4 ms·

Whose voice is getting quashed in the US? Everyone has a Facebook, Twitter, email, phones, a magazine, protests, their own news channels, subReddits. What grou

Whose voice is getting quashed in the US? Everyone has a Facebook, Twitter, email, phones, a magazine, protests, their own news channels, subReddits. What group doesn't have all those things? Whose voice is being quashed - exactly? Even straight up Nazis have websites, newsletters, gatherings, organized protest marches and Facebook pages. The fucking Taliban is on Twitter. So...who is being quashed because of their beliefs, exactly?

temp8964 5y ago
I have a quick example: the former president.
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  ...and what did he do to get banned? (Hint: it wasn't "having ideas.")
- kemiller 5y ago
  Hmm... https://lmgtfy.app/?q=donald+trump https://lmgtfy.app/?q=donald+trump So, so quashed. You can barely find any information about him!
chasd00 5y ago
For one, it's well known in tech that you're putting your job/livelihood at risk by speaking contrary to the political groupthink. Many people who didn't vote for Clinton or Biden are effectively in career hiding. Threatening someone's job over their beliefs/opinions is very effective censorship.
- krapp 5y ago
  >Many people who didn't vote for Clinton or Biden are effectively in career hiding. Are they? Where? In the American South, where I live, Republicans, Conservatives and Trumpists are still loud and proud, and gainfully employed.
  - pedrosorio 5y ago
    Recent case of a CEO losing their job in the American South (HQ: Roswell, Georgia) for supporting the recent Texas abortion law: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-07/video-game-ceo-resigns-after-supporting-texas-abortion-law https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-07/video-gam... EDIT: To be clear, this not evidence in favor of the comment you were responding to: "There is a trend of certain dominant power in all of these countries that is quashing all opposing voices". As far as I can tell, supporting things the majority of society disagrees with has always been ground for career repercussions in the "land of the free" (as it is in the rest of the world).
    - selectodude 5y ago
      For the same reason I wouldn't put a Biden/Harris sign on my gun store in rural Missouri, I would probably keep my mouth shut on abortion if I'm the CEO of a video game developer. Your job is to make other people money. If you become a liability you're not going to have a job much longer.
      - _carbyau_ 5y ago
        Context and the multiple roles of a person, is why people get upset over this. I agree with you. As a CEO, estranging any significant section of the market is not a good career move! But amongst their friends, family, [insert other social circle here] their comments may not be a big deal. As a non-public persona, I say expletives at work(as an employee) that I wouldn't want my child hearing(as a father). I can get away with it because the two worlds don't collide. But once you have a public persona - like being a CEO - your worlds are merged into one. You don't get to have a "personal opinion" because your public persona cuts across all boundaries and your comments will be judged in the context of a public majority opinion. Having a "public" persona is no joke. Take it seriously and expect that non-majority opinions will get public blowback so there better be a good reason for them!
- sergiomattei 5y ago
  When in history hasn't this been the case?
  - analognoise 5y ago
    Never. People are demanding access to an audience like it's a right, and saying their votes don't matter if they can't reach an audience. It's the dumbest shit I've ever heard.
- gautamdivgi 5y ago
  The right of free speech protects against government retribution. It does not protect private individual / corporation retaliation. This is why you have secret ballot - so no one can retaliate against you for someone you’ve voted for.
  - refenestrator 5y ago
    Yes, that's why we have the secret ballot and should keep it, but let's try to trend away from why it's necessary?
- treeman79 5y ago
  Depend on the company’s Most companies I keep my mouth shut. And I mostly just want a balanced budget. This has become harder as more places are requiring active participation in woke mentality.
- wallacoloo 5y ago
  > it's well known in tech that you're putting your job/livelihood at risk by speaking contrary to the political groupthink. Have you ever tried it? FWIW, coworkers in my org pushed for a blacklist of words we’re not allowed to check into the codebase within the last year. I raised my counter opinion. I did so respectfully. Today, there’s no blacklist, and I still have my job. Btw my presidential vote was a write-in for Bernie Sanders as president with Yang as running mate. Laugh if you like. I’m vaccinated; I wear a mask wherever the property owner of whatever establishment I’m in requests it (e.g. signs posted on the door), and omit the mask where not. I think my governor’s recent mask mandate is a mistake because we could already navigate the problem organically with the above approach, and anyone who wasn’t previously respecting an establishment’s masking policy isn’t going to respect a top-down legislative one given there’s no intent of enforcement. People will disagree with my political opinions. And if they want, they’ll downvote me to communicate that. But I’m confident I won’t get banned from HN for stating these in the unusual event that it’s relevant to the discussion, much less that any future employer of importance is going to comb through here and decide against hiring me because I respectfully put forth an opposing political viewpoint.
