5 ms·

>If the answer is anything less than “infinite money”, you’re anti-free-speech. Pointing this out is not the most popular thing on HN, but that doesn't make it

>If the answer is anything less than “infinite money”, you’re anti-free-speech. Pointing this out is not the most popular thing on HN, but that doesn't make it less true. I made a similar case a week or two ago in response to someone who did a Show HN on their new "free speech" platform. I essentially challenged the creator to advocate for his new platform by supporting the speech rights of child abusers to promote their ideas, as testament to his committment to "free speech". Told him no one should believe his committment to free speech if he wasn't willing to advocate for those most universally loathed by society. Guess what I got? Downvotes. But, that's the heart of it. At the end of the day, these people like the idea of "free speech" and they dislike the idea of speech they approve not being given the broadest possible platform. But, when it hits the fan, it's actually the latter that they're addressing with their platforms and pronouncements.

newbie789 5y ago
> I essentially challenged the creator to advocate for his new platform by supporting the speech rights of child abusers to promote their ideas I wouldn’t do that. I’m not sure why anybody would.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  Well, feel free to substitute something legal or more abstract, like tentacle porn. But, I did it exactly because it's a real-world example of near-universally abhorrent speech that I don't think they would support on their own platform. But, the deplatformed and other types who are recently lamenting "the great fall of free speech" always offer the argument "who gets to decide what speech is acceptable?", which is a gratingly disingenuous position that pretends we don't have standards and laws, etc. as a society. And further pretends that they themselves believe there should be no limitations on free speech ("unfettered"). We've always had deciders. These people just don't like the recent decisions. But, if that's not the case, then the only way to prove it is to truly allow all speech on their own platform and telegraph that intention by openly supporting the speech rights of the most abhorrent people in society.
  - newbie789 5y ago
    Yeah, these “free speech at all costs!!” folks really don’t think that individuals and private organizations should have the right to curate what appears on the platforms they own and pay for. Their version of “free speech” necessarily requires taking away others’ rights to property, which seems kind of odd because that same crowd is often going on about ~liberty~. Every time I see people shaking their fists and yelling “MODS!!!!” at the sky it gives me a laugh because that person almost certainly has never actually tried to provide an open forum or image hosting service. They’re usually actually fully averse to the idea of doing so, hence why nobody has offered to host my collection of tentacle porn for free and in perpetuity. It’s not an issue of what these people believe is morally right like is often claimed, it’s an issue of how they feel entitled to be treated as an individual regardless of how that impacts the freedom of others. There’s no ideological consistency of “freedom”, just a tantrum about not getting enough free services.
freethrow_2001 5y ago
I absolutely would. Because child porn is evidence of a crime and in of itself it shouldn't be a crime. Any more than owning snuff films, like the ones made by the Mexican cartels, should be a crime. The more the evidence is hidden the more the criminals get away with it. The more public the crime is the quicker it is stopped. Back in the dark days of 4chan you had child porn posted regularly on there and you would see people getting busted in real time from a bag of chips that was sold in one specific state. Today you hear about children who were abused for decades because no one from the general public saw the videos and did something about it. The people who want it hidden don't care about children, they care about being holier than thou. I can't host such a site because I'd get arrested. Sent from tor because society is insane enough that pointing something this obvious out will get you lynched.
citizenpaul 5y ago
Its interesting that you mention this infinite money problem. Have you ever noticed that the second a fully free speech site opens it is almost instantly crippled with CP? Do you really think that is just happening naaturally? How can something universally loathed also be so prolific that it needs to constanly infect venues to propogate? Its almost like its a tactic to suppress free speech but im just a nut.
- mountainb 5y ago
  This is a problem with the post-'60s post-Chatterly trial conception of free speech. Since then, amidst other developments, the concept of free speech has been conflated with a rabid opposition to any obscenity laws. The US and Great Britain have had a much longer history in which free speech had a meaning separate from the absence of prohibition against obscene material (with some small exceptions we have today like child pornography). There is actually no contradiction between moderating to remove obscene and other illegal content and supporting the principle of free speech. It's just our understanding of what free speech is has become deeply muddled. Depending on your understanding of free speech, the Comstock Law regime for example either contradicts the principle or fits within that principle. SA is a good example of the limits of the post-60s conception of free speech and the problems associated with a fanatical dedication to an only recently established reinterpretation of the first amendment. James Madison would not have recognized the post-60s speech regime as something he was establishing in Bill of Rights. He would have seen it as an odd stretch of a relatively ancient and well established principle under British law and political culture.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Is there more information about the changing definition of free speech? How did modern activists get it so wrong?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
bagels 5y ago
I don't think providing a place where other people can say what they want is equivalent to being compelled to promote someone elses' speech.
- newbie789 5y ago
  So, how do I upload my collection of tentacle porn to your personal website? A true advocate for free speech would post their SFTP credentials in the open on this website.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  The suggestion was not to support the speech itself, but the right to the speech. Big difference. Many of those who've been deplatformed for disinfo, or hateful speech, etc. couch their victimization narratives in the loftier ideals of free speech, with the disingenuous pronouncenent "who gets to decide?" My point is that society decides and must necessarily decide if we're to continue to have a society. And, if they disagree that anyone should have the right to decide, then they can demonstrate their committment to that belief by openly embracing the speech rights of those most universally abhorred. Otherwise, they acknowledge the existence of and rationale for limits, and just want to be the decider.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

