4 ms·

So let's see, if I don't like this comment of yours and I find out where you live and go and shoot you in the face so you can't make such comments again, that's

So let's see, if I don't like this comment of yours and I find out where you live and go and shoot you in the face so you can't make such comments again, that's also competition in the marketplace of ideas, right? It's my idea to shoot you in the face against your idea of making comments I don't like.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
You're equating a website going offline to shooting me in the face? No, that's not a competition of ideas. It's murder. Does that really need to be spelled out for you?
- fluoridation 4y ago
  Congratulations, you got the analogy. Both me shooting you in the face and a mob agreeing to perform a DDoS against a web server are both measures of force. "I don't like what you're saying, so I'm going to shoot you in the face so you stop." "I don't like the content your web server is serving, so I'm going to DDoS it so it stops." The DDoS is not an idea in the same way that a bullet isn't one. Therefore no, this is not "the marketplace of ideas in action".
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Now explain how not all measures of force are equal. Or are you one of those people who thinks cops should shoot people for traffic violations?
    - fluoridation 4y ago
      Only after you explain in what way it is relevant with regards to the point that DDoSing a server is not part of the marketplace of ideas.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        I categorically privilege human life over website accessibility. Do people generally not do this?
        fluoridation 4y ago
        Great. But, that's not what I asked.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Sending a packet is free speech. Being prevented from sending a packet is censorship. It's pretty simple. Not really sure why we needed to take a detour into shooting people, but here we are.
        fluoridation 4y ago
        >Sending a packet is free speech. No, there's no law anywhere that includes actions performed by machines in the definition of free speech. DDoSing a server is not performance art, and neither is shooting someone.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        I guess that makes sense if you think people's free speech is granted by laws. I think it's a natural right enshrined/protected by laws.
        fluoridation 4y ago
        There's no such thing as a natural right. A right only exists where it goes unchallenged or where there's a force to answer such challenges. That force can come from laws and the power of a state or it can come from someplace else, but it needs to come from somewhere. You can believe that you have the right to send any packets you like however you like, but if you can't defend that right and you don't have anyone who will defend it for you, you may find there are those who will ensure your belief stays as just that.

kelseyfrog 4y ago

You're equating a website going offline to shooting me in the face? No, that's not a competition of ideas. It's murder. Does that really need to be spelled out for you?

fluoridation 4y ago
Congratulations, you got the analogy. Both me shooting you in the face and a mob agreeing to perform a DDoS against a web server are both measures of force. "I don't like what you're saying, so I'm going to shoot you in the face so you stop." "I don't like the content your web server is serving, so I'm going to DDoS it so it stops." The DDoS is not an idea in the same way that a bullet isn't one. Therefore no, this is not "the marketplace of ideas in action".
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Now explain how not all measures of force are equal. Or are you one of those people who thinks cops should shoot people for traffic violations?
  - fluoridation 4y ago
    Only after you explain in what way it is relevant with regards to the point that DDoSing a server is not part of the marketplace of ideas.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      I categorically privilege human life over website accessibility. Do people generally not do this?
      - fluoridation 4y ago
        Great. But, that's not what I asked.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Sending a packet is free speech. Being prevented from sending a packet is censorship. It's pretty simple. Not really sure why we needed to take a detour into shooting people, but here we are.
        fluoridation 4y ago
        >Sending a packet is free speech. No, there's no law anywhere that includes actions performed by machines in the definition of free speech. DDoSing a server is not performance art, and neither is shooting someone.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        I guess that makes sense if you think people's free speech is granted by laws. I think it's a natural right enshrined/protected by laws.
        fluoridation 4y ago
        There's no such thing as a natural right. A right only exists where it goes unchallenged or where there's a force to answer such challenges. That force can come from laws and the power of a state or it can come from someplace else, but it needs to come from somewhere. You can believe that you have the right to send any packets you like however you like, but if you can't defend that right and you don't have anyone who will defend it for you, you may find there are those who will ensure your belief stays as just that.