16 ms·

It's not surprising that someone who sounds like a sort of free speech absolutist agrees that permanent bans are bad for the idea of free and accessible speech.

It's not surprising that someone who sounds like a sort of free speech absolutist agrees that permanent bans are bad for the idea of free and accessible speech. The problem I have with some free speech purists is that they give me a feeling that they are persons who are more often than not unaffected by speech that can be categorised as inciting hatred towards a people, and thus they see little to no problem with being able to spread harmful bad faith speech freely on an algorithmic social media site - or any place for that matter. It's a tricky thing for which there are no real correct answers. What I do know is that socially and politically we have several unwritten rules about what, where and how to speak about things because not abiding by those rules results in things as minor as slight embarrassment to as severe as physical violence. That is to say, things can spiral out of hand and the usefulness of speech deteriorates if some standards are not kept. Twitter shouldn't be the judge of what an American president can say, because the American people should have already filtered out a person of such low integrity from gaining a position in such a high public office. All this time I've felt amused by how much our American friends can talk about what should or shouldn't Twitter do, but seemingly never discuss how they can as a society make sure that the executive office doesn't get filled by someone who brought their entire democratic process to disrepute. To conclude, I think if you aren't scared of what another Trump can do to your country or its societal fabric or your personal freedoms then I see no reason why a Dorsey doesn't think Trump should be allowed to come back. The women of his country already saw what one term of Trump did to the rights they thought they had. Not all political turmoil is scary for those who are safe from politics.

