6 ms·

I can't speak to all of HN, but over the years I've gone from a free speech absolutist to seeing rights as balanced against one another. And also to consider wh

I can't speak to all of HN, but over the years I've gone from a free speech absolutist to seeing rights as balanced against one another. And also to consider what motivates me to be for free speech. For example, one reason I think free speech is vital is that I want everybody to have a say. Another is that think society works best when we hear from a wide variety of perspectives. However, there are some people who use "free speech" as a reason that they should be allowed to be abusive. Note, for example, the way that Kiwi Farms was waving the free speech banner. You'll see the same thing being done by people who advocate for exterminating Jews and returning Black people to slavery. In practice, a platform like Twitter has to choose between hosting abusive Nazis and hosting the people who the Nazis would try to drive off the platform. Personally, I am more concerned about Jews feeling safe to speak freely than I am about Nazis wanting to use their free speech to abuse them. So although my 20-year-old self might have been shocked that I am no longer a free-speech absolutist, I am fine with him being shocked, because I have come to value net, long-term practical outcomes more than the isolated ideals that I now see as valuable heuristics, not articles of faith.

throwawayacc2 4y ago
[flagged]
- wpietri 4y ago
  > > people who advocate for exterminating Jews and returning Black people to slavery > Literally no one does that. You are imagining things. You are obviously not a serious participant here. These people exist. They existed before the internet, and the internet has, to my great disappointment, only enabled their spread. There's a ton you could read, but maybe start with Neiwert's "God's Country" and "Alt-America", which document the pre- and post-Internet versions of America's white supremacist movement. > Abusive is a relative and in this context meaningless word. That is also embarrassingly ignorant. If you'd like to learn something, maybe try Citron's "Hate Crimes in Cyberspace", Warren's "Targeted and Trolled", Jeong's "The Internet of Garbage", and Bancroft's "Why Does He Do That".
  - throwawayacc2 4y ago
    Tell me, how would you respond to a fanatical preacher telling you to go read the scriptures? Would you do it? Would you call him outright insane? Would you dismiss him and move on? Genuine question, I am honestly curious.
    - wpietri 4y ago
      Sorry, I'm not seeing the relevance to my points. Are you sure you meant to reply to me?
      - throwawayacc2 4y ago
        Yes, I am sure I meant to reply to you.
        wpietri 4y ago
        Well I still don't see the relevance. Unless your point is that to you I'm a fanatic and various books by academics and respected writers are the same thing as ancient religious. So either way I don't see much point in further discussion. Enjoy your day.
        throwawayacc2 4y ago
        Yes. That was my point. There is no functional difference between you telling me “go read this and that” and a preacher saying “go read the scriptures”. The scriptures you told me to go read are irrelevant to my broader point. I am sure you believe them to be true and they very well might be. But that’s not the issue. The issue is, I believe people should be able to exist in society and take part in it regardless of what scriptures they believe in. You do not appear to share this belief. You believe people who do not share your scriptural preferences should be shunned from society. And your response to me pointing that out was to quote scripture at me. Yes wpietri, you are a religious fanatic.
naasking 4y ago
> Note, for example, the way that Kiwi Farms was waving the free speech banner. You'll see the same thing being done by people who advocate for exterminating Jews and returning Black people to slavery. You fight bad ideas with better ideas. The ACLU used to champion free speech in precisely this way before the internet, as they fought for the rights of Nazis to hold marches. For Kiwi Farms specifically, this is a law enforcement failure. If speech transitions into real world action that's what the police are there for. Speech by itself is not really problematic, actions are. I think the past few years have shown that law enforcement is a dismal failure at the moment (Uvalde, George Floyd, etc.), but that's not a justification to restrict speech, that's a justification for justice reform. > In practice, a platform like Twitter has to choose between hosting abusive Nazis and hosting the people who the Nazis would try to drive off the platform. That's a false choice.
- wpietri 4y ago
  > You fight bad ideas with better ideas. This does not in fact work for hate. If you think you can prove otherwise, give it a go. But take a look at the rise of bad ideas over the last 30 years. Take a look at how dis- and mis-information have caused so much harm. > That's a false choice. No, it's not. Because people who are subject to sufficient online hate will leave the platform or never sign up. And it doesn't have to be directed at them personally; people in targeted groups observe what happens to other people in those groups and leave or self-sensor. That should be obvious from a little bit of thinking, but it's also what Twitter internal research shows very clearly. (I worked in Twitter's anti-abuse engineering. And previously worked on bianca.com, the web's first big anything-goes chat space.)
  - naasking 4y ago
    > This does not in fact work for hate. Then how did Daryl Davis succeed in convincing hundreds of KKK members to renounce their hate? How did the Black Panthers and the KKK unite to fight for a common cause, culminating in those KKK members also renouncing their hate? > But take a look at the rise of bad ideas over the last 30 years. What rise? Prove there's been a rise that's unusual in historic terms. Ideas trend and fade. 30-40 years ago we had plenty of left wing terrorism from the eco activists. Recently there was a rise in right-wing narratives, and that too will fade. > Take a look at how dis- and mis-information have caused so much harm. What harm? Be specific. If you mean medical misinformation around COVID, I can very easily demonstrate to you that this actually followed from decades of prior misinformation from journalists and poor scientific practices, and from the failures of various government institutions which led to erosion of public trust, and arguably also led to Trump's election as president. Blaming the "misinformation" is a convenient scapegoat that doesn't actually address the underlying issues, and in the meantime sets a dangerous precedent that will and already has been abused to silence those speak truth to power. > Because people who are subject to sufficient online hate will leave the platform or never sign up. They will sign up if there's value on that platform. If Twitter is where social conversations are happening, where people can directly petition their elected representatives or where they can join social movements and drive change, they will join.

