4 ms·

And censoring public conversation to medical malpractice & issues with treatments is also a slippery slope that totalitarian regimes have regularly instituted o

And censoring public conversation to medical malpractice & issues with treatments is also a slippery slope that totalitarian regimes have regularly instituted on their own people. There is a perfect solution, which is for the government & the corporatist state to defend our rights, which include the Freedom of Speech. Somebody is lying & the public has a right to all of the pertinent information & unrestricted conversation. The worst case is for the liars to have total control of the information. Those are the definitions of totalitarianism & authoritarianism. --- Edit: I actually misspoke. The worst case is Technocratic control a la Brave New World, where autonomy is lost & cyber (regulatory) divisions take over all aspects of life. Nothing screams dystopia more than a technocrat with a God complex exerting one's will to control the lives of the population. Human life is sacred & spiritual and the Technocratic movement as it stands today spoils this light to create a horde of undead.

SantalBlush 5y ago
People on this site can try to redefine the first amendment all they like, but never in the history of this country has it meant that we get to say what we want wherever we want. I can get fired for saying something offensive, but I don't moan about totalitarianism or the corporatist state, because that would be stupid. If people want to argue the merits of promoting a wider range of speech on social media, so be it, but please dispense with any comparisons to our first amendment right (which is not affected here).
- a_conservative 5y ago
  "Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without Freedom of Speech." Benjamin Franklin Bringing up the first amendment is a way to emphasize the importance of the free exchange of ideas. It only legally restrains the government, but now other powers have gained the ability to regulate speech. The principle is the same no matter who the censor is.
  - SantalBlush 5y ago
    Conflating social media bans with a government's ability to punish citizens over speech is utterly absurd. The real complaint here is that folks want to express their opinions on a site with the biggest reach, and if they are relegated to a smaller site (of which there are many) then they pretend their rights are being violated. This notion is itself as anti-free speech as it gets.
    - a_conservative 5y ago
      The free exchange of ideas can be curtailed by other powerful entities other than government. This is still a problem for society. For example, look at how the lab-leak hypothesis for covid was censored. There were many good questions being raised that were shot down as a "conspiracy theory", and were censored. This is a net negative for everyone.
      - SantalBlush 5y ago
        The free exchange of ideas is curtailed everywhere, all the time. It's curtailed in private homes, in the workplace, and on social media. It has always been this way. Our first amendment right has never guaranteed the free exchange of ideas, because people have the right to reject such exchanges on their own property. Your issue and the issue shared by many others comes from a complete misunderstanding of what freedom of speech entails. It does not mean people should be forced to listen to you; that would be a horrifying dystopia that I want no part of.
        a_conservative 5y ago
        You keep making assumptions about me. You don't know me. I made no such statements about the first amendment. However you justify censorship, it still has a cost. Legalistic arguments about the first amendment and who it restrains doesn't change the fact that the free exchange of ideas has value and that is being taken away from us. Note that I'm not specifying who is doing the censoring in any of my arguments. Censorship has a cost all on it's own.

SantalBlush 5y ago

People on this site can try to redefine the first amendment all they like, but never in the history of this country has it meant that we get to say what we want wherever we want. I can get fired for saying something offensive, but I don't moan about totalitarianism or the corporatist state, because that would be stupid. If people want to argue the merits of promoting a wider range of speech on social media, so be it, but please dispense with any comparisons to our first amendment right (which is not affected here).

a_conservative 5y ago
"Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without Freedom of Speech." Benjamin Franklin Bringing up the first amendment is a way to emphasize the importance of the free exchange of ideas. It only legally restrains the government, but now other powers have gained the ability to regulate speech. The principle is the same no matter who the censor is.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  Conflating social media bans with a government's ability to punish citizens over speech is utterly absurd. The real complaint here is that folks want to express their opinions on a site with the biggest reach, and if they are relegated to a smaller site (of which there are many) then they pretend their rights are being violated. This notion is itself as anti-free speech as it gets.
  - a_conservative 5y ago
    The free exchange of ideas can be curtailed by other powerful entities other than government. This is still a problem for society. For example, look at how the lab-leak hypothesis for covid was censored. There were many good questions being raised that were shot down as a "conspiracy theory", and were censored. This is a net negative for everyone.
    - SantalBlush 5y ago
      The free exchange of ideas is curtailed everywhere, all the time. It's curtailed in private homes, in the workplace, and on social media. It has always been this way. Our first amendment right has never guaranteed the free exchange of ideas, because people have the right to reject such exchanges on their own property. Your issue and the issue shared by many others comes from a complete misunderstanding of what freedom of speech entails. It does not mean people should be forced to listen to you; that would be a horrifying dystopia that I want no part of.
      - a_conservative 5y ago
        You keep making assumptions about me. You don't know me. I made no such statements about the first amendment. However you justify censorship, it still has a cost. Legalistic arguments about the first amendment and who it restrains doesn't change the fact that the free exchange of ideas has value and that is being taken away from us. Note that I'm not specifying who is doing the censoring in any of my arguments. Censorship has a cost all on it's own.