chmod600 4y ago
"The problem I have with some free speech purists is that they give me a feeling that they are persons who are more often than not unaffected by speech" There's a mirror image problem though: people in favor of regulations on speech have little reason to fear that their speech will be limited, at least in the short term. Regulators are politically-correct, so if you are politically-correct, what's the problem? (Obviously: bad things can become politically-correct, too.)
- dnissley 4y ago
  The example I always use here as someone who grew up in the 90s is that having an openly gay character on network tv used to be extremely controversial at best and politically untenable at worst.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    Except the side who are "free speech absolutists" are worried about those gay characters kissing in "She-Ra" remake or various Disney+ cartoons where men kiss, and want that stuff censored off the airs. And then want to ban the book "Maus", etc. etc.
    - FormerBandmate 4y ago
      Maybe phony Republicans who don't actually believe what they say are. Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey are many things, but they are not that
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        > Elon Musk So.... when will that guy start talking about the benefits of Free Speech in China? Particularly, the Shanghai factory that Elon Musk has been so proud of? https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/elon-musk-tesla-boss-praises-182248534.html https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/elon-musk-tesla-boss-... > Jack Dorsey Same same. Twitter bends its "free speech" in China so that it can operate in that country. Its all about the money to them, they'd rather get that Chinese-money than to piss off their new overlords and actually make a racket about free-speech issues over there.
        ljw1001 4y ago
        It’s always about the money when we let billionaires decide how society should operate.
    - edanm 4y ago
      Not everything fits neatly into tribal politics, especially not tribal US politics specifically. Twitter, the internet, etc are all platforms that are open to places other than the States, I don't think it makes sense to link everything about its moderation to D vs. R politics. I consider myself somewhat of a libertarian / "classical liberal". I'm therefore something of a "free speech absolutist", have no issue with gay characters, and hate the idea of banning books. Not everyone who thinks differently than you do about free speech fits into a neat little caricature.
chmod600 4y ago
"The women of his country already saw what one term of Trump did to the rights they thought they had." I see very little connection between anything that might be deemed "unacceptable" speech by Trump and the imminent overturn of Roe. Other than the fact that he got elected.
- mywittyname 4y ago
  His entire platform was "say shit to piss people off." It's what got him elected, and what allowed him to pack SCOTUS. That's not even hyperbole, their campaign tried very hard to replicate this success in 2020.
  - timr 4y ago
    > His entire platform was "say shit to piss people off." It's what got him elected, and what allowed him to pack SCOTUS. So now we're down to to "we should restrict the speech of people I don't agree with, which might get them elected." Say...how did I end up on this hill, and why is it so slippery?
    - 6stringmerc 4y ago
      Look if you think being a serial liar with unimaginable power to a common person and never having to be accountable for free speech (“I can’t show you my taxes” - that’s a good one) then society is broken. The megaphone of lies convinces stupid people who have the right to vote. It’s clear they don’t have the intellect to vote responsibly, and that can be attributed to Facebook and Twitter letting any miscreant or moron ingest intellectual poison. Merrick Garland should be on the court and if you disagree then you are arguing in bad faith.
      - sieabahlpark 4y ago
        Your assumption that everyone is so stupid that they automatically believe everything is actually quite racist and authoritarian. You assume people can't think for themselves in any capacity so you need to protect them. That's an authoritarian mindset that needs to be removed from this country entirely.
oceanplexian 4y ago
Trump was a fairly average right-wing politician. Another Bush, or McCain, or Romney would have nominated the same Supreme Court Justices and had more or less identical policy. The few times Trump went against the grain he was overruled in the House and Senate, and ultimately he peacefully transferred power to the next president despite the rioting after he lost the election. So the implicit argument that he was some kind of danger to democracy or radical force that tore up the fabric of society seems like nothing more than partisanship. At the least his actions didn't seem like a huge departure from any other politician. I remember in 2016 the exact opposite people were claiming the election was rigged and the results needed to be overturned.
- cableshaft 4y ago
  > I remember in 2016 the exact opposite people were claiming the election was rigged and the results needed to be overturned. One difference is Hillary Clinton officially conceded the morning after the election in 2016, meanwhile Trump to this day, a year and a half later, still insists he still won the 2020 election and that it was rigged. Those people you're referring to in 2016 also didn't storm the Capitol trying to overturn the election results by physical force. Despite this, I don't think it was the best decision to give Trump a permanent ban on Twitter, and it's probably time to let him back on. Politics is full of people saying really stupid things and denying reality, why single him out. It only bled other people off the platform and made them seek other platforms, further dividing and segregating people into their echo chambers even more.
  - Lochleg 4y ago
    Hillary Clinton did not take the loss well despite the appearance, and she still uses the word stolen. Stacey Abrams seems to have a similar story. Trump sounds like a broken record and a sore loser, but the main reason I don't take him seriously at this point is that there's not much work being done to secure the next election. I don't agree with ballot harvesting, last-minute voting rule changes, or the execution with poorly-designed election machines. No one was ever proactive about this when it would have mattered though. Trump did get shafted on his Twitter ban, and even people that didn't seem to be supporters looked at the justification and were left perplexed. It was not a statement of facts, but there was reading between the lines and assuming the worse without gathering information. Despite any accounting of what went down that day, it does seem like the response is extremely biased and lopsided. People held on vague charges of obstruction because their cell phone data showed them outside the building are still being indefinitely detained. Whether it's Trump or his so-called co-conspirators, if there was a crime, you would think the gears of justice would turn a little faster because there's plenty of motivation.
metadat 4y ago
Too many double negatives, I don't get your message.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Maursault 4y ago
What you and responders have missed is the 1st Amendment is totally and entirely inapplicable to Twitter. There is a misunderstanding here of the Amendment. It only applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers. It does not include private citizens, businesses, and organizations. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional. No other entity or group is bound by the 1st Amendment. And this is by the Founders' design, because extending the 1st Amendment to all entities and groups would in fact limit freedom.
- BellLabradors 4y ago
  Do you think the Hollywood blacklist was wrong?
  - Maursault 4y ago
    Yes, absolutely. But it is not constitutionally resolvable. Mucking with the Constitution, such as extending the 1st Amendment beyond restriction of government, such as suspending habeas corpus, such as fulfilling 5th Amendment requirements with secret trials, such as adding an interpretation of self-defense to the 2nd Amendment that the Founders debated and intentionally left out, is all really very dangerous because these alterations are effectively diluting our freedoms until they become unrecognizable, and it begins to look like conservative agenda to dismantle government to allow those with money and rich corporations to exploit masses of individuals without limitations. Considering Justice Scalia's unnecessary and unsupportable and overreaching (without 2/3rds majority of Congress or the state legislatures) reinterpretation of the 2nd to include self-defense fundamentally changes the Founders intent from a selfless right to stand against tyranny to a selfish and redundant right to protect your flatscreen TV. This was nothing less than vandalism, and we are all less safe for it. It is the same with Guantanamo and the suspension of habeas. This did us no favors and reduced the rights of every citizen. It is the same thing with killing Anwar al-Awlaki (let's be clear tho, he was evil), a US citizen, without a public indictment by a Grand Jury nor a public trial, really screws everyone and is a step towards changing our world into Kafka's nightmare, and worse, because we're teetering in the edge of widespread ecosystem collapse due to the activities of big business. Once we change so much of the framework, our government will collapse, and along with it, our individual freedoms, and the slow murder of Earth will be put into overdrive. Then we'll all be dead. So let's work out problems like the Hollywood Blacklist without mucking with the Bill of Rights.
bsder 4y ago
Dorsey is magically a "Free Speech" advocate now that it doesn't affect his checkbook. Erm, yeah. (See: Twitter in China for prior reference) I'll file his newfound respect for rights over here next to all the Trump cronies who seem to magically find respect for rights between the time they resign and their next book deal.
ddingus 4y ago
Those people know how to manage their response to speech they do not like. Should we free people of that burden, the range of permissible speech will be a small subset of speech overall. The outcome of that is few people being able to have real conversations. Contrived, Disneyland type discourse would then be the norm. Frankly, that would inhibit understanding one another and further limit speech. At some point, people must weigh incoming speech and manage what they do with it or there simply will not be all that much left to be said.
ddingus 4y ago
By the way, why does no one think to ask why we got Trump? I suggest doing that is less painful than limiting speech overall will be. The risk of another Trump, or Trump again is serious! I fear it. But I also question why he ran with, and a future "Trump type" would potentially run against, candidates lackluster enough to make the risk real.
RickJWagner 4y ago
Women haven't lost any rights that I can think of. The US has extremely liberal abortion laws [1]. Even many liberal legal analysts believe Roe is past due to be overturned-- the US constitution says nothing about rights to terminate a pregnancy. If anything, unborn babies may have gained the right to life. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law
mariusor 4y ago
> if you aren't scared of what another Trump can do to your country or its societal fabric or your personal freedoms [..] I think instead of being scared of what allowing unethical speech can bring and trying to censor it, we should work towards ensuring that there is equal and opposing points of view, hopefully with better reasoned arguments. As far as I can tell the problem is that the people which are able to put those points of view "on paper" rarely bother to do so, because arguing against someone like Trump never encounters a good faith debate, and most of the times, it's so obvious that it's so wrong. But of course that it's not obviously wrong for a vast number of people, and explicitly stating it, might help them. Expanding on this discussion see the exchange between Peter Boghossian and Laurie Penny in one of the classics of letter.wiki: https://letter.wiki/conversation/863 https://letter.wiki/conversation/863

