10 ms·

Is there any doubt that we've entered the era of approved, or not free speech. 'Severe misconduct' today means racist behaviour, perhaps tomorrow it means suppo

by cik 6y ago

Is there any doubt that we've entered the era of approved, or not free speech. 'Severe misconduct' today means racist behaviour, perhaps tomorrow it means support for the NRA, or anti-environmental behaviour. The thought police have finally invaded ever part of society.

vsareto 6y ago
Companies were already willing to fire you for posting racist stuff before Twitch made this decision.
- secondcoming 6y ago
  Posting racist stuff just means you're stupid and the company made a mistake in hiring you.
  - zionic 6y ago
    We're already way beyond that. I saw someone get fired because their wife tweeted something that wasn't PC 10 years ago and a coworker found it.
  - dimgl 6y ago
    The issue with this sentiment is that while some things are blatantly racist, there are other things that aren't so black and white. This is one of those slippery slopes where if left unchecked, anything and everything will be considered racist. Also, you don't have to have good morals or even be intelligent to be good at your job. Some people are fantastic at their job, but are pretty damn "stupid" as you put it.
    - TameAntelope 6y ago
      Isn't this slippery slope argument technically a logical fallacy? Wouldn't we just not accept the unacceptable change?
      - adzzzz 6y ago
        That the slippery slope is an inevitability is the fallacy, not that it exists. See also "Overton window"
      - kevinpet 6y ago
        No, because of group dynamics. Once you start un-personing people, you have the in group and the out group. The in-group repeatedly redefines acceptable behavior to exclude some small margin. Repeat and you end up with absurd extremes.
      - BitwiseFool 6y ago
        Slippery Slope is not necessarily a fallacy because it's a very real phenomenon. My test is examining the "slippery slope" by asking if it instead "establishes a precedent". And then I see how easy it might be to justify going further down such a path based on past justifications.
        TameAntelope 6y ago
        Fair, I just don't see how my acquiescence to one thing is an endorsement of a distinct, if similar, thing. I guess I reject the idea that policy (a well considered and debated, long lasting decision) would actually fall for something like a slippery slope. The proverbial boiled frog just jumps out of the pot when the water gets too hot, in reality.
        BitwiseFool 6y ago
        I appreciate that, and for what it's worth I agree you that slippery slope/establishing a precedent is countered with concrete and well thought out criteria that need to be met.
    - c1337us 6y ago
      > if left unchecked, anything and everything will be considered racist. Interesting that you feel that way. It's certainly not something I'm worried about.
    - colinmhayes 6y ago
      Examples of people being fired for saying things that "aren't so black and white"?
      - esyir 6y ago
        Damore? Doubly so if you've actually read his report.
- challengly 6y ago
  Yes, but that was when we had an agreed upon definition. Now the definition is so broad it includes mere disagreement.
- malandrew 6y ago
  The word "racism" has become mutable to the point where it has lost all meaning. Who knows what things that aren't considered in the least bit racism today will be considered racist in 10 to 20 years time as institutions that only exist to combat racism keep broadening the scope of what is racist to continue to justify their very existence (i.e. the Shirky Principle).
tenebrisalietum 6y ago
If your speech is really valuable you shouldn't depend on the free services of a privately-owned ad-supported company meant for streaming games to propagate it. Furthermore speech as the forefathers probably meant was people physically going to town squares and talking there. There is free press, which is what social media is more like, and the owner of a press has the right to decide what he/she will print--the Constitution prevents government interference, not private interference.
- dimgl 6y ago
  Just because you (and dozens of others on this site) continue make this argument over and over doesn't mean that it isn't a problem. Edit: someone built that town square. Someone founded those forums. At the end of the day, someone is always in control of something.
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    Free speech includes reacting to what someone else has said. You can make an argument about whether or not people should have thicker skin, but you can't make an argument that people should not be allowed to react to speech without forfeiting the moral concept of freedom of speech. Someone did build the town square, and if that someone was a private entity, that someone can kick everyone right the heck out of the town square, because it's theirs. If the people of the town want to make that reality different, they should probably band together and purchase the town square and own it collectively, as a government. If you think Twitch, Twitter, HN or Reddit are such critical infrastructure, then you should lobby your government to purchase them.
    - ipaddr 6y ago
