6 ms·

Today’s dissent is tomorrow’s hate speech. We are sliding down the slippery slope.

by S_A_P 5y ago

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
Except how many people now upset at this we’re glad when Twitter and Facebook banned Trump? It’s really easy to say you defend things when it’s theory and not “a bad man who says mean things”. It is a slippery slope, and we’re already well down it. Too many people continuing to cheer it along until it’ll be too late.
- loceng 5y ago
  Those are private platforms and not government doing the moderating.
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    Right, yes, and this is totally unrelated even when you have one campaign begging FAANG to censor a political rival before the election… https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/facebook-dnc-biden-emails/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/facebook-dnc-bid... (Notice CNN’s take that it’s bad Facebook didn’t do more, not that this was a political kneecapping… still, CNN accidentally did a journalism) It’s a private company! Build your own Facebook! (Nevermind that Google with their nearly infinite money tried and spectacularly failed). Ignoring the reality it’s a monopoly. The spirit of free speech extends past the US Government. If it’s not illegal it shouldn’t be censored by what is effectively a common carrier, this is why everyone is in a rush to expand what is illegal.
  - busymom0 5y ago
    "Unfortunately, if you were to confront the people engaging in this sort of behavior they would (if they talked to you at all) claim that presumption of innocence is only required in a legal context, not a social context. You see a similar pattern with free speech: people try to defend private censorship by saying that the First Amendment only applies to the government, while ignoring the fact that the amendment is just a legal codification of the general principle of free speech. It's a poor defense in free speech cases and it's a poor defense here, but I'm sure that's the defense you would hear. It's shocking that so many are unable to grasp the values that generate cultural mores, virtues, and customary law. As you note, the principle of free speech is codified in law. The underlying value is truth. Without the free exchange of ideas humankind cannot arrive at truth. The same with the principle of due process and innocent until proven guilty, without which we cannot arrive at justice, which, in turn, requires ascertaining truth. The practices of free speech and due process are both manifestations of truth-seeking as the virtue by which we find truth. The scientific method is also a codification of truth seeking methods. These people are without principle and seek only power. Truth is their enemy. Evil defined."
    - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
      I cannot agree that there is a principle of free speech, even if it's for truth. A store owner may be unhappy when some guy stands right at the entrance telling everyone that the same stuff is available cheaper across the street. While it may be a complete truth, I find it very hard to blame the store owner for kicking that guy out. Facebook is not a store though. It's essentially a communication monopoly - akin to a utility company, which legally has a "duty to serve". While in theory there are alternatives to, say, electric public service - from building your own electrical company to using wax candles, in practice it has been recognized by courts [1] that access to electricity, water and phone is a basic necessity in a modern society. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/1120016 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1120016
      - busymom0 5y ago
        I think by "principle of free speech", it's referring to the "I disagree with what you are saying or believe in but I will defend your right to say it until I die". Any corporation which has more than 1 million users who operate user-generated content in the country should be a common carrier similar to the telecom industry or railroads.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - ryandrake 5y ago
        Facebook is not a communication monopoly. I haven’t used it in a decade and have no trouble communicating. It also is under no obligation to publish content it doesn’t want to publish. I can’t stand Facebook but I’ll defend their right to keep (their definition of) crap off their site. Just like HN is free to moderate crap off their site.
        busymom0 5y ago
        > It also is under no obligation to publish content it doesn’t want to publish. So you are agreeing that they are publishers and not platforms? Yet they continue to get away with claiming immunity for "being a platform". Rosa Parks should have just started her own bus company too? Railroads, telecom, electricity and water companies should be able to refuse service too? Are you against the FDA, EPA, FCC, FEC etc? How about Net Neutrality? Private businesses should be able to charge whatever they want and for whatever content they want right? How about the government-forced lockdowns forcing private businesses to shut down and go bankrupt? And how about the baker who refused to bake cake for the gay couple for religious reasons? > Facebook is not a communication monopoly They are openly coordinating with other tech companies and even the state government of California. Over 50% of the population's viewpoints are being censored/throttled. Zuckerberg was coordinating with government employee Fauci to censor the lab leak and other news. When exactly does someone become a monopoly in your book?
  - koolba 5y ago
    Outsourcing censorship to private parties working in lock step with the political establishment isn’t a step up, it’s a step down.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      How on earth can you with a straight face argue that censoring the sitting president is working "with the political establishment"? If the head of government and de-facto head of the ruling party isn't the establishment, what is?
      - Acrobatic_Road 5y ago
        Trump was never the "establishment". Cable news, major newspapers, public universities & academia, intelligence agencies, NGOs, social media companies - THESE are the establishment, or the Cathedral.
      - iammisc 5y ago
        If trump was the establishment, why did the military disobey his order to withdraw from Syria. I mean this honestly. To me the establishment means being able to influence the ruling class. Despite trump's presidency, in several important policy points, where he clearly stated his policy, his rules were violated by a seemingly out of control bureaucracy. The us diplomatic staff to Syria was caught bragging that the army had left 900 troops without informing the president. How is that establishment. Quite clearly, someone else is in charge
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        You mean, why did partially walk back his order? https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/01/07/bolton_puts_conditions_on_plan_for_withdrawal_from_syria_139108.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/01/07/bolton... I don't know, you'd need to ask him. My guess is that he was informed that it would be infeasible and dangerous to pull out all of the troops immediately, and took that I to account. The major complication here is that trump had a pattern of lying and blistering to the American people. But given that the trump white house is on record that hundreds of troops would remain in Syria indefinitely, and that there was no specific withdrawal timetable, I have a hard time seeing how this was them disobeying his orders. Do you know the order he actually gave the military, or are you assuming the simplified speech was the extent of it (when it's clear that his actual orders, thankfully, had more nuance)? Edit: I looked further into this, is appears to be not that the military lied to trump, but that a trump appointee lied to trump. Which like, still bad, but not a conspiracy by anyone except trump's own staff. Perhaps he should have hired better people, or perhaps he just didn't care.
- JetAlone 5y ago
  Yep. The speech-tech issue marches in lockstep with other problems our wicked generation has wrought.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Leparamour 5y ago
  > Except how many people now upset at this we’re glad when Twitter and Facebook banned Trump? I'd think that the people who were glad when Twitter and Facebook banned Trump, aren't exactly opposed to this new law, likely thinking this would never be used against them. But as we learned from the JK Rowling affair, an opinion that is progressive or PC in 2021 might not hold up to standards 5 or 10 years later thanks to the purity spiral[1]. [1] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Purity%20Spiral https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Purity%20Spi...
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  > how many people now upset at this we’re [sic] glad when Twitter and Facebook banned Trump? Interesting... I would have normally assumed that everybody who's upset by this law would have been upset by Trump's ban and vice versa.
- dmitrygr 5y ago
  When trump was banned, many actually did say that it would go this way and were upset due to that. I may hate what you (anyone) have to say, it may hurt me to hear it, but i will do whatever I can to defend your right to say it! Because unlike many who cheer this on, I've lived in a country that followed this to its logical conclusion (USSR). It was not fun.
justbored123 5y ago
The native Americans in your population will beg to differ, specially in the light of current news, but they don't count to you don't they? That is why we got to the point were we need this law. Because no matter how horrible other are treated all is good as long it doesn't happen to you or your group. The past were you were able to abuse these groups and commit atrocities with total impunity was "so much better" and we are going down from there according to your view of the world.

