4 ms·

Pretending the actions of the government and the actions of private entities are equivalent borders on being deliberately obtuse. There is an enormous differenc

Pretending the actions of the government and the actions of private entities are equivalent borders on being deliberately obtuse. There is an enormous difference between being fired because you called a coworker the n-word and having uniformed men with guns show up at your front door because you taught a dog to sieg heil.

rxhernandez 4y ago
Thanks for the strawman; you know as well as I do that you can be fired for a lot less than calling your co-workers obscenities. I've seen people fired for just mouthing off about their office job while they're at the grocery store. Also, don't tell me it's important if you're more than willing (re: you're going out of your way to defend it being taken from you) to have it taken away from you. Don't tell me I'm being obtuse if you can say that it's unimportant for one of the most valuable portions of your life.
- kurupt213 4y ago
  You are being obtuse. The freedoms we are talking about are freedom from government interference. Being an asshole still means that private people and companies will treat you like an asshole.
smsm42 4y ago
They are not equal, but they are similar and can have similar effect. I.e. if your bank seizes your account because you dared to express wrong opinion, it's different than the government did it, and yet you'd still have no access to your money and it could ruin your life pretty thoroughly. If you get fired because you consider your medical information private and do not want to disclose it, especially when you work remotely and it's irrelevant to any job function - it's not the government that fired you. But does it make the situation much better for you? It is more dangerous when a totalitarian government infringes your rights. That doesn't mean when a private company infringes your right it's not dangerous too. Maybe less dangerous, relatively, but still very very bad. And, btw, a lot of seemingly "private" actions turn out to be actions performed by private actors on behest of the government, which either forces or entices, by using their gigantic powers to both break and promote business, the "private" companies to act as their agents, "voluntarily" - or else.
- WWLink 4y ago
  Yeah one of the things I really dislike is that I think a lot of people who expect "free speech should be protected on the internet" also believe "companies should have the right to refuse service to anyone" I think those two beliefs are fundamentally at odds with each other. If you think that companies should not be allowed to moderate community content, then you must also believe that a cake maker who bakes a cake may not refuse to make a cake for a customer lol.
  - KMag 4y ago
    It's Sturgeon's law applied to arguments. 90 percent of arguments are inconsistent and short-sighted. But, there is room for a nuanced consistent position regarding common carriers and/or monopolies having fewer freedoms than other businesses. Granted, many free speech maximalists aren't making these nuanced arguments, but some are. 90 percent of arguments going against the consensus are crap, but it's vitally important that we don't stifle dissenting arguments. The biggest problems with free speech are libel, fraud, and a woeful lack of critical thinking in the general populous. The first two can be handled with better laws. I think better critical thinking education starting in late elementary school is vital to counteract some of the ill effects of social media.

rxhernandez 4y ago

Thanks for the strawman; you know as well as I do that you can be fired for a lot less than calling your co-workers obscenities. I've seen people fired for just mouthing off about their office job while they're at the grocery store. Also, don't tell me it's important if you're more than willing (re: you're going out of your way to defend it being taken from you) to have it taken away from you. Don't tell me I'm being obtuse if you can say that it's unimportant for one of the most valuable portions of your life.

kurupt213 4y ago
You are being obtuse. The freedoms we are talking about are freedom from government interference. Being an asshole still means that private people and companies will treat you like an asshole.

smsm42 4y ago

They are not equal, but they are similar and can have similar effect. I.e. if your bank seizes your account because you dared to express wrong opinion, it's different than the government did it, and yet you'd still have no access to your money and it could ruin your life pretty thoroughly. If you get fired because you consider your medical information private and do not want to disclose it, especially when you work remotely and it's irrelevant to any job function - it's not the government that fired you. But does it make the situation much better for you? It is more dangerous when a totalitarian government infringes your rights. That doesn't mean when a private company infringes your right it's not dangerous too. Maybe less dangerous, relatively, but still very very bad. And, btw, a lot of seemingly "private" actions turn out to be actions performed by private actors on behest of the government, which either forces or entices, by using their gigantic powers to both break and promote business, the "private" companies to act as their agents, "voluntarily" - or else.

WWLink 4y ago
Yeah one of the things I really dislike is that I think a lot of people who expect "free speech should be protected on the internet" also believe "companies should have the right to refuse service to anyone" I think those two beliefs are fundamentally at odds with each other. If you think that companies should not be allowed to moderate community content, then you must also believe that a cake maker who bakes a cake may not refuse to make a cake for a customer lol.
- KMag 4y ago
  It's Sturgeon's law applied to arguments. 90 percent of arguments are inconsistent and short-sighted. But, there is room for a nuanced consistent position regarding common carriers and/or monopolies having fewer freedoms than other businesses. Granted, many free speech maximalists aren't making these nuanced arguments, but some are. 90 percent of arguments going against the consensus are crap, but it's vitally important that we don't stifle dissenting arguments. The biggest problems with free speech are libel, fraud, and a woeful lack of critical thinking in the general populous. The first two can be handled with better laws. I think better critical thinking education starting in late elementary school is vital to counteract some of the ill effects of social media.