely accusing me of being a drug dealer. These are my responses: 1) As long as we don't catch him having sex with minors, that's ok with me. We should encourage all types of debates, even those (specially those!) we are not comfortable with. In the worst case, each one will walk home thinking the other side is wrong; in the best case, maybe we will learn something from each other (maybe we can better understand how the brain of that author works and how we can help him). Simply banning a taboo topic won't make it disappear from society... openly discussing the topic will (in my opinion) be a better long term solution for all. 2) In this case the general is not just "saying" something. Due to the chain of command, the soldier can end up imprisoned or dead if he doesn't comply. I would still defend the right for some random person to publicly state that "we should kill all xxx", not because I agree with him, but because we should be able to discuss the reasons and try to convince him to do otherwise. 3) This is the most tricky one. I still think my neighbor should be able to do that because I expect others who read the newspaper ad to fact check his claims instead of blindly believe them. No one I have ever met agrees with me on this one... and I think that is because people always consider others to be "dumber" than themselves and thus need to be protected from non curated news in case they end up believing them. I really think this is not the case: I never believe anything I read on the newspaper (or online) until I get confirmation from several places and I know most people do the same, no matter how others like to "look down" at "average Joe". I enjoy discussing the limits of "freedom of speech/ideas". Let me know what you (or any other) think :)

YarickR2 6y ago

Shish2k 6y ago

> None of these things are new to humanity The speed and the scale at which “a random throwaway comment to a friend” can be taken out of context and used to ruin a person’s life are pretty new

frereubu 6y ago
Jon Ronson is particularly good on this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07hj3ky https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07hj3ky
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

illustriousbear 6y ago

There is a big difference between fair accountability and the internet mobs that want to wipe out your whole reputation/career. We don't let internet mobs run courts yet we allow them to ruin people's lives for some reason.