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    > Btw my presidential vote was a write-in for Bernie Sanders as president with Yang as running mate the comment before was probably not aimed at those who vote or support the left.
    - wallacoloo 5y ago
      Eh, the anti-PC example is anti-progressive though. I didn't want to elaborate my comment with lengthier political views since HN usually isn't the place. But here's a right-leaning hot take to drive the point home: 18 months into this pandemic and I've never once had any input into the policy response. I thought the agreement was "I get the vaccine, I get to live my life as normal". Now that policy changes (mostly state-level) are flipping that, I regret getting the vaccine: I'm in a low-risk demographic and I just gave up my most powerful tool in influencing policy decision. I won't make that same mistake with the booster shots Biden discussed earlier today: I won't be getting those until my policy leaders actually serve me as a constituent. > it's well known in tech that you're putting your job/livelihood at risk by speaking contrary to the political groupthink. Still confident that GP is wrong about that and I won't lose my job or livelihood by posting this.
alentist 5y ago
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1282404647160942598.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1282404647160942598.html
cabalamat 5y ago
> Everyone has a Facebook, Twitter [...] subReddits You appear to be arguing that no-one has ever been kicked off Facebook or Twitter, and that no subreddits have ever been banned. Is that your position?
- analognoise 5y ago
  So "Silencing" is just getting kicked from Twitter and FB? Such a privileged and weak notion of silencing. China will send people to camps and the police will break down a memorial museum - that's silencing. Getting kicked from FB/Twitter because for being a twat doesn't mean your group is persecuted.
  - alentist 5y ago
    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Moving-the-Goalposts https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Moving-... https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Relative-Privation https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Relativ...
    - analognoise 5y ago
      That's not "moving the goal posts". The ACTUAL complaint is that people demand an AUDIENCE - they want to be able to broadcast their views to the largest number of people possible. Nobody in the US is being "quashed" - you can run your own website, print your own newsletter, and nobody is going to kick down your door or send you to a re-education camp. Like I said, Nazis run their own websites, and the Taliban is on Twitter. Nobody here is being "silenced" because they can't grab the microphone - nobody's owed a microphone in the first place. It's not even "relative privation" - nobody has a God given right to...Facebook. People serious about their causes run their own websites - they don't immediately start whinging because they've been booted from Reddit.
      - alentist 5y ago
        > That's not "moving the goal posts". Your first comment: > Whose voice is getting quashed in the US? Everyone has a Facebook, Twitter, email, phones, a magazine, protests, their own news channels, subReddits. Your second comment: > So "Silencing" is just getting kicked from Twitter and FB?
Dah00n 5y ago
Having a voice doesn't not equal being heard. Especially not if you define A Voice as writing on Facebook or Twitter. You might as well stand on a box in the dead parts of Detroit and talk politics. Being heard in a democratic country means your vote matters.
- analognoise 5y ago
  Nobody has the right to "be heard"! That's the thing. You have the right to scream it out loud, but nobody is forced to stand there and listen. No - you can't falsely equate "being heard" by being on FB and Twitter to voting. If my neighbor starts screaming Nazi talking points, I have the right to walk away. They still have the right to scream them. Buy Facebook isn't "forced" to carry their views, either! And the Nazi believes what they're saying, so to ensure they're heard, they launch their OWN websites, print their own newsletters, and show up at protests. No. Just No. Nobody is forced to carry anyone else's speech, and only people so weak in their beliefs as to "give up" when banned by FB and Twitter are complaining.
  - fouric 5y ago
    This is completely wrong. "Being heard" is being on FB and Twitter, as these platforms (1) are effectively public forums by nature of their massive, near-monopolistic reach, (2) claim protections of public forums, such as immunity from liability due to user-posted content, and (3) implicitly and explicitly portray themselves as public squares/forums[1]. The online equivalent to "having the right to walk away" is blocking someone on a platform. It's that simple. Once a company has reached a monopolistic size, which describes FB and Twitter, then it either needs to be broken up, or treated like a utility/government service - this is exactly the argument that you see all the time about e.g. ISPs and Alphabet/Google - because there's no other morally excusable way to act. The first amendment was written to only apply to the government because that's the entity that's the most likely to (and most dangerous in) silence speech and discourse, not the only one. You definitely would not be making these arguments if it were your ideological tribe that were being censored. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28456794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28456794

temp8964 5y ago

I have a quick example: the former president.

