6 ms·

While they are a private company, and there are arguments about their rights as such, having free speech means being willing to "permit the exchange of dangerou

While they are a private company, and there are arguments about their rights as such, having free speech means being willing to "permit the exchange of dangerous ideas" to avoid the suppression of 'good' ones. That is actually the whole idea and there is very little compromise possible while still maintaining a free society.

avalys 5y ago
"The COVID vaccines were rushed through the approval process and have more health risks than the government will admit." "Ivermectin makes you immune to COVID and will prevent you from spreading the disease to others if you get it." "You can cure your child of autism by having them drink diluted bleach." The President of the United States stated that Facebook is "killing people" by not suppressing the discussion of ideas like this (at least, the first two) on their platform. What do you think of these ideas? Should Facebook allow them to be expressed at all? Should Facebook make it easy for people who believe these ideas to discuss them with other like-minded individuals? Should Facebook permit these ideas to be expressed, but specifically design their product to suppress them so that they are harder to find? If Facebook shows an ad on a page that also contains a post from a user expressing an idea like this, is Facebook profiting from spreading dangerous ideas? Is that reprehensible? Should they be prohibited from doing so? Does that mean they should, in fact, suppress these ideas? I said Facebook is accused no matter what they do - I didn't say I agree with the accusers. Regardless, it is clear that mainstream political thought in the US actually doesn't respect free speech all that much these days when it conflicts with their own values.
slg 5y ago
>there is very little compromise possible while still maintaining a free society. How do you feel about copyright? Or false advertising? Or slander? Or bribery? Or harassment? Or threats of violence? Or conspiracies to commit crime? Or revenge porn? Or child porn? It is so weird when people pretend that free speech is binary considering we already outlaw so many different forms of speech. Free speech is a spectrum and there is valid debate on where on the spectrum we draw the line. Germany happens to be draw the line in a difference place than the US but that doesn't mean they aren't a "free society".
- errantmind 5y ago
  There is a lot to unpack there, and I don't have time to expound on all those individually, but I'd come down as more of a hardliner on the side of free speech while letting other societal mechanisms moderate the extremes to varying degrees. The reason being that without a clear line the government always pushes for less freedom, not more. Sometimes it is better to have a few societal ills than a slow slide into authoritarianism. Yes, this is a slippery slope argument but given the historical evidence I believe it is warranted.
  - slg 5y ago
    The US is at an extreme in where it draws the line on free speech compared to other western democracies. Would you say that every other western democracy is on the path to authoritarianism because they drew the line somewhere else?
    - errantmind 5y ago
      I can't say they are without looking into them individually. How can you expect me to know one way or another? Do you claim to know? My point was it may be wise to err on the side of history and what your eyes tell you about the nature of politics in modern democracies. I don't want my fundamental rights subject to political whims and opportunism. Also, I don't think there is anything extreme about the US's free speech laws. What do you think is extreme about them?
      - slg 5y ago
        Hate speech, political advertising, and lobbying are some of the big types of speech that are heavily restricted in other western democracies compared to the US. You said previously that "there is very little compromise possible while still maintaining a free society" and "The reason being that without a clear line the government always pushes for less freedom, not more. Sometimes it is better to have a few societal ills than a slow slide into authoritarianism." I took those two statements as implying that countries that have "compromised" in comparison to the US will have trouble "maintaining a free society" and are pushing "for less freedom, not more" and that therefore they have begun "a slow slide into authoritarianism."

avalys 5y ago

"The COVID vaccines were rushed through the approval process and have more health risks than the government will admit." "Ivermectin makes you immune to COVID and will prevent you from spreading the disease to others if you get it." "You can cure your child of autism by having them drink diluted bleach." The President of the United States stated that Facebook is "killing people" by not suppressing the discussion of ideas like this (at least, the first two) on their platform. What do you think of these ideas? Should Facebook allow them to be expressed at all? Should Facebook make it easy for people who believe these ideas to discuss them with other like-minded individuals? Should Facebook permit these ideas to be expressed, but specifically design their product to suppress them so that they are harder to find? If Facebook shows an ad on a page that also contains a post from a user expressing an idea like this, is Facebook profiting from spreading dangerous ideas? Is that reprehensible? Should they be prohibited from doing so? Does that mean they should, in fact, suppress these ideas? I said Facebook is accused no matter what they do - I didn't say I agree with the accusers. Regardless, it is clear that mainstream political thought in the US actually doesn't respect free speech all that much these days when it conflicts with their own values.

slg 5y ago

>there is very little compromise possible while still maintaining a free society. How do you feel about copyright? Or false advertising? Or slander? Or bribery? Or harassment? Or threats of violence? Or conspiracies to commit crime? Or revenge porn? Or child porn? It is so weird when people pretend that free speech is binary considering we already outlaw so many different forms of speech. Free speech is a spectrum and there is valid debate on where on the spectrum we draw the line. Germany happens to be draw the line in a difference place than the US but that doesn't mean they aren't a "free society".

errantmind 5y ago
There is a lot to unpack there, and I don't have time to expound on all those individually, but I'd come down as more of a hardliner on the side of free speech while letting other societal mechanisms moderate the extremes to varying degrees. The reason being that without a clear line the government always pushes for less freedom, not more. Sometimes it is better to have a few societal ills than a slow slide into authoritarianism. Yes, this is a slippery slope argument but given the historical evidence I believe it is warranted.
- slg 5y ago
  The US is at an extreme in where it draws the line on free speech compared to other western democracies. Would you say that every other western democracy is on the path to authoritarianism because they drew the line somewhere else?
  - errantmind 5y ago
    I can't say they are without looking into them individually. How can you expect me to know one way or another? Do you claim to know? My point was it may be wise to err on the side of history and what your eyes tell you about the nature of politics in modern democracies. I don't want my fundamental rights subject to political whims and opportunism. Also, I don't think there is anything extreme about the US's free speech laws. What do you think is extreme about them?
    - slg 5y ago
      Hate speech, political advertising, and lobbying are some of the big types of speech that are heavily restricted in other western democracies compared to the US. You said previously that "there is very little compromise possible while still maintaining a free society" and "The reason being that without a clear line the government always pushes for less freedom, not more. Sometimes it is better to have a few societal ills than a slow slide into authoritarianism." I took those two statements as implying that countries that have "compromised" in comparison to the US will have trouble "maintaining a free society" and are pushing "for less freedom, not more" and that therefore they have begun "a slow slide into authoritarianism."