4 ms·

<< 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 st

<< 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.
        deanCommie 5y ago
        > but that soapbox will be kicked from under you in the form of... Right. Just like a real-life soapbox. I don't think you understand what it would mean to go into a public square - at ANY point in history, and start screaming the kinds of things that get you banned by Cloudflare, ISPs, and AWS. We're not talking about stuff like "I have a different perspective on who should be chief of our tribe". The kind of political rhetoric that will inspire future generations of enlightened intellectuals to say "I disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it". We're talking about content that has NEVER been acceptable to be preached in a public sphere. The kind of content that societies have always intolerated. Nothing is different. Nothing has changed about that.
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/...

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.
        deanCommie 5y ago
        > but that soapbox will be kicked from under you in the form of... Right. Just like a real-life soapbox. I don't think you understand what it would mean to go into a public square - at ANY point in history, and start screaming the kinds of things that get you banned by Cloudflare, ISPs, and AWS. We're not talking about stuff like "I have a different perspective on who should be chief of our tribe". The kind of political rhetoric that will inspire future generations of enlightened intellectuals to say "I disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it". We're talking about content that has NEVER been acceptable to be preached in a public sphere. The kind of content that societies have always intolerated. Nothing is different. Nothing has changed about that.

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/...