7 ms·

Shocking. What do the pro censorship people say all the time when defending Facebook or Twitter: speech is free but not free from consequences. I believe tha

Shocking. What do the pro censorship people say all the time when defending Facebook or Twitter: speech is free but not free from consequences. I believe that's the line.

rodgerd 6y ago
The Indian government's position is perfectly in line with so-called free speech defenders: they are shutting down illegal content, not applying their own judgement.
- lindy2021 6y ago
  When you can define the laws, any content you dislike becomes "Illegal content".
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Perhaps the issue is that the law does not protect free speech.
- mancerayder 6y ago
  Couldn't Facebook just call it Misinformation? Certainly authoritarian enough for Silicon Valley to rally behind.
neither_color 6y ago
I believe they say "as long as we censor just this one particular politician because he's really bad just this one time using a variety of arbitrarily enforced technicalities, it's not censorship and it'll never come back to haunt us."
ceejayoz 6y ago
> I believe that's the line. I believe you're misrepresenting the line. Free speech in the US is about being protected from government-inflicted consequences. I can say "fuck you" all I like, but that's never meant I can say it to my boss and demand a First Amendment right to remain employed. It's never been an absolute, either. Incitement to riot, fraud, libel, actionable threats; all are speech, but we've long accepted restrictions on it.
- readflaggedcomm 6y ago
  The First Amendment is about that. The principle is broader. We don't all accept restrictions on it.
  - thelean12 6y ago
    Not quite as simple as you make it out to be. Why should I let you scream "fuck you" over and over again in my coffee shop? Yeah yeah, maybe social networks are the new town square blah blah. My point is that the line isn't so black and white.
    - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
      It's simpler than I made it out to be, which is why it's hated. The distinction between the law and the principle doesn't mean you can't make your own rules on your own property. In fact, they support that.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        So, by law and in principle, Facebook/Twitter may set their rules on their own property? Right?
- hajile 6y ago
  When I was younger, the Left was pro free speech and against big corporations and corporate censorship. Now I'm a bit older and the Right is pro free speech and against big corporations and corporate censorship. It seems that the big factor is power. When you're in power, you use any excuse to silence the people who disagree. When you're not in power, you recognize that free speech is a universal principle. The majority of the US is anti-abortion. Would you be fine if they cancelled the other side? Huge swaths are anti-gay. Should coming out mean people are free to cancel you? While the number of churchgoers is around half, the number of Christians in the US is well over 75%. Should claiming to be another religion (or no religion) mean that cancellation is in order? Once everyone agrees that persecution is acceptable, all that's left is arguing about who to persecute. The government is by the people and for the people. It reflects the values of the people. You claim that free speech is government only, but why does the government create ideas like hate speech then? Why force private people and businesses to desegregate if your inalienable rights only apply to the government? If rights are inherent in humans, but may be stripped at a whim by the majority, either they aren't actually rights or the pro-cancellation majority are actually despots. The pro-cancellation argument is all sophistry to gain and increase power.
pionar 6y ago
I believe you're: A) using a strawman B) Comparing apples and oranges When facebook decides on its own to remove posts, I'm ok with that, they're a private company and can do what they want on their platform. When the government tells FB to remove posts, I'm not mad at FB; they can do what they want on their platform. I'm mad at the government for telling them to do that.
- pyronik19 6y ago
  So when democrats drag zuck in front of congress and ask why he isn't banning more right wingers, no government coercion?
  - mancerayder 6y ago
    No because it's just a friendly suggestion, kind of like the Indian government. Bottom line: Silicon Valley techies often suffer from a lack of education in civic matters and liberal democratic values in particular. They believe as long as Bad People have their, here's another term they often use, megaphones, taken away, then ethically it's a thumbs up. The lack of civic education and historical education becomes evident when you ask them, OK, you support censorship and cleansing misinformation: now who decides?
    - rvz 6y ago
      In the US, 'Wrongthinkery' is policed by the silicon valley techies who think hiding posts from anyone who they disagree with is the solution. > OK, you support censorship and cleansing misinformation: now who decides? 'They' can't come up with an answer to this classic one since they already realised that down the line they're becoming an arbiter of truth. The liberal left are never in short supply of whataboutism, hypocrisy, gaslighting and the best of all of them, ignoring anything that doesn't fit their narrative. In summary: If it affects them and those who they agree with, its an issue, if it is someone who disagrees with them, its their funeral and I'll get my buddies from FAANMG, Twitter and Facebook to ban them all.
      - 6y ago

