4 ms·

> I can’t help but suspect the true motivations of anyone who opposes the ruling We don't want society to collapse as unfettered conspiracy theories cause fasc

> I can’t help but suspect the true motivations of anyone who opposes the ruling We don't want society to collapse as unfettered conspiracy theories cause fascists to get elected and 500k deaths due to anti-vax brainwashing. That's actually our true motivation.

user3939382 4y ago
Translation: I support these unelected tech oligarchs crushing the free speech of my political enemies. If you don’t support the speech of people you disagree with you don’t support free speech.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  That's right, I don't support the American sociolegal construct of free speech in the age of social media. No sociolegal construct is sacrosanct. They're all subject to revision if facts of the world change to cause them to have more negative consequences than positive ones. Our ancestors realized that there needed to be some limits on free speech in the age of print, i.e libel law. You now accept these restrictions because you're accustomed to them - don't pretend it's high minded ideals. You have simply mentally compartmentalized libel as that speech which is OK to ban. You are no more a free speech purist than I am. We need to realize that social media has created new speech related societal failure modes that didn't exist last century. In response, we need to update our paradigm and somehow address these failure modes, because the old paradigm no longer works for the new era we live in.
  - user3939382 4y ago
    I mean this with all sincerity and respect -- at least you admit you don't believe in free speech and you're not a hypocrite, which is more than you can say for a lot of those in your school of thought. As for me, I think we have enough limits on speech and going further leads to tyranny, that muzzling those you disagree with is abominable and unenlightened. Stalin and Pol Pot would have also eagerly explained why their measures were really for the good of the public, and why new circumstances required it. Your argument boils down to, free speech of my political enemies is only acceptable when it doesn't have influence and reach.
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      > at least you admit you don't believe in free speech I have my own construct of free speech that I believe in, just like you do. Assuming you buy into the American construct, you also support muzzling certain people (e.g. defamation law), and I don't see you complaining about it. There are no free speech purists here.

user3939382 4y ago

Translation: I support these unelected tech oligarchs crushing the free speech of my political enemies. If you don’t support the speech of people you disagree with you don’t support free speech.

hackerlight 4y ago
That's right, I don't support the American sociolegal construct of free speech in the age of social media. No sociolegal construct is sacrosanct. They're all subject to revision if facts of the world change to cause them to have more negative consequences than positive ones. Our ancestors realized that there needed to be some limits on free speech in the age of print, i.e libel law. You now accept these restrictions because you're accustomed to them - don't pretend it's high minded ideals. You have simply mentally compartmentalized libel as that speech which is OK to ban. You are no more a free speech purist than I am. We need to realize that social media has created new speech related societal failure modes that didn't exist last century. In response, we need to update our paradigm and somehow address these failure modes, because the old paradigm no longer works for the new era we live in.
- user3939382 4y ago
  I mean this with all sincerity and respect -- at least you admit you don't believe in free speech and you're not a hypocrite, which is more than you can say for a lot of those in your school of thought. As for me, I think we have enough limits on speech and going further leads to tyranny, that muzzling those you disagree with is abominable and unenlightened. Stalin and Pol Pot would have also eagerly explained why their measures were really for the good of the public, and why new circumstances required it. Your argument boils down to, free speech of my political enemies is only acceptable when it doesn't have influence and reach.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    > at least you admit you don't believe in free speech I have my own construct of free speech that I believe in, just like you do. Assuming you buy into the American construct, you also support muzzling certain people (e.g. defamation law), and I don't see you complaining about it. There are no free speech purists here.