4 ms·

I think you need to look at history, "following people into the woods" and much worse than deplatforming has been ongoing for most of the existence of the US (a

I think you need to look at history, "following people into the woods" and much worse than deplatforming has been ongoing for most of the existence of the US (and most/all other countries, just keeping it limited to a US discussion). I mean just look at what happened to people who demonstrated or supported civil rights in the 60s (hint:some were lynched), or gay lesbians in the 80s and 90s (and still). I actually agree that we need to move past these issues, taking a free speech absolutist stance is not the way. This is part of how these groups were and still are discriminated against.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
<< taking a free speech absolutist stance is not the way. I genuinely dislike this label. It is not an absolutist stance at all. If anything, it is simple a stance based on the foundational values of US as a country. And there is a reason for it. If you cannot express your real thoughts, the conversation gets confused with attempts to evade censor or completely incomprehensible since language gets too distorted to mean anything at all. It is getting tiring. I am saying this as an immigrant from the old country, where censorship was a thing ( with author writing cringy articles in defense of it -- sounds familiar? ). It is sad for me to see US going that route.
- deanCommie 5y ago
  > foundational values of US as a country > old country, where censorship was a thing. It is sad for me to see US going that route. Why does this keep coming up? Nobody, absolutely nobody, is advocating for government restriction of free speech. That is the foundation of the US as a country. Twitter didn't exist back then but newspapers certainly did. Town squares certainly did. If the founding fathers wanted to say "if someone is speaking in a town square you can't throw tomatoes at them or shout them down", they would have. Twitter moderating its content has zero to do with the foundations of America or censorship in other countries.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    Sure. And the moment alternative to Twitter is even suggested, it is curbstomped from hackers, who see it as a 'permissible' target ( and seemingly it is based on the cheering that follows a hack ) and various service providers, who won't let it exist. It is all fine and dandy to say 'build your own public square', but its point is somewhat lost, when you have a hard time even getting basic materials.
    - deanCommie 5y ago
      Why is anyone entitled to their own public square. We Live In A Society. If you come to a public square - physically or on twitter, and scream something that the rest of society doesn't want to hear, you are exercising your free speech, and they are exercising theirs if they say they don't want to hear you.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
        "Why is anyone entitled to their own public square." I think there may be a disconnect between what we are trying to convey. Public square is by definition.. public. It is not a possession of any one person. Anyone can grab a soapbox. What I see now.. is soapbox oligopoly. That is an issue.
        deanCommie 5y ago
        Anyone is free to put up a website as their soapbox. They don't because they want the tools and reach offered by private platforms, but don't want to follow their rules. You can't have it both ways.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
        But companies can? They are Schrodinger's publisher depending on who opens the box. More to the point, so anyone can have a soapbox, but that soapbox will be kicked from under you in the form of hackers, ddos, and so on unless you use those tools. What is the next advice? Build your own Cloudflare? Your own ISP? It is madness and leaves us exactly where we are now. You can't tell me everyone can have a soapbox if the soapbox is only theoretical in nature and in production deployment does not survive a day. Edit: snarky comment removed.
- philosopher1234 5y ago
  Censorship is an indelible part of human relations. You can never truly speak your mind, partly because the other person cant have it, but fundamentally because you cant either.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    "You can never truly speak your mind" And that is a problem. Our communication depends on being able to articulate ourselves. Quality of our thoughts depend on the language. The quality of our discourse suffers, because our thoughts are being trained to offer 'safe' language. If you do not see it as a problem, we have a problem.
    - philosopher1234 5y ago
      This is a fact of being human, and you will never “fix” it.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
        I disagree. And I disagree for one reason only. Never is an awful long time to state anything with any kind of certainty.
        philosopher1234 5y ago
        You will never fix it the same way you will never make a diamond out of ruby. It's constitutive of being human.
- theodric 5y ago
  I think we've arrived at the point where all the town squares are owned by a private corporation who can - so I am told - do whatever they want on their property. I guess this was always the terminal destination of American society: stuck in a company town with nowhere to go, while the government just looks on saying "they're not doing anything illegal, so I can't help!"