chmod600 4y ago

"The problem I have with some free speech purists is that they give me a feeling that they are persons who are more often than not unaffected by speech" There's a mirror image problem though: people in favor of regulations on speech have little reason to fear that their speech will be limited, at least in the short term. Regulators are politically-correct, so if you are politically-correct, what's the problem? (Obviously: bad things can become politically-correct, too.)

dnissley 4y ago
The example I always use here as someone who grew up in the 90s is that having an openly gay character on network tv used to be extremely controversial at best and politically untenable at worst.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  Except the side who are "free speech absolutists" are worried about those gay characters kissing in "She-Ra" remake or various Disney+ cartoons where men kiss, and want that stuff censored off the airs. And then want to ban the book "Maus", etc. etc.
  - FormerBandmate 4y ago
    Maybe phony Republicans who don't actually believe what they say are. Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey are many things, but they are not that
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      > Elon Musk So.... when will that guy start talking about the benefits of Free Speech in China? Particularly, the Shanghai factory that Elon Musk has been so proud of? https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/elon-musk-tesla-boss-praises-182248534.html https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/elon-musk-tesla-boss-... > Jack Dorsey Same same. Twitter bends its "free speech" in China so that it can operate in that country. Its all about the money to them, they'd rather get that Chinese-money than to piss off their new overlords and actually make a racket about free-speech issues over there.
      - ljw1001 4y ago
        It’s always about the money when we let billionaires decide how society should operate.
  - edanm 4y ago
    Not everything fits neatly into tribal politics, especially not tribal US politics specifically. Twitter, the internet, etc are all platforms that are open to places other than the States, I don't think it makes sense to link everything about its moderation to D vs. R politics. I consider myself somewhat of a libertarian / "classical liberal". I'm therefore something of a "free speech absolutist", have no issue with gay characters, and hate the idea of banning books. Not everyone who thinks differently than you do about free speech fits into a neat little caricature.