Today’s dissent is tomorrow’s hate speech. We are sliding down the slippery slope.

by S_A_P 5y ago

Today’s dissent is tomorrow’s hate speech. We are sliding down the slippery slope.

Except how many people now upset at this we’re glad when Twitter and Facebook banned Trump? It’s really easy to say you defend things when it’s theory and not “a bad man who says mean things”. It is a slippery slope, and we’re already well down it. Too many people continuing to cheer it along until it’ll be too late.

loceng 5y ago
Those are private platforms and not government doing the moderating.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  Right, yes, and this is totally unrelated even when you have one campaign begging FAANG to censor a political rival before the election… https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/facebook-dnc-biden-emails/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/facebook-dnc-bid... (Notice CNN’s take that it’s bad Facebook didn’t do more, not that this was a political kneecapping… still, CNN accidentally did a journalism) It’s a private company! Build your own Facebook! (Nevermind that Google with their nearly infinite money tried and spectacularly failed). Ignoring the reality it’s a monopoly. The spirit of free speech extends past the US Government. If it’s not illegal it shouldn’t be censored by what is effectively a common carrier, this is why everyone is in a rush to expand what is illegal.
- busymom0 5y ago
  "Unfortunately, if you were to confront the people engaging in this sort of behavior they would (if they talked to you at all) claim that presumption of innocence is only required in a legal context, not a social context. You see a similar pattern with free speech: people try to defend private censorship by saying that the First Amendment only applies to the government, while ignoring the fact that the amendment is just a legal codification of the general principle of free speech. It's a poor defense in free speech cases and it's a poor defense here, but I'm sure that's the defense you would hear. It's shocking that so many are unable to grasp the values that generate cultural mores, virtues, and customary law. As you note, the principle of free speech is codified in law. The underlying value is truth. Without the free exchange of ideas humankind cannot arrive at truth. The same with the principle of due process and innocent until proven guilty, without which we cannot arrive at justice, which, in turn, requires ascertaining truth. The practices of free speech and due process are both manifestations of truth-seeking as the virtue by which we find truth. The scientific method is also a codification of truth seeking methods. These people are without principle and seek only power. Truth is their enemy. Evil defined."
  - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
    I cannot agree that there is a principle of free speech, even if it's for truth. A store owner may be unhappy when some guy stands right at the entrance telling everyone that the same stuff is available cheaper across the street. While it may be a complete truth, I find it very hard to blame the store owner for kicking that guy out. Facebook is not a store though. It's essentially a communication monopoly - akin to a utility company, which legally has a "duty to serve". While in theory there are alternatives to, say, electric public service - from building your own electrical company to using wax candles, in practice it has been recognized by courts [1] that access to electricity, water and phone is a basic necessity in a modern society. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/1120016 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1120016
    - busymom0 5y ago
      I think by "principle of free speech", it's referring to the "I disagree with what you are saying or believe in but I will defend your right to say it until I die". Any corporation which has more than 1 million users who operate user-generated content in the country should be a common carrier similar to the telecom industry or railroads.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ryandrake 5y ago
      Facebook is not a communication monopoly. I haven’t used it in a decade and have no trouble communicating. It also is under no obligation to publish content it doesn’t want to publish. I can’t stand Facebook but I’ll defend their right to keep (their definition of) crap off their site. Just like HN is free to moderate crap off their site.
      - busymom0 5y ago