      They are like a mall. It appears to be a public space. It shares the characterics of one. But at it's heart it is a private space with camera everywhere and eager to throwout those who do not appear to be the norm. Homeless, poor, young and oddities get removed from malls for being themselves. We're seeing the same online. Governments don't buy malls. Malls are designed to get you to spend. These sites want you to spend and if you do or don't they will send all of the info they collected about you and sell it to someone else. We need more hobbiest sites. Government should provide free spaces.
throwawaygh 6y ago
You can host nearly anything you want here for a modest fee: https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/ https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/ No one owes you free hosting or access to their audience platform. If you take free shit from someone, expect to be at their mercy. It's really not that complicated or dystopian.
Bud 6y ago
Please look up what "free speech" actually means, in order to disabuse yourself of the notion that private companies' actions have anything to do with it.
- colllectorof 6y ago
  No. If you know anything about history, you know that attacks on free speech do not have to start or stop with official government sanction. In Soviet Union it wasn't uncommon for dissidents and their families to be nominally "free", while being unable to find employment, housing or otherwise get basics for operating in the society. It worked through a backstage "reputation" system that begins to look eerily familiar. And BTW, the driving force behind a lot of free speech suppression in the past wasn't "the government" per se but "the party" that happened to control the government.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > It worked through a backstage "reputation" system that begins to look eerily familiar. A system that was government driven. Don't try to pretend that decentralized consequences are authoritarian.
    - malandrew 6y ago
      Hollywood Blacklists during the Red Scare were a backstage reputation system that kept people from being employable in an industry. There was nothing officially government driven about those blacklists. Lots of it was nod and wink and soft coercion. Merely associating with the "wrong" people was enough to get you blacklisted.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        Joseph McCarthy and HUAC weren't the government? Yes, under threat of government sanction, in violation of their first amendment rights, companies were coerced by the government to blacklist people. It was absolutely government driven. I never said it needed to be official. Official or not, that's not what we're experiencing today, where republican lawmakers are threatening companies for not doing what they want, and the companies are mostly ignoring them.
justapassenger 6y ago
You should really educate yourself on what free speech actually is in USA. It protects you, from government limiting your speech (with some exceptions). Private companies can do whatever they want - that’s their free speech law, that was reaffirmed by Supreme Court in 2010. I don’t support twitch decision, but it’s their business, they are free to set their own rules. And I’m free not to use their services as a result.
- fX0rObfoMN4 6y ago
  You are talking about the 1st amendment. Free speech is a principle whereas the 1st amendment restricts the government from violating that principle in its relations with the populace.
  - crowbahr 6y ago
    Right, and it's worth emphasizing that companies do not provide free speech, nor are they required to. If you want that to change talk to Congress.
  - justapassenger 6y ago
    Free speech as a principle you’re after (aka truly free speech without any consequences whatsoever) never existed. You’re free to say whatever you want, and I’m free to take actions based on that. You cannot give free speech benefits only to one side of the argument.
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      without any consequences This is a pretty big distraction that is often used in these types of discussions. It's a distortion of what people actually want. The "consequences" being advocated are often just the whims of today's favored group. Giving free speech benefits to only one side of the argument is exactly what people are asking for when they ask for "consequences" -- freedom for A, consequences for B.
      - 6y ago
paxys 6y ago
What was this magical era of free speech that people keep referring to?
- goatcode 6y ago
  Some time up until people started getting the internet on their phones, roughly. Of course, no definition is perfect.
  - paxys 6y ago
    Before people had internet it was ~5 media companies that decided what could be said in public and who could say it. It was hardly as "free" as people imagine.
    - danlugo92 6y ago
      He did not say "before internet".
    - corndoge 6y ago
      And when they had internet but before they had it on their phones, you could work around those media companies by saying things online. I believe parent was referring to that period.
      - marcinzm 6y ago
        And very few people, relatively, were online so you could reach only a small number of people. You can probably still reach just as many people online in unmoderated channels as you could back then.
    - leephillips 6y ago
      This was never true. Anyone could stand on the street corner and say anything. Anyone with some spare cash could print up political booklets or flyers and hand them out, and many did.

