5 ms·

> But platforms like Rumble which trumpet their free speech bonafides are missing the point: moderation is good, normal, and reinforces free speech principles.

> But platforms like Rumble which trumpet their free speech bonafides are missing the point: moderation is good, normal, and reinforces free speech principles. It is right for platform owners to decide the range of permissible posts. This is a very Canadian take.

JacobThreeThree 4y ago
Do people think that Rumble doesn't have a moderation policy and moderation team? https://rumble.com/s/terms#policies https://rumble.com/s/terms#policies
decebalus1 4y ago
I find it funny when people who spend most of their waking hours under a de facto totalitarian leadership (the workspace) expect that companies extend the same rights to their userbase as the US constitution.
- kareemsabri 4y ago
  I don't. I wouldn't consider most workplaces I've been in totalitarian - though maybe you've lived in some pretty nice totalitarian countries I'm not aware of. But I also don't see why customers shouldn't demand what they care about from companies.
  - thundergolfer 4y ago
    Check out Philosopher Elizabeth Anderson and her work on workplace democracy for more on how modern corporations are like dictatorships and at least certainly anti-democratic. Her New Yorker profile is very good, for an intro.
    - kareemsabri 4y ago
      I don't think they're all that democratic. But there's a world of difference between democratic, which itself has degrees, and being totalitarian.
  - decebalus1 4y ago
    Do you have any say in employee compensation? Do you have any say in employee perks/benefits? I mean a real say, not preferences which are allowed by some benevolent analyst from HR. If the CEO goes rogue and the company is private, can rank-and-file employees oust them? Can you vote out your manager or your manager's manager? Is there even a process in place to do that? Do you follow orders from management? What happens if you don't? What happens if you disobey your manager in a public setting? Can you get fired without notice? How about laid off? Can you get fired because you said something? Do you have a dresscode? What would happen to your employment if you dressed like a clown in customer meetings? Do you risk getting fired if you start talking about unionizing? Do you get fired if you sue the company? Can you bring a gun to work? Does your employee handbook say something about how your run your personal life? Does your employer have rights over IP created outside of working hours? Can you get fired over a DUI outside of company hours? Can you get fired for smoking cigarettes in your free time? etc.. Some literature for you: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32889465-private-government https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32889465-private-governm...
    - tqi 4y ago
      You're just describing any structure with a formal hierarchy.
    - kareemsabri 4y ago
      I've listened to enough Richard Wolfe debates to know the talking points. Dropping a book link isn't really helpful in the context of this discussion, I'm not going to go read your favorite book before I reply to you. Yes I'm aware that corporations set up a legal hierarchy in which management has more power than labor within the corporation. I'm not going to go through your specific questions one by one, since they're largely rhetorical, though some of them don't have the answer you hope for. Some people seem to interpret the lack of formal, democratic processes with a totalitarian dictatorship. I've personally witnessed the firing of C-suite execs in response to employee revolts. A totalitarian system requires complete subservience. Depending on your position in the labor market, your leverage may vary. My objection isn't to the notion that the employer-employee power balance is lopsided in many cases, to the point where some sectors of the economy are exploitative, but rather that an office by it's nature is akin to a totalitarian dictatorship. Maybe you're just using that phrase for effect, or maybe you genuinely think that working at Google and living in Egypt under President Mubarak is a good comparison. To me it comes off as a bit out of touch.
  - nemothekid 4y ago
    >I wouldn't consider most workplaces I've been in totalitarian Where did you work where you could vote for the CEO?
    - multiplegeorges 4y ago
      Not voting for the CEO doesn't make something totalitarian.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      Ironically, I think one could argue that the military of any democratic nation would pass that test despite being a lot closer to totalitarian states[0] than almost all modern companies. [0] Not a judgement call, I think that is necessary given what they do and the risks they have to be ready to face the moment they are ordered to do so
    - kareemsabri 4y ago
      I don't think that's what totalitarian means.
- NavinF 4y ago
  > de facto totalitarian leadership (the workspace) Can’t relate
multiplegeorges 4y ago
Peace, order, and good government. There's something to it. More people will be able to express themselves fully and openly if a tiny minority isn't screaming, throwing excrement, and/or threatening violence.
- kareemsabri 4y ago
  So goes the argument. I don't think the author has really proven it, it was pretty theoretical. It's not clear the tiny minority won't just weaponize the powers that be to silence those that disagree with them even further. That said, I don't think free speech is a utilitarian principle (greatest good for the greatest number) but rather a deontological one, that it is wrong to muzzle an individuals right to express themselves as a first order effect. The author's argument describes second or nth order effects.
nickheer 4y ago
For what it is worth, Rumble is Canadian and I linked to an American writer in justifying the latter part of my argument.
- kareemsabri 4y ago
  Yeah, it was a bit tongue in cheek. I'm also Canadian.
  - nickheer 4y ago
    Sorry I missed that. Whoops. Sorry.
sdwr 4y ago
Do you know what the deal was with Macleans' feud with the hate speech jury (board? council?) back in the day? I remember reading about that as a teen and being confused.

