7 ms·

you could alternately classify their reasoning as 'basic humanity' rather than political. When we are discussing the value or humanity of certain groups the dis

by avs733 5y ago

you could alternately classify their reasoning as 'basic humanity' rather than political. When we are discussing the value or humanity of certain groups the discussion goes well beyond the label of 'political' but everything else solely for basic humanity reasoning...doesn't have the same ring.

0xy 5y ago
Tearing down freedom of speech values doesn't scream pro-humanity to me, but I'm sure the project has justified it to themselves using some political arguments.
- krapp 5y ago
  Freedom of speech has always included the right to choose not to give a platform to speech with which you disagree. Compelled speech by definition is not free speech.
  - 0xy 5y ago
    The ACLU has repeatedly defended the KKK and other white supremacists. The premier free speech organization disagrees with you.
    - macintux 5y ago
      Defending their right to free speech isn't the same as providing a platform for it, so I'm not sure what point you're making.
      - BitwiseFool 5y ago
        The ACLU sued in order to force the local government to allow the marches to take place. They were quite literally demanding that a platform (the city streets) be provided for the speech they wanted to have.
        krapp 5y ago
        The First Amendment prevents governments' ability to abridge the freedom of speech, not private citizens. As a private citizen, I do not have to allow the KKK a platform on my property, nor would I have to publish their speech as the owner of a newspaper, or broadcast it as the owner of a television station.
        nobody9999 5y ago
        >The ACLU sued in order to force the local government to allow the marches to take place. They were quite literally demanding that a platform (the city streets) be provided for the speech they wanted to have. Operative terms: Government and City streets. In the US, the government may not restrict you from speaking (with some very narrow exceptions). City streets are public and under the control of the government. F-Droid is not a government. Nor is its private property (its servers and infrastructure) in any way public. As such, your analogy is flawed. If what you appear to be advocating were true, I could come to your house, project (duly licensed, of course) gay, midget furry porn on your walls at max volume and you would have no recourse. Private entities (specifically, those that are not the government) are under no obligation to host or promote the speech of others. And that's a good thing. If you wish to stand on some sort of principle over this, I'll be by your place later with the foulest legal content I can find. tl;dr: In the US, restrictions on speech only apply to the government. If you disagree, then you, me and everyone else would have to allow any content (whether you agree with it or not) on your private property.
        nuerow 5y ago
        > The ACLU sued in order to force the local government to allow the marches to take place. Your examples refer to government not being able to prohibit the exercise of free speech. Yet, you're using that example to try to justify forcing specific private companies and organizations to provide services to a specific political group, against their own will and even terms of service, just because it's convenient to the political group and it suits their political goals. This line of reasoning also sounds very hypocritical given that said political group has been advocating for the right of said private companies and organizations to deny service based on political views, and going as far as publicly praising the companies that enforce that blend of politically-motivated denial of service.
      - Igelau 5y ago
        > Defending their right to free speech isn't the same as providing a platform for it I have no mouth, and I must scream.
        theroqwpeo 5y ago
        You can still download the app, it's not banned from your phone. Some people just don't want to sell it in their store. You can't force people to sell your shit in their store. I don't really see what this debate is even about?
        Igelau 5y ago
        > You can't force people to sell your shit in their store. I think this is actually the crux of it. Almost all communication now takes place on privately owned platforms in applications with curated availability. Metaphors comparing it to someone else's store (or someone in thread mentioned protests on your own lawn) are useless. They are so far removed that they aren't even wrong. Why? Because there is vanishingly less space for public speech/press. We have a problem where what we mostly agree is a human right is now heavily under the control of private interests, and you are not going to like it when the pendulum swings the other way.
    - stevehawk 5y ago
      they've actually stopped doing this recently because they're getting "canceled" via loss of donations every time they do. people don't want defenders of freedom of speech anymore. they want internet points for virtue signaling.
- thechao 5y ago
  Freedom of speech is with respect to the state, not other people. If you can show that these platforms are acting on behalf of the state — sure. But, I suspect they’re not.
makomk 5y ago
You could declare that the only way to show basic humanity is to precisely agree with the political zeitgeist in the correct left-wing circles and that the only reason to disagree with any of their political prescriptions is becaues you see certain groups as subhuman. I've seen plenty of activists do so; in a lot of circles it seems to be mandatory in order to actually be seen as human. Of course, there's the small problem that often the members of those groups don't actually support the political prescription, that it destroys the ability to actually challenge the people pushing those political views - who, by definition, have substantial power compared to the minorities they're claiming to help - and that it's lead to horrendous bigotry like TERFism. But that's not worth contemplating, because to qustion the righteousness of all this is to ignore the humanity of the people we conveniently don't have to listen to if it gets in our way.
- avs733 5y ago
  Your comments have many characteristics of a bad faith argument, for example confusing well defined and easy to separate concepts in an effort to create ambiguity. The best way to address a bad faith argument is to label it as such and not engage with it because it is not a meaningful contribution to discourse about a topic. That’s what I’m gonna do from here on out, and I suggest other, Commenters do the same. There is no reasonable confusion between compelling an individual to host speech and preventing the government from interfering by with individuals speech. I suspect you know that.