newbie789 5y ago

> I essentially challenged the creator to advocate for his new platform by supporting the speech rights of child abusers to promote their ideas I wouldn’t do that. I’m not sure why anybody would.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
Well, feel free to substitute something legal or more abstract, like tentacle porn. But, I did it exactly because it's a real-world example of near-universally abhorrent speech that I don't think they would support on their own platform. But, the deplatformed and other types who are recently lamenting "the great fall of free speech" always offer the argument "who gets to decide what speech is acceptable?", which is a gratingly disingenuous position that pretends we don't have standards and laws, etc. as a society. And further pretends that they themselves believe there should be no limitations on free speech ("unfettered"). We've always had deciders. These people just don't like the recent decisions. But, if that's not the case, then the only way to prove it is to truly allow all speech on their own platform and telegraph that intention by openly supporting the speech rights of the most abhorrent people in society.
- newbie789 5y ago
  Yeah, these “free speech at all costs!!” folks really don’t think that individuals and private organizations should have the right to curate what appears on the platforms they own and pay for. Their version of “free speech” necessarily requires taking away others’ rights to property, which seems kind of odd because that same crowd is often going on about ~liberty~. Every time I see people shaking their fists and yelling “MODS!!!!” at the sky it gives me a laugh because that person almost certainly has never actually tried to provide an open forum or image hosting service. They’re usually actually fully averse to the idea of doing so, hence why nobody has offered to host my collection of tentacle porn for free and in perpetuity. It’s not an issue of what these people believe is morally right like is often claimed, it’s an issue of how they feel entitled to be treated as an individual regardless of how that impacts the freedom of others. There’s no ideological consistency of “freedom”, just a tantrum about not getting enough free services.

freethrow_2001 5y ago

I absolutely would. Because child porn is evidence of a crime and in of itself it shouldn't be a crime. Any more than owning snuff films, like the ones made by the Mexican cartels, should be a crime. The more the evidence is hidden the more the criminals get away with it. The more public the crime is the quicker it is stopped. Back in the dark days of 4chan you had child porn posted regularly on there and you would see people getting busted in real time from a bag of chips that was sold in one specific state. Today you hear about children who were abused for decades because no one from the general public saw the videos and did something about it. The people who want it hidden don't care about children, they care about being holier than thou. I can't host such a site because I'd get arrested. Sent from tor because society is insane enough that pointing something this obvious out will get you lynched.

citizenpaul 5y ago

Its interesting that you mention this infinite money problem. Have you ever noticed that the second a fully free speech site opens it is almost instantly crippled with CP? Do you really think that is just happening naaturally? How can something universally loathed also be so prolific that it needs to constanly infect venues to propogate? Its almost like its a tactic to suppress free speech but im just a nut.

mountainb 5y ago
This is a problem with the post-'60s post-Chatterly trial conception of free speech. Since then, amidst other developments, the concept of free speech has been conflated with a rabid opposition to any obscenity laws. The US and Great Britain have had a much longer history in which free speech had a meaning separate from the absence of prohibition against obscene material (with some small exceptions we have today like child pornography). There is actually no contradiction between moderating to remove obscene and other illegal content and supporting the principle of free speech. It's just our understanding of what free speech is has become deeply muddled. Depending on your understanding of free speech, the Comstock Law regime for example either contradicts the principle or fits within that principle. SA is a good example of the limits of the post-60s conception of free speech and the problems associated with a fanatical dedication to an only recently established reinterpretation of the first amendment. James Madison would not have recognized the post-60s speech regime as something he was establishing in Bill of Rights. He would have seen it as an odd stretch of a relatively ancient and well established principle under British law and political culture.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Is there more information about the changing definition of free speech? How did modern activists get it so wrong?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- dragonwriter 5y ago

bagels 5y ago

I don't think providing a place where other people can say what they want is equivalent to being compelled to promote someone elses' speech.

newbie789 5y ago
So, how do I upload my collection of tentacle porn to your personal website? A true advocate for free speech would post their SFTP credentials in the open on this website.
unclebucknasty 5y ago
The suggestion was not to support the speech itself, but the right to the speech. Big difference. Many of those who've been deplatformed for disinfo, or hateful speech, etc. couch their victimization narratives in the loftier ideals of free speech, with the disingenuous pronouncenent "who gets to decide?" My point is that society decides and must necessarily decide if we're to continue to have a society. And, if they disagree that anyone should have the right to decide, then they can demonstrate their committment to that belief by openly embracing the speech rights of those most universally abhorred. Otherwise, they acknowledge the existence of and rationale for limits, and just want to be the decider.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]