chmod600 4y ago

"The women of his country already saw what one term of Trump did to the rights they thought they had." I see very little connection between anything that might be deemed "unacceptable" speech by Trump and the imminent overturn of Roe. Other than the fact that he got elected.

mywittyname 4y ago
His entire platform was "say shit to piss people off." It's what got him elected, and what allowed him to pack SCOTUS. That's not even hyperbole, their campaign tried very hard to replicate this success in 2020.
- timr 4y ago
  > His entire platform was "say shit to piss people off." It's what got him elected, and what allowed him to pack SCOTUS. So now we're down to to "we should restrict the speech of people I don't agree with, which might get them elected." Say...how did I end up on this hill, and why is it so slippery?
  - 6stringmerc 4y ago
    Look if you think being a serial liar with unimaginable power to a common person and never having to be accountable for free speech (“I can’t show you my taxes” - that’s a good one) then society is broken. The megaphone of lies convinces stupid people who have the right to vote. It’s clear they don’t have the intellect to vote responsibly, and that can be attributed to Facebook and Twitter letting any miscreant or moron ingest intellectual poison. Merrick Garland should be on the court and if you disagree then you are arguing in bad faith.
    - sieabahlpark 4y ago
      Your assumption that everyone is so stupid that they automatically believe everything is actually quite racist and authoritarian. You assume people can't think for themselves in any capacity so you need to protect them. That's an authoritarian mindset that needs to be removed from this country entirely.

oceanplexian 4y ago

Trump was a fairly average right-wing politician. Another Bush, or McCain, or Romney would have nominated the same Supreme Court Justices and had more or less identical policy. The few times Trump went against the grain he was overruled in the House and Senate, and ultimately he peacefully transferred power to the next president despite the rioting after he lost the election. So the implicit argument that he was some kind of danger to democracy or radical force that tore up the fabric of society seems like nothing more than partisanship. At the least his actions didn't seem like a huge departure from any other politician. I remember in 2016 the exact opposite people were claiming the election was rigged and the results needed to be overturned.

cableshaft 4y ago
> I remember in 2016 the exact opposite people were claiming the election was rigged and the results needed to be overturned. One difference is Hillary Clinton officially conceded the morning after the election in 2016, meanwhile Trump to this day, a year and a half later, still insists he still won the 2020 election and that it was rigged. Those people you're referring to in 2016 also didn't storm the Capitol trying to overturn the election results by physical force. Despite this, I don't think it was the best decision to give Trump a permanent ban on Twitter, and it's probably time to let him back on. Politics is full of people saying really stupid things and denying reality, why single him out. It only bled other people off the platform and made them seek other platforms, further dividing and segregating people into their echo chambers even more.
- Lochleg 4y ago
  Hillary Clinton did not take the loss well despite the appearance, and she still uses the word stolen. Stacey Abrams seems to have a similar story. Trump sounds like a broken record and a sore loser, but the main reason I don't take him seriously at this point is that there's not much work being done to secure the next election. I don't agree with ballot harvesting, last-minute voting rule changes, or the execution with poorly-designed election machines. No one was ever proactive about this when it would have mattered though. Trump did get shafted on his Twitter ban, and even people that didn't seem to be supporters looked at the justification and were left perplexed. It was not a statement of facts, but there was reading between the lines and assuming the worse without gathering information. Despite any accounting of what went down that day, it does seem like the response is extremely biased and lopsided. People held on vague charges of obstruction because their cell phone data showed them outside the building are still being indefinitely detained. Whether it's Trump or his so-called co-conspirators, if there was a crime, you would think the gears of justice would turn a little faster because there's plenty of motivation.

metadat 4y ago

Too many double negatives, I don't get your message.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Maursault 4y ago

What you and responders have missed is the 1st Amendment is totally and entirely inapplicable to Twitter. There is a misunderstanding here of the Amendment. It only applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers. It does not include private citizens, businesses, and organizations. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional. No other entity or group is bound by the 1st Amendment. And this is by the Founders' design, because extending the 1st Amendment to all entities and groups would in fact limit freedom.