by cik 6y ago

vsareto 6y ago

Companies were already willing to fire you for posting racist stuff before Twitch made this decision.

secondcoming 6y ago
Posting racist stuff just means you're stupid and the company made a mistake in hiring you.
- zionic 6y ago
  We're already way beyond that. I saw someone get fired because their wife tweeted something that wasn't PC 10 years ago and a coworker found it.
- dimgl 6y ago
  The issue with this sentiment is that while some things are blatantly racist, there are other things that aren't so black and white. This is one of those slippery slopes where if left unchecked, anything and everything will be considered racist. Also, you don't have to have good morals or even be intelligent to be good at your job. Some people are fantastic at their job, but are pretty damn "stupid" as you put it.
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    Isn't this slippery slope argument technically a logical fallacy? Wouldn't we just not accept the unacceptable change?
    - adzzzz 6y ago
      That the slippery slope is an inevitability is the fallacy, not that it exists. See also "Overton window"
    - kevinpet 6y ago
      No, because of group dynamics. Once you start un-personing people, you have the in group and the out group. The in-group repeatedly redefines acceptable behavior to exclude some small margin. Repeat and you end up with absurd extremes.
    - BitwiseFool 6y ago
      Slippery Slope is not necessarily a fallacy because it's a very real phenomenon. My test is examining the "slippery slope" by asking if it instead "establishes a precedent". And then I see how easy it might be to justify going further down such a path based on past justifications.
      - TameAntelope 6y ago
        Fair, I just don't see how my acquiescence to one thing is an endorsement of a distinct, if similar, thing. I guess I reject the idea that policy (a well considered and debated, long lasting decision) would actually fall for something like a slippery slope. The proverbial boiled frog just jumps out of the pot when the water gets too hot, in reality.
        BitwiseFool 6y ago
        I appreciate that, and for what it's worth I agree you that slippery slope/establishing a precedent is countered with concrete and well thought out criteria that need to be met.
  - c1337us 6y ago
    > if left unchecked, anything and everything will be considered racist. Interesting that you feel that way. It's certainly not something I'm worried about.
  - colinmhayes 6y ago
    Examples of people being fired for saying things that "aren't so black and white"?
    - esyir 6y ago
      Damore? Doubly so if you've actually read his report.
challengly 6y ago
Yes, but that was when we had an agreed upon definition. Now the definition is so broad it includes mere disagreement.
malandrew 6y ago
The word "racism" has become mutable to the point where it has lost all meaning. Who knows what things that aren't considered in the least bit racism today will be considered racist in 10 to 20 years time as institutions that only exist to combat racism keep broadening the scope of what is racist to continue to justify their very existence (i.e. the Shirky Principle).

tenebrisalietum 6y ago

If your speech is really valuable you shouldn't depend on the free services of a privately-owned ad-supported company meant for streaming games to propagate it. Furthermore speech as the forefathers probably meant was people physically going to town squares and talking there. There is free press, which is what social media is more like, and the owner of a press has the right to decide what he/she will print--the Constitution prevents government interference, not private interference.

dimgl 6y ago
Just because you (and dozens of others on this site) continue make this argument over and over doesn't mean that it isn't a problem. Edit: someone built that town square. Someone founded those forums. At the end of the day, someone is always in control of something.
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  Free speech includes reacting to what someone else has said. You can make an argument about whether or not people should have thicker skin, but you can't make an argument that people should not be allowed to react to speech without forfeiting the moral concept of freedom of speech. Someone did build the town square, and if that someone was a private entity, that someone can kick everyone right the heck out of the town square, because it's theirs. If the people of the town want to make that reality different, they should probably band together and purchase the town square and own it collectively, as a government. If you think Twitch, Twitter, HN or Reddit are such critical infrastructure, then you should lobby your government to purchase them.
  - ipaddr 6y ago
    They are like a mall. It appears to be a public space. It shares the characterics of one. But at it's heart it is a private space with camera everywhere and eager to throwout those who do not appear to be the norm. Homeless, poor, young and oddities get removed from malls for being themselves. We're seeing the same online. Governments don't buy malls. Malls are designed to get you to spend. These sites want you to spend and if you do or don't they will send all of the info they collected about you and sell it to someone else. We need more hobbiest sites. Government should provide free spaces.