throwawayacc2 4y ago

[flagged]

wpietri 4y ago
> > people who advocate for exterminating Jews and returning Black people to slavery > Literally no one does that. You are imagining things. You are obviously not a serious participant here. These people exist. They existed before the internet, and the internet has, to my great disappointment, only enabled their spread. There's a ton you could read, but maybe start with Neiwert's "God's Country" and "Alt-America", which document the pre- and post-Internet versions of America's white supremacist movement. > Abusive is a relative and in this context meaningless word. That is also embarrassingly ignorant. If you'd like to learn something, maybe try Citron's "Hate Crimes in Cyberspace", Warren's "Targeted and Trolled", Jeong's "The Internet of Garbage", and Bancroft's "Why Does He Do That".
- throwawayacc2 4y ago
  Tell me, how would you respond to a fanatical preacher telling you to go read the scriptures? Would you do it? Would you call him outright insane? Would you dismiss him and move on? Genuine question, I am honestly curious.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Sorry, I'm not seeing the relevance to my points. Are you sure you meant to reply to me?
    - throwawayacc2 4y ago
      Yes, I am sure I meant to reply to you.
      - wpietri 4y ago
        Well I still don't see the relevance. Unless your point is that to you I'm a fanatic and various books by academics and respected writers are the same thing as ancient religious. So either way I don't see much point in further discussion. Enjoy your day.
        throwawayacc2 4y ago
        Yes. That was my point. There is no functional difference between you telling me “go read this and that” and a preacher saying “go read the scriptures”. The scriptures you told me to go read are irrelevant to my broader point. I am sure you believe them to be true and they very well might be. But that’s not the issue. The issue is, I believe people should be able to exist in society and take part in it regardless of what scriptures they believe in. You do not appear to share this belief. You believe people who do not share your scriptural preferences should be shunned from society. And your response to me pointing that out was to quote scripture at me. Yes wpietri, you are a religious fanatic.

naasking 4y ago

> Note, for example, the way that Kiwi Farms was waving the free speech banner. You'll see the same thing being done by people who advocate for exterminating Jews and returning Black people to slavery. You fight bad ideas with better ideas. The ACLU used to champion free speech in precisely this way before the internet, as they fought for the rights of Nazis to hold marches. For Kiwi Farms specifically, this is a law enforcement failure. If speech transitions into real world action that's what the police are there for. Speech by itself is not really problematic, actions are. I think the past few years have shown that law enforcement is a dismal failure at the moment (Uvalde, George Floyd, etc.), but that's not a justification to restrict speech, that's a justification for justice reform. > In practice, a platform like Twitter has to choose between hosting abusive Nazis and hosting the people who the Nazis would try to drive off the platform. That's a false choice.

wpietri 4y ago
> You fight bad ideas with better ideas. This does not in fact work for hate. If you think you can prove otherwise, give it a go. But take a look at the rise of bad ideas over the last 30 years. Take a look at how dis- and mis-information have caused so much harm. > That's a false choice. No, it's not. Because people who are subject to sufficient online hate will leave the platform or never sign up. And it doesn't have to be directed at them personally; people in targeted groups observe what happens to other people in those groups and leave or self-sensor. That should be obvious from a little bit of thinking, but it's also what Twitter internal research shows very clearly. (I worked in Twitter's anti-abuse engineering. And previously worked on bianca.com, the web's first big anything-goes chat space.)
- naasking 4y ago
  > This does not in fact work for hate. Then how did Daryl Davis succeed in convincing hundreds of KKK members to renounce their hate? How did the Black Panthers and the KKK unite to fight for a common cause, culminating in those KKK members also renouncing their hate? > But take a look at the rise of bad ideas over the last 30 years. What rise? Prove there's been a rise that's unusual in historic terms. Ideas trend and fade. 30-40 years ago we had plenty of left wing terrorism from the eco activists. Recently there was a rise in right-wing narratives, and that too will fade. > Take a look at how dis- and mis-information have caused so much harm. What harm? Be specific. If you mean medical misinformation around COVID, I can very easily demonstrate to you that this actually followed from decades of prior misinformation from journalists and poor scientific practices, and from the failures of various government institutions which led to erosion of public trust, and arguably also led to Trump's election as president. Blaming the "misinformation" is a convenient scapegoat that doesn't actually address the underlying issues, and in the meantime sets a dangerous precedent that will and already has been abused to silence those speak truth to power. > Because people who are subject to sufficient online hate will leave the platform or never sign up. They will sign up if there's value on that platform. If Twitter is where social conversations are happening, where people can directly petition their elected representatives or where they can join social movements and drive change, they will join.