BellLabradors 4y ago
Do you think the Hollywood blacklist was wrong?
- Maursault 4y ago
  Yes, absolutely. But it is not constitutionally resolvable. Mucking with the Constitution, such as extending the 1st Amendment beyond restriction of government, such as suspending habeas corpus, such as fulfilling 5th Amendment requirements with secret trials, such as adding an interpretation of self-defense to the 2nd Amendment that the Founders debated and intentionally left out, is all really very dangerous because these alterations are effectively diluting our freedoms until they become unrecognizable, and it begins to look like conservative agenda to dismantle government to allow those with money and rich corporations to exploit masses of individuals without limitations. Considering Justice Scalia's unnecessary and unsupportable and overreaching (without 2/3rds majority of Congress or the state legislatures) reinterpretation of the 2nd to include self-defense fundamentally changes the Founders intent from a selfless right to stand against tyranny to a selfish and redundant right to protect your flatscreen TV. This was nothing less than vandalism, and we are all less safe for it. It is the same with Guantanamo and the suspension of habeas. This did us no favors and reduced the rights of every citizen. It is the same thing with killing Anwar al-Awlaki (let's be clear tho, he was evil), a US citizen, without a public indictment by a Grand Jury nor a public trial, really screws everyone and is a step towards changing our world into Kafka's nightmare, and worse, because we're teetering in the edge of widespread ecosystem collapse due to the activities of big business. Once we change so much of the framework, our government will collapse, and along with it, our individual freedoms, and the slow murder of Earth will be put into overdrive. Then we'll all be dead. So let's work out problems like the Hollywood Blacklist without mucking with the Bill of Rights.

bsder 4y ago

Dorsey is magically a "Free Speech" advocate now that it doesn't affect his checkbook. Erm, yeah. (See: Twitter in China for prior reference) I'll file his newfound respect for rights over here next to all the Trump cronies who seem to magically find respect for rights between the time they resign and their next book deal.

ddingus 4y ago

Those people know how to manage their response to speech they do not like. Should we free people of that burden, the range of permissible speech will be a small subset of speech overall. The outcome of that is few people being able to have real conversations. Contrived, Disneyland type discourse would then be the norm. Frankly, that would inhibit understanding one another and further limit speech. At some point, people must weigh incoming speech and manage what they do with it or there simply will not be all that much left to be said.

ddingus 4y ago

By the way, why does no one think to ask why we got Trump? I suggest doing that is less painful than limiting speech overall will be. The risk of another Trump, or Trump again is serious! I fear it. But I also question why he ran with, and a future "Trump type" would potentially run against, candidates lackluster enough to make the risk real.

RickJWagner 4y ago

Women haven't lost any rights that I can think of. The US has extremely liberal abortion laws [1]. Even many liberal legal analysts believe Roe is past due to be overturned-- the US constitution says nothing about rights to terminate a pregnancy. If anything, unborn babies may have gained the right to life. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

mariusor 4y ago

> if you aren't scared of what another Trump can do to your country or its societal fabric or your personal freedoms [..] I think instead of being scared of what allowing unethical speech can bring and trying to censor it, we should work towards ensuring that there is equal and opposing points of view, hopefully with better reasoned arguments. As far as I can tell the problem is that the people which are able to put those points of view "on paper" rarely bother to do so, because arguing against someone like Trump never encounters a good faith debate, and most of the times, it's so obvious that it's so wrong. But of course that it's not obviously wrong for a vast number of people, and explicitly stating it, might help them. Expanding on this discussion see the exchange between Peter Boghossian and Laurie Penny in one of the classics of letter.wiki: https://letter.wiki/conversation/863 https://letter.wiki/conversation/863