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    This is effectively where we are. History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. I am personally saddened that it is not seen as a danger that it is.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  But the founding principles have always had restrictions build in. Try for example publically calling for the assassination of the president (or any other person) and see how you fare. Or army members not being allowed to talk about their missions. I don't buy that these are fundamentally different, it is simply drawing the line differently of what is permissable free speech.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    The comparison is not applicable. When you join the army, you give up certain rights to join that specific group. To make it even more important, the rules are clear and explicit. Now compare it to Twitter or Facebook. You don't know what you signing up for. Their TOS effectively say they can ban you for things they deem wrong. It is only recently that we know how they evaluate it ( see CNN discussion of FB speech violence tiers ). Free speech is just that. It is free speech. There is no TOS. It includes all sorts of nasty bits too, because that is what being human is. Trying to pretend otherwise is, at best, counterproductive. But here we are. Entire nation scared of reality and in dire need to cover it up with soft language. << But the founding principles have always had restrictions build in. Do they? I am reading the constitution and I don't see those restrictions. You may get a visit from some agencies, but that is to make sure you were not joking. On the other hand, I do see a mention of when slavery is ok in US and yet people seem surprised when it is pointed out.
    - cycomanic 5y ago
      I am talking about restrictions to free speech and yes when you join the army your free speech is restricted. Which is a clear example of the government restricting free speech, but presumably that is OK?
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
        The argument is a good one, but I think it is missing the nuance of the status of a soldier, who, for a variety of reasons, is not an average citizen ( note, how many restrictions are listed with qualifier 'while in uniform'[1]). You can say what you want. Just don't make it look like the army is saying this. It may sound like a contradiction, but it is not. You voluntarily join the army. You join that specific group and accept their 'rules'. It is harder to argue ( not impossible since there are naturalized citizens, who clearly opt in to become citizens ) that citizens by right of birth voluntarily opt into that set of rules. That is the where constitution comes in. What I am saying is that army argument is flawed. edit: changed typical to average [1]https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/27-1/Ch10.htm https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/...
Mezzie 5y ago
Ironically, I'm a butch lesbian who came out in the 90s, so I'm well aware. One of my less popular opinions in the queer community is that I AM a free speech absolutist (or close to it), even if it does result in some discrimination. (Even against me.) Of course we should minimize and work to eliminate discrimination in society, but that isn't the only value we have, and unfortunately social policies are always a case of trade-offs. I also prefer to let the homophobes be open about it so a.) I know what they're saying and can undermine it and b.) so I know who to avoid. All pushing it underground does is make me nervous that everybody's a closet homophobe and means I can't change anybody's mind. (Which I have done on multiple occasions).
- beardedetim 5y ago
  > so I know who to avoid This is a good point! I think that the concept of "who do I want to associate with" is a different way to view things than "everyone I see in the world needs to treat me with agency" I have a hard time knowing where that line is. Like you said, > I AM a free speech absolutist (or close to it), even if it does result in some discrimination. (Even against me.) People out there, due to their agency, may not agree with where my agency ends and theirs begins. I think if we have the privilege and feel able to "choose to avoid" those that we disagree with, we could have these discussions in the open without fear and actively change people's minds. I don't know how to though. I've written about it here [1] but I still don't have a good answer for how do we draw that line of where your agency ends and mine/theirs begin. [1] https://timonapath.com/articles/body-politic https://timonapath.com/articles/body-politic
  - Mezzie 5y ago
    I think it's such a hard question because the line moves in accordance to people's position in their culture and society. Even oppressed/marginalized people can have very different circumstances. For example, the 80s-00s were very homophobic, particularly in certain areas of the country, but one thing I had in my favor was a parent with their own household that supported me. That meant that if, say, my dad pushed the issue and was an ass, I just stopped visiting. And likewise, once he'd come around (took 3-4 years), if his family had been an ass to me, they would have lost us all because my immediate family was behind me. I also tested well enough (I was the top scorer in the county on all of our standardized tests) that it was worth shutting up about my being a big fat homo. That's a very different situation from a gay kid in an Evangelical home in rural Alabama in the 90s, or (moving outside of sexuality) an African American family in the US South in the 50s. Agency is very tied into a person's individual circumstances, and trying to legislate rules and policy around that is a nightmare, particularly given it can change on a dime. (My MS diagnosis knocked out a fair chunk of my agency). I think most people's instinct is to try to protect the most vulnerable, but that may end up stifling conversation to the point where the group dissolves/can't hold itself together OR opening people to being poached away to other groups OR other groups with different norms outcompeting or attacking that group. We need to be careful not to monkey's paw ourselves.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago

<< taking a free speech absolutist stance is not the way. I genuinely dislike this label. It is not an absolutist stance at all. If anything, it is simple a stance based on the foundational values of US as a country. And there is a reason for it. If you cannot express your real thoughts, the conversation gets confused with attempts to evade censor or completely incomprehensible since language gets too distorted to mean anything at all. It is getting tiring. I am saying this as an immigrant from the old country, where censorship was a thing ( with author writing cringy articles in defense of it -- sounds familiar? ). It is sad for me to see US going that route.

deanCommie 5y ago
> foundational values of US as a country > old country, where censorship was a thing. It is sad for me to see US going that route. Why does this keep coming up? Nobody, absolutely nobody, is advocating for government restriction of free speech. That is the foundation of the US as a country. Twitter didn't exist back then but newspapers certainly did. Town squares certainly did. If the founding fathers wanted to say "if someone is speaking in a town square you can't throw tomatoes at them or shout them down", they would have. Twitter moderating its content has zero to do with the foundations of America or censorship in other countries.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  Sure. And the moment alternative to Twitter is even suggested, it is curbstomped from hackers, who see it as a 'permissible' target ( and seemingly it is based on the cheering that follows a hack ) and various service providers, who won't let it exist. It is all fine and dandy to say 'build your own public square', but its point is somewhat lost, when you have a hard time even getting basic materials.
  - deanCommie 5y ago
    Why is anyone entitled to their own public square. We Live In A Society. If you come to a public square - physically or on twitter, and scream something that the rest of society doesn't want to hear, you are exercising your free speech, and they are exercising theirs if they say they don't want to hear you.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
      "Why is anyone entitled to their own public square." I think there may be a disconnect between what we are trying to convey. Public square is by definition.. public. It is not a possession of any one person. Anyone can grab a soapbox. What I see now.. is soapbox oligopoly. That is an issue.
      - deanCommie 5y ago
        Anyone is free to put up a website as their soapbox. They don't because they want the tools and reach offered by private platforms, but don't want to follow their rules. You can't have it both ways.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
        But companies can? They are Schrodinger's publisher depending on who opens the box. More to the point, so anyone can have a soapbox, but that soapbox will be kicked from under you in the form of hackers, ddos, and so on unless you use those tools. What is the next advice? Build your own Cloudflare? Your own ISP? It is madness and leaves us exactly where we are now. You can't tell me everyone can have a soapbox if the soapbox is only theoretical in nature and in production deployment does not survive a day. Edit: snarky comment removed.
philosopher1234 5y ago
Censorship is an indelible part of human relations. You can never truly speak your mind, partly because the other person cant have it, but fundamentally because you cant either.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  "You can never truly speak your mind" And that is a problem. Our communication depends on being able to articulate ourselves. Quality of our thoughts depend on the language. The quality of our discourse suffers, because our thoughts are being trained to offer 'safe' language. If you do not see it as a problem, we have a problem.
  - philosopher1234 5y ago
    This is a fact of being human, and you will never “fix” it.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
      I disagree. And I disagree for one reason only. Never is an awful long time to state anything with any kind of certainty.
      - philosopher1234 5y ago
        You will never fix it the same way you will never make a diamond out of ruby. It's constitutive of being human.
theodric 5y ago
I think we've arrived at the point where all the town squares are owned by a private corporation who can - so I am told - do whatever they want on their property. I guess this was always the terminal destination of American society: stuck in a company town with nowhere to go, while the government just looks on saying "they're not doing anything illegal, so I can't help!"
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  This is effectively where we are. History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. I am personally saddened that it is not seen as a danger that it is.
cycomanic 5y ago
But the founding principles have always had restrictions build in. Try for example publically calling for the assassination of the president (or any other person) and see how you fare. Or army members not being allowed to talk about their missions. I don't buy that these are fundamentally different, it is simply drawing the line differently of what is permissable free speech.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  The comparison is not applicable. When you join the army, you give up certain rights to join that specific group. To make it even more important, the rules are clear and explicit. Now compare it to Twitter or Facebook. You don't know what you signing up for. Their TOS effectively say they can ban you for things they deem wrong. It is only recently that we know how they evaluate it ( see CNN discussion of FB speech violence tiers ). Free speech is just that. It is free speech. There is no TOS. It includes all sorts of nasty bits too, because that is what being human is. Trying to pretend otherwise is, at best, counterproductive. But here we are. Entire nation scared of reality and in dire need to cover it up with soft language. << But the founding principles have always had restrictions build in. Do they? I am reading the constitution and I don't see those restrictions. You may get a visit from some agencies, but that is to make sure you were not joking. On the other hand, I do see a mention of when slavery is ok in US and yet people seem surprised when it is pointed out.
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    I am talking about restrictions to free speech and yes when you join the army your free speech is restricted. Which is a clear example of the government restricting free speech, but presumably that is OK?
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
      The argument is a good one, but I think it is missing the nuance of the status of a soldier, who, for a variety of reasons, is not an average citizen ( note, how many restrictions are listed with qualifier 'while in uniform'[1]). You can say what you want. Just don't make it look like the army is saying this. It may sound like a contradiction, but it is not. You voluntarily join the army. You join that specific group and accept their 'rules'. It is harder to argue ( not impossible since there are naturalized citizens, who clearly opt in to become citizens ) that citizens by right of birth voluntarily opt into that set of rules. That is the where constitution comes in. What I am saying is that army argument is flawed. edit: changed typical to average [1]https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/27-1/Ch10.htm https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/...

