3 ms·

> Freedom of expression should never be freedom of harmful expression or freedom of consequences. Everything you do has consequences, it's meaningless to wish

> Freedom of expression should never be freedom of harmful expression or freedom of consequences. Everything you do has consequences, it's meaningless to wish for them unless you mean unpleasant ones, which then means that you're looking for those you disagree with to experience bad things. Hardly an original thought, and not a good one either. As Chomsky once put it, "even Stalin was in favour of speech he liked". > freedom of harmful expression This though, could be interesting. How would it be decided? Who would decide it?

lkrubner 5y ago
> How would it be decided? Who would decide it? In this case, it is up to Substack to decide. The reason for bringing pressure against Substack is exactly so that they remove the disinformation that is harmful to the public.
- brigandish 5y ago
  “To remove information that some disagree with” would be easier to achieve if it’s termed “(to) remove the disinformation that is harmful to the public”. So who decides what is disinformation? And why didn’t the Guardian provide any disinformation? (in the example about Malone they used, Malone’s claim was correct)
Comevius 5y ago
Substack should decide, and ultimately laws do. European laws are already in favor platform responsibility. It's an ongoing research of course, we are figuring it out, but Substack's approach of shrugging responsibility is not tenable. In a democracy what is harmful and what is not is decided by the public, and ideally that public should be well-informed and educated, if not, you have a different problem you must fix. For example the United States is far from an ideal democracy, it is a flawed democracy. When a few people are allowed to manipulate a lot of people to get rich or powerful you have a flawed system. That's what Substack allows as well. And it's not right. Never will be.
- brigandish 5y ago
  I’m “the public” and you are “the public” so again, I ask you, how would it be decided what is harmful and who exactly would do the deciding? If you mean that the public decide by making their own decisions on whether to read something or not then that sounds like a good system to me, as I’m happy to make my own decisions. I’m also an adult who respects the right for other adults to make their own decisions, especially about what they read.
throwawaygh 5y ago
The relevant debate is not about "freedom of speech", but about "freedom to profit from running a platform for others' speech". I have no issue with substack as a platform. My issue is with substack the Delaware C Corp.
- brigandish 5y ago
  If one type of speech can be made money from but another type cannot by dint of being rendered a different class of speech then it’s hard to see how it’s free.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    I don't understand what you are saying. Freedom to speak and freedom to profit from coordinating a platform for speech are different things. If you think "my ability to make money on social media platform capitalism" and "the original intent of the first amendment" are the same thing, then we have no common ground about what America is or means.
    - brigandish 5y ago
      > If you think "my ability to make money on social media platform capitalism" and "the original intent of the first amendment" are the same thing, then we have no common ground about what America is or means. I don't. Thanks for letting me clear that up. > Freedom to speak and freedom to profit from coordinating a platform for speech are different things. Let's accept it because you've written it. What is it that you object to in either the freedom to speak or the freedom - via any means (freedom, right?) - to profit from it?

lkrubner 5y ago

> How would it be decided? Who would decide it? In this case, it is up to Substack to decide. The reason for bringing pressure against Substack is exactly so that they remove the disinformation that is harmful to the public.

brigandish 5y ago
“To remove information that some disagree with” would be easier to achieve if it’s termed “(to) remove the disinformation that is harmful to the public”. So who decides what is disinformation? And why didn’t the Guardian provide any disinformation? (in the example about Malone they used, Malone’s claim was correct)

Comevius 5y ago

Substack should decide, and ultimately laws do. European laws are already in favor platform responsibility. It's an ongoing research of course, we are figuring it out, but Substack's approach of shrugging responsibility is not tenable. In a democracy what is harmful and what is not is decided by the public, and ideally that public should be well-informed and educated, if not, you have a different problem you must fix. For example the United States is far from an ideal democracy, it is a flawed democracy. When a few people are allowed to manipulate a lot of people to get rich or powerful you have a flawed system. That's what Substack allows as well. And it's not right. Never will be.

brigandish 5y ago
I’m “the public” and you are “the public” so again, I ask you, how would it be decided what is harmful and who exactly would do the deciding? If you mean that the public decide by making their own decisions on whether to read something or not then that sounds like a good system to me, as I’m happy to make my own decisions. I’m also an adult who respects the right for other adults to make their own decisions, especially about what they read.

throwawaygh 5y ago

The relevant debate is not about "freedom of speech", but about "freedom to profit from running a platform for others' speech". I have no issue with substack as a platform. My issue is with substack the Delaware C Corp.

brigandish 5y ago
If one type of speech can be made money from but another type cannot by dint of being rendered a different class of speech then it’s hard to see how it’s free.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  I don't understand what you are saying. Freedom to speak and freedom to profit from coordinating a platform for speech are different things. If you think "my ability to make money on social media platform capitalism" and "the original intent of the first amendment" are the same thing, then we have no common ground about what America is or means.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    > If you think "my ability to make money on social media platform capitalism" and "the original intent of the first amendment" are the same thing, then we have no common ground about what America is or means. I don't. Thanks for letting me clear that up. > Freedom to speak and freedom to profit from coordinating a platform for speech are different things. Let's accept it because you've written it. What is it that you object to in either the freedom to speak or the freedom - via any means (freedom, right?) - to profit from it?