4 ms·

It sounds like they dissent from those opinions and you don't so you're fine with it and they're not. As Chomsky said "Everyone is in favour of freedom of speec

It sounds like they dissent from those opinions and you don't so you're fine with it and they're not. As Chomsky said "Everyone is in favour of freedom of speech for speech they agree with". Since I'm quoting people, J.S. Mill wrote down what the problem is for all of us when this happens: > If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

zibzab 5y ago
You are reading this completely wrong! I don't agree with much of the discussion on r/sweden. But it has an open discussion without any bullying or hate speech. There are other subs that promote hate and ban everyone not agreeing with their narrative. What do you feel about them?
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >But it has an open discussion I wouldn't call any discussion where wrongthink gets you excluded to be open. With Reddit's voting mechanism there's really no great need to censor anything unpopular since the system fudges consensus and anything that even the slightest subset of users finds disagreeable winds up downvoted into oblivion unless there's an equally large subset voting for it.
  - zibzab 5y ago
    I personally want open discussion within boundaries. So does the law. Regarding the rest, do you realise that HN is worse in this regard since the flag mechanism can be abused by much fewer participants?
    - brigandish 5y ago
      > I personally want open discussion within boundaries. So does the law. The Taliban want discussion within boundaries, so does the law. It's a valid statement yet provides no insight into whether those boundaries are the same or even of the same category. Would you support Reddit, as an American company, setting its boundaries for speech to the same limits as American law? I doubt it.
- brigandish 5y ago
  > There are other subs that promote hate and ban everyone not agreeing with their narrative. What do you feel about them? It is your opinion that they promote hate, and you also assume that it being hateful is wrong. Mixing up opinion with fact and not checking your assumptions is a sure route to a belief in infallability, which Mill also warns against. I am against (in general) bans for simple disagreement, but there is more than one way to silence those you disagree with, especially if you have power over media of communication as these mods and admins do. > You are reading this completely wrong! That may be so but you are working hard to give me the impression that you have a tendency to mix up your opinions with facts. If not for the need to avoid irony, at least avoid this so you don't appear so rude.

zibzab 5y ago

You are reading this completely wrong! I don't agree with much of the discussion on r/sweden. But it has an open discussion without any bullying or hate speech. There are other subs that promote hate and ban everyone not agreeing with their narrative. What do you feel about them?

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>But it has an open discussion I wouldn't call any discussion where wrongthink gets you excluded to be open. With Reddit's voting mechanism there's really no great need to censor anything unpopular since the system fudges consensus and anything that even the slightest subset of users finds disagreeable winds up downvoted into oblivion unless there's an equally large subset voting for it.
- zibzab 5y ago
  I personally want open discussion within boundaries. So does the law. Regarding the rest, do you realise that HN is worse in this regard since the flag mechanism can be abused by much fewer participants?
  - brigandish 5y ago
    > I personally want open discussion within boundaries. So does the law. The Taliban want discussion within boundaries, so does the law. It's a valid statement yet provides no insight into whether those boundaries are the same or even of the same category. Would you support Reddit, as an American company, setting its boundaries for speech to the same limits as American law? I doubt it.
brigandish 5y ago
> There are other subs that promote hate and ban everyone not agreeing with their narrative. What do you feel about them? It is your opinion that they promote hate, and you also assume that it being hateful is wrong. Mixing up opinion with fact and not checking your assumptions is a sure route to a belief in infallability, which Mill also warns against. I am against (in general) bans for simple disagreement, but there is more than one way to silence those you disagree with, especially if you have power over media of communication as these mods and admins do. > You are reading this completely wrong! That may be so but you are working hard to give me the impression that you have a tendency to mix up your opinions with facts. If not for the need to avoid irony, at least avoid this so you don't appear so rude.