JacobThreeThree 4y ago

Do people think that Rumble doesn't have a moderation policy and moderation team? https://rumble.com/s/terms#policies https://rumble.com/s/terms#policies

decebalus1 4y ago

I find it funny when people who spend most of their waking hours under a de facto totalitarian leadership (the workspace) expect that companies extend the same rights to their userbase as the US constitution.

kareemsabri 4y ago
I don't. I wouldn't consider most workplaces I've been in totalitarian - though maybe you've lived in some pretty nice totalitarian countries I'm not aware of. But I also don't see why customers shouldn't demand what they care about from companies.
- thundergolfer 4y ago
  Check out Philosopher Elizabeth Anderson and her work on workplace democracy for more on how modern corporations are like dictatorships and at least certainly anti-democratic. Her New Yorker profile is very good, for an intro.
  - kareemsabri 4y ago
    I don't think they're all that democratic. But there's a world of difference between democratic, which itself has degrees, and being totalitarian.
- decebalus1 4y ago
  Do you have any say in employee compensation? Do you have any say in employee perks/benefits? I mean a real say, not preferences which are allowed by some benevolent analyst from HR. If the CEO goes rogue and the company is private, can rank-and-file employees oust them? Can you vote out your manager or your manager's manager? Is there even a process in place to do that? Do you follow orders from management? What happens if you don't? What happens if you disobey your manager in a public setting? Can you get fired without notice? How about laid off? Can you get fired because you said something? Do you have a dresscode? What would happen to your employment if you dressed like a clown in customer meetings? Do you risk getting fired if you start talking about unionizing? Do you get fired if you sue the company? Can you bring a gun to work? Does your employee handbook say something about how your run your personal life? Does your employer have rights over IP created outside of working hours? Can you get fired over a DUI outside of company hours? Can you get fired for smoking cigarettes in your free time? etc.. Some literature for you: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32889465-private-government https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32889465-private-governm...
  - tqi 4y ago
    You're just describing any structure with a formal hierarchy.
  - kareemsabri 4y ago
    I've listened to enough Richard Wolfe debates to know the talking points. Dropping a book link isn't really helpful in the context of this discussion, I'm not going to go read your favorite book before I reply to you. Yes I'm aware that corporations set up a legal hierarchy in which management has more power than labor within the corporation. I'm not going to go through your specific questions one by one, since they're largely rhetorical, though some of them don't have the answer you hope for. Some people seem to interpret the lack of formal, democratic processes with a totalitarian dictatorship. I've personally witnessed the firing of C-suite execs in response to employee revolts. A totalitarian system requires complete subservience. Depending on your position in the labor market, your leverage may vary. My objection isn't to the notion that the employer-employee power balance is lopsided in many cases, to the point where some sectors of the economy are exploitative, but rather that an office by it's nature is akin to a totalitarian dictatorship. Maybe you're just using that phrase for effect, or maybe you genuinely think that working at Google and living in Egypt under President Mubarak is a good comparison. To me it comes off as a bit out of touch.
- nemothekid 4y ago
  >I wouldn't consider most workplaces I've been in totalitarian Where did you work where you could vote for the CEO?
  - multiplegeorges 4y ago
    Not voting for the CEO doesn't make something totalitarian.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Ironically, I think one could argue that the military of any democratic nation would pass that test despite being a lot closer to totalitarian states[0] than almost all modern companies. [0] Not a judgement call, I think that is necessary given what they do and the risks they have to be ready to face the moment they are ordered to do so
  - kareemsabri 4y ago
    I don't think that's what totalitarian means.
NavinF 4y ago
> de facto totalitarian leadership (the workspace) Can’t relate

multiplegeorges 4y ago

Peace, order, and good government. There's something to it. More people will be able to express themselves fully and openly if a tiny minority isn't screaming, throwing excrement, and/or threatening violence.

kareemsabri 4y ago
So goes the argument. I don't think the author has really proven it, it was pretty theoretical. It's not clear the tiny minority won't just weaponize the powers that be to silence those that disagree with them even further. That said, I don't think free speech is a utilitarian principle (greatest good for the greatest number) but rather a deontological one, that it is wrong to muzzle an individuals right to express themselves as a first order effect. The author's argument describes second or nth order effects.

nickheer 4y ago

For what it is worth, Rumble is Canadian and I linked to an American writer in justifying the latter part of my argument.

kareemsabri 4y ago
Yeah, it was a bit tongue in cheek. I'm also Canadian.
- nickheer 4y ago
  Sorry I missed that. Whoops. Sorry.

sdwr 4y ago

Do you know what the deal was with Macleans' feud with the hate speech jury (board? council?) back in the day? I remember reading about that as a teen and being confused.