        > It also is under no obligation to publish content it doesn’t want to publish. So you are agreeing that they are publishers and not platforms? Yet they continue to get away with claiming immunity for "being a platform". Rosa Parks should have just started her own bus company too? Railroads, telecom, electricity and water companies should be able to refuse service too? Are you against the FDA, EPA, FCC, FEC etc? How about Net Neutrality? Private businesses should be able to charge whatever they want and for whatever content they want right? How about the government-forced lockdowns forcing private businesses to shut down and go bankrupt? And how about the baker who refused to bake cake for the gay couple for religious reasons? > Facebook is not a communication monopoly They are openly coordinating with other tech companies and even the state government of California. Over 50% of the population's viewpoints are being censored/throttled. Zuckerberg was coordinating with government employee Fauci to censor the lab leak and other news. When exactly does someone become a monopoly in your book?
- koolba 5y ago
  Outsourcing censorship to private parties working in lock step with the political establishment isn’t a step up, it’s a step down.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    How on earth can you with a straight face argue that censoring the sitting president is working "with the political establishment"? If the head of government and de-facto head of the ruling party isn't the establishment, what is?
    - Acrobatic_Road 5y ago
      Trump was never the "establishment". Cable news, major newspapers, public universities & academia, intelligence agencies, NGOs, social media companies - THESE are the establishment, or the Cathedral.
    - iammisc 5y ago
      If trump was the establishment, why did the military disobey his order to withdraw from Syria. I mean this honestly. To me the establishment means being able to influence the ruling class. Despite trump's presidency, in several important policy points, where he clearly stated his policy, his rules were violated by a seemingly out of control bureaucracy. The us diplomatic staff to Syria was caught bragging that the army had left 900 troops without informing the president. How is that establishment. Quite clearly, someone else is in charge
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        You mean, why did partially walk back his order? https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/01/07/bolton_puts_conditions_on_plan_for_withdrawal_from_syria_139108.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/01/07/bolton... I don't know, you'd need to ask him. My guess is that he was informed that it would be infeasible and dangerous to pull out all of the troops immediately, and took that I to account. The major complication here is that trump had a pattern of lying and blistering to the American people. But given that the trump white house is on record that hundreds of troops would remain in Syria indefinitely, and that there was no specific withdrawal timetable, I have a hard time seeing how this was them disobeying his orders. Do you know the order he actually gave the military, or are you assuming the simplified speech was the extent of it (when it's clear that his actual orders, thankfully, had more nuance)? Edit: I looked further into this, is appears to be not that the military lied to trump, but that a trump appointee lied to trump. Which like, still bad, but not a conspiracy by anyone except trump's own staff. Perhaps he should have hired better people, or perhaps he just didn't care.
JetAlone 5y ago
Yep. The speech-tech issue marches in lockstep with other problems our wicked generation has wrought.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Leparamour 5y ago
> Except how many people now upset at this we’re glad when Twitter and Facebook banned Trump? I'd think that the people who were glad when Twitter and Facebook banned Trump, aren't exactly opposed to this new law, likely thinking this would never be used against them. But as we learned from the JK Rowling affair, an opinion that is progressive or PC in 2021 might not hold up to standards 5 or 10 years later thanks to the purity spiral[1]. [1] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Purity%20Spiral https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Purity%20Spi...
commandlinefan 5y ago
> how many people now upset at this we’re [sic] glad when Twitter and Facebook banned Trump? Interesting... I would have normally assumed that everybody who's upset by this law would have been upset by Trump's ban and vice versa.
dmitrygr 5y ago
When trump was banned, many actually did say that it would go this way and were upset due to that. I may hate what you (anyone) have to say, it may hurt me to hear it, but i will do whatever I can to defend your right to say it! Because unlike many who cheer this on, I've lived in a country that followed this to its logical conclusion (USSR). It was not fun.

justbored123 5y ago

The native Americans in your population will beg to differ, specially in the light of current news, but they don't count to you don't they? That is why we got to the point were we need this law. Because no matter how horrible other are treated all is good as long it doesn't happen to you or your group. The past were you were able to abuse these groups and commit atrocities with total impunity was "so much better" and we are going down from there according to your view of the world.