jjoonathan 5y ago
...and what did he do to get banned? (Hint: it wasn't "having ideas.")
kemiller 5y ago
Hmm... https://lmgtfy.app/?q=donald+trump https://lmgtfy.app/?q=donald+trump So, so quashed. You can barely find any information about him!

chasd00 5y ago

For one, it's well known in tech that you're putting your job/livelihood at risk by speaking contrary to the political groupthink. Many people who didn't vote for Clinton or Biden are effectively in career hiding. Threatening someone's job over their beliefs/opinions is very effective censorship.

krapp 5y ago
>Many people who didn't vote for Clinton or Biden are effectively in career hiding. Are they? Where? In the American South, where I live, Republicans, Conservatives and Trumpists are still loud and proud, and gainfully employed.
- pedrosorio 5y ago
  Recent case of a CEO losing their job in the American South (HQ: Roswell, Georgia) for supporting the recent Texas abortion law: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-07/video-game-ceo-resigns-after-supporting-texas-abortion-law https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-07/video-gam... EDIT: To be clear, this not evidence in favor of the comment you were responding to: "There is a trend of certain dominant power in all of these countries that is quashing all opposing voices". As far as I can tell, supporting things the majority of society disagrees with has always been ground for career repercussions in the "land of the free" (as it is in the rest of the world).
  - selectodude 5y ago
    For the same reason I wouldn't put a Biden/Harris sign on my gun store in rural Missouri, I would probably keep my mouth shut on abortion if I'm the CEO of a video game developer. Your job is to make other people money. If you become a liability you're not going to have a job much longer.
    - _carbyau_ 5y ago
      Context and the multiple roles of a person, is why people get upset over this. I agree with you. As a CEO, estranging any significant section of the market is not a good career move! But amongst their friends, family, [insert other social circle here] their comments may not be a big deal. As a non-public persona, I say expletives at work(as an employee) that I wouldn't want my child hearing(as a father). I can get away with it because the two worlds don't collide. But once you have a public persona - like being a CEO - your worlds are merged into one. You don't get to have a "personal opinion" because your public persona cuts across all boundaries and your comments will be judged in the context of a public majority opinion. Having a "public" persona is no joke. Take it seriously and expect that non-majority opinions will get public blowback so there better be a good reason for them!
sergiomattei 5y ago
When in history hasn't this been the case?
- analognoise 5y ago
  Never. People are demanding access to an audience like it's a right, and saying their votes don't matter if they can't reach an audience. It's the dumbest shit I've ever heard.
gautamdivgi 5y ago
The right of free speech protects against government retribution. It does not protect private individual / corporation retaliation. This is why you have secret ballot - so no one can retaliate against you for someone you’ve voted for.
- refenestrator 5y ago
  Yes, that's why we have the secret ballot and should keep it, but let's try to trend away from why it's necessary?
treeman79 5y ago
Depend on the company’s Most companies I keep my mouth shut. And I mostly just want a balanced budget. This has become harder as more places are requiring active participation in woke mentality.
wallacoloo 5y ago
> it's well known in tech that you're putting your job/livelihood at risk by speaking contrary to the political groupthink. Have you ever tried it? FWIW, coworkers in my org pushed for a blacklist of words we’re not allowed to check into the codebase within the last year. I raised my counter opinion. I did so respectfully. Today, there’s no blacklist, and I still have my job. Btw my presidential vote was a write-in for Bernie Sanders as president with Yang as running mate. Laugh if you like. I’m vaccinated; I wear a mask wherever the property owner of whatever establishment I’m in requests it (e.g. signs posted on the door), and omit the mask where not. I think my governor’s recent mask mandate is a mistake because we could already navigate the problem organically with the above approach, and anyone who wasn’t previously respecting an establishment’s masking policy isn’t going to respect a top-down legislative one given there’s no intent of enforcement. People will disagree with my political opinions. And if they want, they’ll downvote me to communicate that. But I’m confident I won’t get banned from HN for stating these in the unusual event that it’s relevant to the discussion, much less that any future employer of importance is going to comb through here and decide against hiring me because I respectfully put forth an opposing political viewpoint.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > Btw my presidential vote was a write-in for Bernie Sanders as president with Yang as running mate the comment before was probably not aimed at those who vote or support the left.
  - wallacoloo 5y ago
    Eh, the anti-PC example is anti-progressive though. I didn't want to elaborate my comment with lengthier political views since HN usually isn't the place. But here's a right-leaning hot take to drive the point home: 18 months into this pandemic and I've never once had any input into the policy response. I thought the agreement was "I get the vaccine, I get to live my life as normal". Now that policy changes (mostly state-level) are flipping that, I regret getting the vaccine: I'm in a low-risk demographic and I just gave up my most powerful tool in influencing policy decision. I won't make that same mistake with the booster shots Biden discussed earlier today: I won't be getting those until my policy leaders actually serve me as a constituent. > it's well known in tech that you're putting your job/livelihood at risk by speaking contrary to the political groupthink. Still confident that GP is wrong about that and I won't lose my job or livelihood by posting this.