Mezzie 5y ago

Ironically, I'm a butch lesbian who came out in the 90s, so I'm well aware. One of my less popular opinions in the queer community is that I AM a free speech absolutist (or close to it), even if it does result in some discrimination. (Even against me.) Of course we should minimize and work to eliminate discrimination in society, but that isn't the only value we have, and unfortunately social policies are always a case of trade-offs. I also prefer to let the homophobes be open about it so a.) I know what they're saying and can undermine it and b.) so I know who to avoid. All pushing it underground does is make me nervous that everybody's a closet homophobe and means I can't change anybody's mind. (Which I have done on multiple occasions).

beardedetim 5y ago
> so I know who to avoid This is a good point! I think that the concept of "who do I want to associate with" is a different way to view things than "everyone I see in the world needs to treat me with agency" I have a hard time knowing where that line is. Like you said, > I AM a free speech absolutist (or close to it), even if it does result in some discrimination. (Even against me.) People out there, due to their agency, may not agree with where my agency ends and theirs begins. I think if we have the privilege and feel able to "choose to avoid" those that we disagree with, we could have these discussions in the open without fear and actively change people's minds. I don't know how to though. I've written about it here [1] but I still don't have a good answer for how do we draw that line of where your agency ends and mine/theirs begin. [1] https://timonapath.com/articles/body-politic https://timonapath.com/articles/body-politic
- Mezzie 5y ago
  I think it's such a hard question because the line moves in accordance to people's position in their culture and society. Even oppressed/marginalized people can have very different circumstances. For example, the 80s-00s were very homophobic, particularly in certain areas of the country, but one thing I had in my favor was a parent with their own household that supported me. That meant that if, say, my dad pushed the issue and was an ass, I just stopped visiting. And likewise, once he'd come around (took 3-4 years), if his family had been an ass to me, they would have lost us all because my immediate family was behind me. I also tested well enough (I was the top scorer in the county on all of our standardized tests) that it was worth shutting up about my being a big fat homo. That's a very different situation from a gay kid in an Evangelical home in rural Alabama in the 90s, or (moving outside of sexuality) an African American family in the US South in the 50s. Agency is very tied into a person's individual circumstances, and trying to legislate rules and policy around that is a nightmare, particularly given it can change on a dime. (My MS diagnosis knocked out a fair chunk of my agency). I think most people's instinct is to try to protect the most vulnerable, but that may end up stifling conversation to the point where the group dissolves/can't hold itself together OR opening people to being poached away to other groups OR other groups with different norms outcompeting or attacking that group. We need to be careful not to monkey's paw ourselves.