by avs733 5y ago

0xy 5y ago

Tearing down freedom of speech values doesn't scream pro-humanity to me, but I'm sure the project has justified it to themselves using some political arguments.

krapp 5y ago
Freedom of speech has always included the right to choose not to give a platform to speech with which you disagree. Compelled speech by definition is not free speech.
- 0xy 5y ago
  The ACLU has repeatedly defended the KKK and other white supremacists. The premier free speech organization disagrees with you.
  - macintux 5y ago
    Defending their right to free speech isn't the same as providing a platform for it, so I'm not sure what point you're making.
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      The ACLU sued in order to force the local government to allow the marches to take place. They were quite literally demanding that a platform (the city streets) be provided for the speech they wanted to have.
      - krapp 5y ago
        The First Amendment prevents governments' ability to abridge the freedom of speech, not private citizens. As a private citizen, I do not have to allow the KKK a platform on my property, nor would I have to publish their speech as the owner of a newspaper, or broadcast it as the owner of a television station.
      - nobody9999 5y ago
        >The ACLU sued in order to force the local government to allow the marches to take place. They were quite literally demanding that a platform (the city streets) be provided for the speech they wanted to have. Operative terms: Government and City streets. In the US, the government may not restrict you from speaking (with some very narrow exceptions). City streets are public and under the control of the government. F-Droid is not a government. Nor is its private property (its servers and infrastructure) in any way public. As such, your analogy is flawed. If what you appear to be advocating were true, I could come to your house, project (duly licensed, of course) gay, midget furry porn on your walls at max volume and you would have no recourse. Private entities (specifically, those that are not the government) are under no obligation to host or promote the speech of others. And that's a good thing. If you wish to stand on some sort of principle over this, I'll be by your place later with the foulest legal content I can find. tl;dr: In the US, restrictions on speech only apply to the government. If you disagree, then you, me and everyone else would have to allow any content (whether you agree with it or not) on your private property.
      - nuerow 5y ago
        > The ACLU sued in order to force the local government to allow the marches to take place. Your examples refer to government not being able to prohibit the exercise of free speech. Yet, you're using that example to try to justify forcing specific private companies and organizations to provide services to a specific political group, against their own will and even terms of service, just because it's convenient to the political group and it suits their political goals. This line of reasoning also sounds very hypocritical given that said political group has been advocating for the right of said private companies and organizations to deny service based on political views, and going as far as publicly praising the companies that enforce that blend of politically-motivated denial of service.
    - Igelau 5y ago
      > Defending their right to free speech isn't the same as providing a platform for it I have no mouth, and I must scream.
      - theroqwpeo 5y ago
        You can still download the app, it's not banned from your phone. Some people just don't want to sell it in their store. You can't force people to sell your shit in their store. I don't really see what this debate is even about?
        Igelau 5y ago
        > You can't force people to sell your shit in their store. I think this is actually the crux of it. Almost all communication now takes place on privately owned platforms in applications with curated availability. Metaphors comparing it to someone else's store (or someone in thread mentioned protests on your own lawn) are useless. They are so far removed that they aren't even wrong. Why? Because there is vanishingly less space for public speech/press. We have a problem where what we mostly agree is a human right is now heavily under the control of private interests, and you are not going to like it when the pendulum swings the other way.
  - stevehawk 5y ago
    they've actually stopped doing this recently because they're getting "canceled" via loss of donations every time they do. people don't want defenders of freedom of speech anymore. they want internet points for virtue signaling.
thechao 5y ago
Freedom of speech is with respect to the state, not other people. If you can show that these platforms are acting on behalf of the state — sure. But, I suspect they’re not.

makomk 5y ago

You could declare that the only way to show basic humanity is to precisely agree with the political zeitgeist in the correct left-wing circles and that the only reason to disagree with any of their political prescriptions is becaues you see certain groups as subhuman. I've seen plenty of activists do so; in a lot of circles it seems to be mandatory in order to actually be seen as human. Of course, there's the small problem that often the members of those groups don't actually support the political prescription, that it destroys the ability to actually challenge the people pushing those political views - who, by definition, have substantial power compared to the minorities they're claiming to help - and that it's lead to horrendous bigotry like TERFism. But that's not worth contemplating, because to qustion the righteousness of all this is to ignore the humanity of the people we conveniently don't have to listen to if it gets in our way.

avs733 5y ago
Your comments have many characteristics of a bad faith argument, for example confusing well defined and easy to separate concepts in an effort to create ambiguity. The best way to address a bad faith argument is to label it as such and not engage with it because it is not a meaningful contribution to discourse about a topic. That’s what I’m gonna do from here on out, and I suggest other, Commenters do the same. There is no reasonable confusion between compelling an individual to host speech and preventing the government from interfering by with individuals speech. I suspect you know that.