Shocking. What do the pro censorship people say all the time when defending Facebook or Twitter: speech is free but not free from consequences. I believe that's the line.

rodgerd 6y ago

The Indian government's position is perfectly in line with so-called free speech defenders: they are shutting down illegal content, not applying their own judgement.

lindy2021 6y ago
When you can define the laws, any content you dislike becomes "Illegal content".
saagarjha 6y ago
Perhaps the issue is that the law does not protect free speech.
mancerayder 6y ago
Couldn't Facebook just call it Misinformation? Certainly authoritarian enough for Silicon Valley to rally behind.

neither_color 6y ago

I believe they say "as long as we censor just this one particular politician because he's really bad just this one time using a variety of arbitrarily enforced technicalities, it's not censorship and it'll never come back to haunt us."

ceejayoz 6y ago

> I believe that's the line. I believe you're misrepresenting the line. Free speech in the US is about being protected from government-inflicted consequences. I can say "fuck you" all I like, but that's never meant I can say it to my boss and demand a First Amendment right to remain employed. It's never been an absolute, either. Incitement to riot, fraud, libel, actionable threats; all are speech, but we've long accepted restrictions on it.

readflaggedcomm 6y ago
The First Amendment is about that. The principle is broader. We don't all accept restrictions on it.
- thelean12 6y ago
  Not quite as simple as you make it out to be. Why should I let you scream "fuck you" over and over again in my coffee shop? Yeah yeah, maybe social networks are the new town square blah blah. My point is that the line isn't so black and white.
  - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
    It's simpler than I made it out to be, which is why it's hated. The distinction between the law and the principle doesn't mean you can't make your own rules on your own property. In fact, they support that.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      So, by law and in principle, Facebook/Twitter may set their rules on their own property? Right?
hajile 6y ago
When I was younger, the Left was pro free speech and against big corporations and corporate censorship. Now I'm a bit older and the Right is pro free speech and against big corporations and corporate censorship. It seems that the big factor is power. When you're in power, you use any excuse to silence the people who disagree. When you're not in power, you recognize that free speech is a universal principle. The majority of the US is anti-abortion. Would you be fine if they cancelled the other side? Huge swaths are anti-gay. Should coming out mean people are free to cancel you? While the number of churchgoers is around half, the number of Christians in the US is well over 75%. Should claiming to be another religion (or no religion) mean that cancellation is in order? Once everyone agrees that persecution is acceptable, all that's left is arguing about who to persecute. The government is by the people and for the people. It reflects the values of the people. You claim that free speech is government only, but why does the government create ideas like hate speech then? Why force private people and businesses to desegregate if your inalienable rights only apply to the government? If rights are inherent in humans, but may be stripped at a whim by the majority, either they aren't actually rights or the pro-cancellation majority are actually despots. The pro-cancellation argument is all sophistry to gain and increase power.

pionar 6y ago

I believe you're: A) using a strawman B) Comparing apples and oranges When facebook decides on its own to remove posts, I'm ok with that, they're a private company and can do what they want on their platform. When the government tells FB to remove posts, I'm not mad at FB; they can do what they want on their platform. I'm mad at the government for telling them to do that.

pyronik19 6y ago
So when democrats drag zuck in front of congress and ask why he isn't banning more right wingers, no government coercion?
- mancerayder 6y ago
  No because it's just a friendly suggestion, kind of like the Indian government. Bottom line: Silicon Valley techies often suffer from a lack of education in civic matters and liberal democratic values in particular. They believe as long as Bad People have their, here's another term they often use, megaphones, taken away, then ethically it's a thumbs up. The lack of civic education and historical education becomes evident when you ask them, OK, you support censorship and cleansing misinformation: now who decides?
  - rvz 6y ago
    In the US, 'Wrongthinkery' is policed by the silicon valley techies who think hiding posts from anyone who they disagree with is the solution. > OK, you support censorship and cleansing misinformation: now who decides? 'They' can't come up with an answer to this classic one since they already realised that down the line they're becoming an arbiter of truth. The liberal left are never in short supply of whataboutism, hypocrisy, gaslighting and the best of all of them, ignoring anything that doesn't fit their narrative. In summary: If it affects them and those who they agree with, its an issue, if it is someone who disagrees with them, its their funeral and I'll get my buddies from FAANMG, Twitter and Facebook to ban them all.
    - 6y ago