4 ms·
I see these complaints (generally from the right wing), and I think... so what? No one ever seems to have any action tied to resolve their complaints, presumabl
by hotpotamus 4y ago
I see these complaints (generally from the right wing), and I think... so what? No one ever seems to have any action tied to resolve their complaints, presumably because it would ironically require creating laws that restrict speech - what is cancel culture other than a reflection of free speech in its own right after all?
Of course, if you start talking about boycotting Israel, they'll be happy to send the law after you (in some states at least).
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/31/texas-boycott-israel-lawsuit/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/31/texas-boycott-israel...
- russdill 4y agoNo action? There's been plenty of laws written and even passed in red states to address these complaints. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/23/1100831545/appeals-court-florida-social-media-law-unconstitutional-desantis https://www.npr.org/2022/05/23/1100831545/appeals-court-flor... https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/31/texas-social-media-law-blocked/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/31/texas-social-media-l...
- commandlinefan 4y ago> require creating laws that restrict speech Actually, you don't have to - you just have to create laws that protect entities that support it. Explicitly indemnifying online discussion portals from being held responsible for any (alleged) harm caused by discussions on their platform would go a LONG way toward supporting organizations that actually believe in free expression. Twitter can go on banning everybody who opposes communism, but Parler can't be legally shut down for allowing them.
- hotpotamus 4y agoI don't understand what you're saying - has Parler been legally shutdown for banning anti-communists?
- commandlinefan 4y agoNo, but only because they're being very careful what they allow to be posted.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y agoCancel culture is not the result of free speech, it's the result of a toxic social environment. Here are some actionable solutions that don't require limiting free speech: 1. Improve labor laws so craven employers can't just dump their employee because they said something online (unrelated to the company on their personal time) and people are complaining. 2. Regulate social media algorithms to prevent the feedback loops that lead to events like a woman with two followers becoming the target of 20 million people. 3. Change media incentives to improve the quality of journalism and decrease click-bait and outrage-chasing.
- colinmhayes 4y agoYou don't think employers should be able to fire people who cost them money?
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y agoDefinitely not in these circumstances but the cost is irrelevant to this discussion. Should employers be able to fire cancer patients who go on sick leave for months or years? Should employers be able to fire a green man if their clients hate green people? What matters is where you set the bar for someone losing their means of survival, in what circumstances would you like your neighbour to go homeless: Because he has cancer, because he is green, or because he said something controversial in public. I don't want any of these, and I believe a healthy society should have strong enough labour laws to put the employee before the employer in these circumstances.
- hotpotamus 4y agoDoesn't free speech mean the freedom to create a toxic social environment?
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y agoSure, if I insult my neighbour, I exercise free speech and create a toxic social environment. But how does that relate to the phenomenons I outlined to contextualize the toxicity I'm referring to?