5 ms·

So you demand freedom for all ... except those that are using their freedom in the way you dont like. For the avoidence of doubt, I am talking about the freedo

So you demand freedom for all ... except those that are using their freedom in the way you dont like. For the avoidence of doubt, I am talking about the freedom to not have someone in your house / your company platform.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
No, they demand a principled balance between the two freedoms, that's independent of the content of the speech. What you're talking about is what's status quo - freedom for private businesses to not serve someone, except when it contradicts certain narratives, at which point it becomes a national news story about bigoted business owners.
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  Saying the balance should be predicated on ignoring the content of the speech makes sense only if speech itself was a pure function without side-effects, only if saying something truly had no other consequence than it being said can we safely ignore the content. But the precise content of speech is exactly the part that matters! If a death sentence is read out aloud in verse, or just sent in via a short text message (that is via two very different types of speech) is clearly not very important if the end result in either case is an aid worker being blown up with a Hellfire. Speech very often triggers actions, to ignore this fact is to state nothing may be prevented because judgment is only possible by examining actions committed to reality.
- shapefrog 5y ago
  > we shouldn’t be okay with censorship of anyone regardless That is not a balance, that is an absolute position in favour of one side of the coin ... regardless
  - saurik 5y ago
    The "balance" is based on something that, while explicitly stated, you somehow disregarded: that some--and, by and large, the current legal landscape--considers the freedom of speech right of the platform to censor people, and so to obtain "anyone can say anything" we have to take away "the freedom to not say something"... which we actually already do in various instances (often involving protected classes) and so, personally, I consider that to be a tractable goal to regulate: some things are "utilities" or even "quasi-governmental entities" and should be forced to be something like a common carrier.
busymom0 5y ago
Social media companies which are actively working with the government to censor opposing view points while also enjoying legal immunity from lawsuits. You think there’s a fair balance of “freedom” here? Should telecom/electricity/railroads also get to ban whoever they like? Did you support net neutrality?
caoilte 5y ago
The false equivalence here between your house and your company platform is so ick.
- shapefrog 5y ago
  I take it you dont believe them to both be private property?
  - caoilte 5y ago
    A home can't take credit card payments.
OneTimePetes 5y ago
So, if i would manage to besiege the city of rome, conquer it and declare the forum romanum mine, and to throw out all the romans. Does that make writing "Romanes eunt domus" an act, that forbids you forever the usage of my conquered streets? M i the conqueror allowed to sentence a citizen to house-arrest, by defining social negative space?
- shapefrog 5y ago
  You are as free to forbid the speech as those are free to make the speech.

TeMPOraL 5y ago

No, they demand a principled balance between the two freedoms, that's independent of the content of the speech. What you're talking about is what's status quo - freedom for private businesses to not serve someone, except when it contradicts certain narratives, at which point it becomes a national news story about bigoted business owners.

SiempreViernes 5y ago
Saying the balance should be predicated on ignoring the content of the speech makes sense only if speech itself was a pure function without side-effects, only if saying something truly had no other consequence than it being said can we safely ignore the content. But the precise content of speech is exactly the part that matters! If a death sentence is read out aloud in verse, or just sent in via a short text message (that is via two very different types of speech) is clearly not very important if the end result in either case is an aid worker being blown up with a Hellfire. Speech very often triggers actions, to ignore this fact is to state nothing may be prevented because judgment is only possible by examining actions committed to reality.
shapefrog 5y ago
> we shouldn’t be okay with censorship of anyone regardless That is not a balance, that is an absolute position in favour of one side of the coin ... regardless
- saurik 5y ago
  The "balance" is based on something that, while explicitly stated, you somehow disregarded: that some--and, by and large, the current legal landscape--considers the freedom of speech right of the platform to censor people, and so to obtain "anyone can say anything" we have to take away "the freedom to not say something"... which we actually already do in various instances (often involving protected classes) and so, personally, I consider that to be a tractable goal to regulate: some things are "utilities" or even "quasi-governmental entities" and should be forced to be something like a common carrier.

busymom0 5y ago

Social media companies which are actively working with the government to censor opposing view points while also enjoying legal immunity from lawsuits. You think there’s a fair balance of “freedom” here? Should telecom/electricity/railroads also get to ban whoever they like? Did you support net neutrality?

caoilte 5y ago

The false equivalence here between your house and your company platform is so ick.

shapefrog 5y ago
I take it you dont believe them to both be private property?
- caoilte 5y ago
  A home can't take credit card payments.

OneTimePetes 5y ago

So, if i would manage to besiege the city of rome, conquer it and declare the forum romanum mine, and to throw out all the romans. Does that make writing "Romanes eunt domus" an act, that forbids you forever the usage of my conquered streets? M i the conqueror allowed to sentence a citizen to house-arrest, by defining social negative space?

shapefrog 5y ago
You are as free to forbid the speech as those are free to make the speech.