throwawaygh 6y ago

You can host nearly anything you want here for a modest fee: https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/ https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/ No one owes you free hosting or access to their audience platform. If you take free shit from someone, expect to be at their mercy. It's really not that complicated or dystopian.

Bud 6y ago

Please look up what "free speech" actually means, in order to disabuse yourself of the notion that private companies' actions have anything to do with it.

colllectorof 6y ago
No. If you know anything about history, you know that attacks on free speech do not have to start or stop with official government sanction. In Soviet Union it wasn't uncommon for dissidents and their families to be nominally "free", while being unable to find employment, housing or otherwise get basics for operating in the society. It worked through a backstage "reputation" system that begins to look eerily familiar. And BTW, the driving force behind a lot of free speech suppression in the past wasn't "the government" per se but "the party" that happened to control the government.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > It worked through a backstage "reputation" system that begins to look eerily familiar. A system that was government driven. Don't try to pretend that decentralized consequences are authoritarian.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    Hollywood Blacklists during the Red Scare were a backstage reputation system that kept people from being employable in an industry. There was nothing officially government driven about those blacklists. Lots of it was nod and wink and soft coercion. Merely associating with the "wrong" people was enough to get you blacklisted.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      Joseph McCarthy and HUAC weren't the government? Yes, under threat of government sanction, in violation of their first amendment rights, companies were coerced by the government to blacklist people. It was absolutely government driven. I never said it needed to be official. Official or not, that's not what we're experiencing today, where republican lawmakers are threatening companies for not doing what they want, and the companies are mostly ignoring them.

justapassenger 6y ago

You should really educate yourself on what free speech actually is in USA. It protects you, from government limiting your speech (with some exceptions). Private companies can do whatever they want - that’s their free speech law, that was reaffirmed by Supreme Court in 2010. I don’t support twitch decision, but it’s their business, they are free to set their own rules. And I’m free not to use their services as a result.

fX0rObfoMN4 6y ago
You are talking about the 1st amendment. Free speech is a principle whereas the 1st amendment restricts the government from violating that principle in its relations with the populace.
- crowbahr 6y ago
  Right, and it's worth emphasizing that companies do not provide free speech, nor are they required to. If you want that to change talk to Congress.
- justapassenger 6y ago
  Free speech as a principle you’re after (aka truly free speech without any consequences whatsoever) never existed. You’re free to say whatever you want, and I’m free to take actions based on that. You cannot give free speech benefits only to one side of the argument.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    without any consequences This is a pretty big distraction that is often used in these types of discussions. It's a distortion of what people actually want. The "consequences" being advocated are often just the whims of today's favored group. Giving free speech benefits to only one side of the argument is exactly what people are asking for when they ask for "consequences" -- freedom for A, consequences for B.
    - 6y ago

paxys 6y ago

What was this magical era of free speech that people keep referring to?

goatcode 6y ago
Some time up until people started getting the internet on their phones, roughly. Of course, no definition is perfect.
- paxys 6y ago
  Before people had internet it was ~5 media companies that decided what could be said in public and who could say it. It was hardly as "free" as people imagine.
  - danlugo92 6y ago
    He did not say "before internet".
  - corndoge 6y ago
    And when they had internet but before they had it on their phones, you could work around those media companies by saying things online. I believe parent was referring to that period.
    - marcinzm 6y ago
      And very few people, relatively, were online so you could reach only a small number of people. You can probably still reach just as many people online in unmoderated channels as you could back then.
  - leephillips 6y ago
    This was never true. Anyone could stand on the street corner and say anything. Anyone with some spare cash could print up political booklets or flyers and hand them out, and many did.