3 ms·

> Free speech absolutism is possible and is beneficial once you ensure that someone is not gaming the system, i.e. someone pretending to be more than one person

> Free speech absolutism is possible and is beneficial once you ensure that someone is not gaming the system, i.e. someone pretending to be more than one person You can have free speech absolutism or controls to stop gaming the system. Pick one. After that it becomes a debate over which controls to have, and the argument that multiple accounts is worse than incitement to racial hatred or antivax nonsense isn't a clear cut one. A lot of the "free speech" complaints about social media amount to complaints about social media platforms adding content warnings about [alleged] sensational lies or penalising their reputation anyway.

nxm 5y ago
Facebook blocking valid NY Post articles (just one last week) is not a content warning… it’s flat out censorship
- themitigating 5y ago
  Which article is currently being blocked?
  - glenstein 5y ago
    And, as is always the question, to what extent is this one-off example representative of the totality of Facebook's efforts to stop the spread of misinformation? Are 50% of the "censored" posts regular reporting? 1%? 0.00001%? Shouldn't a detail like that matter? If I could make the rules, my rule for conversations about one-off examples would be that you have to immediately follow up by talking about how representative that example is of the phenomenon you are using it to illustrate.
- delfinom 5y ago
  You realize NYPost are the ones who slutshame a NYC EMT for moonlighting on OnlyFans to make ends meet because their salary is criminally low? You know, they find the fact she's making some X-rated content more wrong than her salary being at the poverty level. There is no "valid" content from that tabloid.
  - c1yd3i 5y ago
    OK... who cares? Who's to say that your world view / morality is more correct than the view in the NYPost article?
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > Who's to say that your world view / morality is more correct than the view in the NYPost article? The platform you’re using to blast it, within the confines of their platform.
      - c1yd3i 5y ago
        And, I don't want my platform to say anything about this. See https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/terms#tcontent https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/terms#tcontent for the proper model.
        JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > I don't want my platform to say anything about this You should have the freedom to start such a forum without being regulated out of existence and join such a forum without fear of isolation. You should not be able to force other privately owned forums to adopt your view.
        c1yd3i 5y ago
        By this logic, it seems like you're asking Twitter to adopt your view. Screw mine and anyone else's and derank discussion that you don't agree with.
        lovich 5y ago
        If they ask Twitter or some other platform to derank your view and manage to convince the platform to do so, that’s an end result of free speech. One of the main arguments for free speech is that you let everyone talk without government interference and let private actors decide what are good and bad ideas. Everyone in this post who wants these public platforms to be forced to host all speech sound like what they really need is to have these platforms to be nationalized and run with government rules. What’s confusing to me is the majority of the people I see who want these platforms to host all speech are also in the same group that thinks everything should be done by companies and not the government
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
glenstein 5y ago
>A lot of the "free speech" complaints about social media amount to complaints about social media platforms adding content warnings about [alleged] sensational lies or penalising their reputation anyway. Exactly. And I would add, nobody who claims they are a "free speech absolutist" can stay consistent with that declaration after even one or two simple questions. Does free speech absolutism mean unmoderated ISIS and Al-Qaeda posts are fine? Because we need to expose them to healthy debate for the benefit of societal progress? The answer typically is "well that's not speech, that's _____", and then it's a debate over why there's a special different word for the type of speech they want to prohibit.
- tomp 5y ago
  > Does free speech absolutism mean unmoderated ISIS and Al-Qaeda posts are fine? As a free speech absolutist, "yes". That's literally literally what the word "absolutism" in "free speech absolutism" means.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    You may do, but the self-proclaimed "free speech absolutist" trying to buy Twitter thinks that making certain claims and revealing certain information about his companies is not at all fine, hence all the litigation against critical former employees
  - glenstein 5y ago
    That is a laudable position of intellectual consistency! I agree that it is what the "absolutism" part means.
- rpmisms 5y ago
  > nobody who claims they are a "free speech absolutist" can stay consistent with that declaration after even one or two simple questions. Try me.

nxm 5y ago

Facebook blocking valid NY Post articles (just one last week) is not a content warning… it’s flat out censorship

themitigating 5y ago
Which article is currently being blocked?
- glenstein 5y ago
  And, as is always the question, to what extent is this one-off example representative of the totality of Facebook's efforts to stop the spread of misinformation? Are 50% of the "censored" posts regular reporting? 1%? 0.00001%? Shouldn't a detail like that matter? If I could make the rules, my rule for conversations about one-off examples would be that you have to immediately follow up by talking about how representative that example is of the phenomenon you are using it to illustrate.
delfinom 5y ago
You realize NYPost are the ones who slutshame a NYC EMT for moonlighting on OnlyFans to make ends meet because their salary is criminally low? You know, they find the fact she's making some X-rated content more wrong than her salary being at the poverty level. There is no "valid" content from that tabloid.
- c1yd3i 5y ago
  OK... who cares? Who's to say that your world view / morality is more correct than the view in the NYPost article?
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Who's to say that your world view / morality is more correct than the view in the NYPost article? The platform you’re using to blast it, within the confines of their platform.
    - c1yd3i 5y ago
      And, I don't want my platform to say anything about this. See https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/terms#tcontent https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/terms#tcontent for the proper model.
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > I don't want my platform to say anything about this You should have the freedom to start such a forum without being regulated out of existence and join such a forum without fear of isolation. You should not be able to force other privately owned forums to adopt your view.
        c1yd3i 5y ago
        By this logic, it seems like you're asking Twitter to adopt your view. Screw mine and anyone else's and derank discussion that you don't agree with.
        lovich 5y ago
        If they ask Twitter or some other platform to derank your view and manage to convince the platform to do so, that’s an end result of free speech. One of the main arguments for free speech is that you let everyone talk without government interference and let private actors decide what are good and bad ideas. Everyone in this post who wants these public platforms to be forced to host all speech sound like what they really need is to have these platforms to be nationalized and run with government rules. What’s confusing to me is the majority of the people I see who want these platforms to host all speech are also in the same group that thinks everything should be done by companies and not the government
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

glenstein 5y ago

>A lot of the "free speech" complaints about social media amount to complaints about social media platforms adding content warnings about [alleged] sensational lies or penalising their reputation anyway. Exactly. And I would add, nobody who claims they are a "free speech absolutist" can stay consistent with that declaration after even one or two simple questions. Does free speech absolutism mean unmoderated ISIS and Al-Qaeda posts are fine? Because we need to expose them to healthy debate for the benefit of societal progress? The answer typically is "well that's not speech, that's _____", and then it's a debate over why there's a special different word for the type of speech they want to prohibit.

tomp 5y ago
> Does free speech absolutism mean unmoderated ISIS and Al-Qaeda posts are fine? As a free speech absolutist, "yes". That's literally literally what the word "absolutism" in "free speech absolutism" means.
- notahacker 5y ago
  You may do, but the self-proclaimed "free speech absolutist" trying to buy Twitter thinks that making certain claims and revealing certain information about his companies is not at all fine, hence all the litigation against critical former employees
- glenstein 5y ago
  That is a laudable position of intellectual consistency! I agree that it is what the "absolutism" part means.
rpmisms 5y ago
> nobody who claims they are a "free speech absolutist" can stay consistent with that declaration after even one or two simple questions. Try me.