3 ms·
Without wanting to actually enter the well-trodden arena, at maximum zoom, the arguments can be categorised: - free-speech absolutism (this position exists) -
by psd1 4y ago
Without wanting to actually enter the well-trodden arena, at maximum zoom, the arguments can be categorised:
- free-speech absolutism (this position exists)
- ban all communication between all humans (this position is not advocated by anyone)
- some speech should be banned
I reject all absolutist positions. Ideology is cancer. It's childish: the conceit that one's simple plan will fix the problems in the world. It's the reason communism has been a disaster.
It's depressing how many free speech absolutists you find on HN. I presume these people are intelligent in the field of tech and know it. Their political pronouncements are pure Dunning-Kruger. Founding four companies and retiring at 32 does not imply that you understand how societies work.
- junofan 4y agoI think there’s a cultural aspect you’re missing—presumably you aren’t American? I’ve yet to see any free speech absolutists on HN. I would assume most people are on board with criminal penalties for fire-in-a-crowded-theater speech. I don’t know if coming from a different culture means you don’t understand how societies work—that’s a pretty general claim.
- ElCheapo 4y agoI don't understand what the purpose of your comment is in relation to my post.
- jackdaniel 4y agoI think that most people who advocate against corporate/outrage-driven censorship are more concerned with the basis of such action - i.e if the speech is legal then it should not be banned from public forums based on a sentiment of the opposing group. I.e they take no issue with resolving that on legal grounds, but against succumbing to social (real or not) pressure of bystenders.
- MiguelX413 4y agoI don't think deplatforming is that difficult of a step for many people.