alentist 5y ago

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1282404647160942598.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1282404647160942598.html

cabalamat 5y ago

> Everyone has a Facebook, Twitter [...] subReddits You appear to be arguing that no-one has ever been kicked off Facebook or Twitter, and that no subreddits have ever been banned. Is that your position?

analognoise 5y ago
So "Silencing" is just getting kicked from Twitter and FB? Such a privileged and weak notion of silencing. China will send people to camps and the police will break down a memorial museum - that's silencing. Getting kicked from FB/Twitter because for being a twat doesn't mean your group is persecuted.
- alentist 5y ago
  https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Moving-the-Goalposts https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Moving-... https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Relative-Privation https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Relativ...
  - analognoise 5y ago
    That's not "moving the goal posts". The ACTUAL complaint is that people demand an AUDIENCE - they want to be able to broadcast their views to the largest number of people possible. Nobody in the US is being "quashed" - you can run your own website, print your own newsletter, and nobody is going to kick down your door or send you to a re-education camp. Like I said, Nazis run their own websites, and the Taliban is on Twitter. Nobody here is being "silenced" because they can't grab the microphone - nobody's owed a microphone in the first place. It's not even "relative privation" - nobody has a God given right to...Facebook. People serious about their causes run their own websites - they don't immediately start whinging because they've been booted from Reddit.
    - alentist 5y ago
      > That's not "moving the goal posts". Your first comment: > Whose voice is getting quashed in the US? Everyone has a Facebook, Twitter, email, phones, a magazine, protests, their own news channels, subReddits. Your second comment: > So "Silencing" is just getting kicked from Twitter and FB?

Dah00n 5y ago

Having a voice doesn't not equal being heard. Especially not if you define A Voice as writing on Facebook or Twitter. You might as well stand on a box in the dead parts of Detroit and talk politics. Being heard in a democratic country means your vote matters.

analognoise 5y ago
Nobody has the right to "be heard"! That's the thing. You have the right to scream it out loud, but nobody is forced to stand there and listen. No - you can't falsely equate "being heard" by being on FB and Twitter to voting. If my neighbor starts screaming Nazi talking points, I have the right to walk away. They still have the right to scream them. Buy Facebook isn't "forced" to carry their views, either! And the Nazi believes what they're saying, so to ensure they're heard, they launch their OWN websites, print their own newsletters, and show up at protests. No. Just No. Nobody is forced to carry anyone else's speech, and only people so weak in their beliefs as to "give up" when banned by FB and Twitter are complaining.
- fouric 5y ago
  This is completely wrong. "Being heard" is being on FB and Twitter, as these platforms (1) are effectively public forums by nature of their massive, near-monopolistic reach, (2) claim protections of public forums, such as immunity from liability due to user-posted content, and (3) implicitly and explicitly portray themselves as public squares/forums[1]. The online equivalent to "having the right to walk away" is blocking someone on a platform. It's that simple. Once a company has reached a monopolistic size, which describes FB and Twitter, then it either needs to be broken up, or treated like a utility/government service - this is exactly the argument that you see all the time about e.g. ISPs and Alphabet/Google - because there's no other morally excusable way to act. The first amendment was written to only apply to the government because that's the entity that's the most likely to (and most dangerous in) silence speech and discourse, not the only one. You definitely would not be making these arguments if it were your ideological tribe that were being censored. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28456794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28456794