4 ms·

Sounds like a great organization standing up for the principle that forms the very foundation of civilization.

esteth 4y ago
- d110af5ccf 4y ago
  > I suppose there's an argument that twitter etc are effectively "common carriers" ... I'm not sure I buy it though. On one side of the spectrum we have your private home. Obviously your having the ability to infringe on my freedom to speak in that very specific and limited venue doesn't seem to lead to any great societal ills. On the other side of the spectrum we have a government owned public square. I think it's clear enough that any regulation of speech there including informal coercion not to speak is quite likely to lead to significant political and social problems. Limitations on government power mitigate a lot of this but certainly not all of it. And then we have large corporate owned properties, both online and in the physical world, where the public is more or less permitted to gather but the regular protections don't apply. Presumably the problems caused by regulating speech are related to scale. So at what point should regulation apply? The concept of a common carrier isn't new. Twitter hosts prominent politicians from multiple large countries. It seems obvious to me that they crossed that line some point even if I don't know precisely where it lies.
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  > It sounds like a bunch of folk > that are butthurt private venues don't want to listen to their racist, homophobic, or transphobic rhetoric. Basically this. Students Unions have the absolute right to refuse to platform people (and to oppose their platforming by the institution in which they operate), if those people being given a platform runs contrary to the wishes of the student body the Union represents. Nobody has a right to anyone else's platform. Making people platform your views is coerced speech.
- canistista 4y ago
  People like you cannot understand virtue and you'll never be satisfied. you only understand violence and coercion. "Racist" is the equivalent of the n-word but it is directed at whites. any open forum for discussion would end with your arguments defeated so you need censorship to thrive.
welshwelsh 4y ago
That's not what this is at all, they don't give a damn about free speech. This is just a bunch of conspiracy crazies trying to push their views and complaining when nobody wants to be associated with them. Try writing your own article and submit it to their site. They won't publish it unless it's some right wing conspiracy bullshit. That's their right, of course: it's their platform and they get to choose what gets published, and anything they don't agree with gets "cancelled" for anyone who wants to use that moronic term. But then they try to turn around and get their own crap published on other, more credible platforms, because otherwise nobody will read it. And of course, these platforms, such as universities and newspapers have a reputation to protect, so they aren't going to publish a bunch of nonsense.
- origin_path 4y ago
  Sure they will - https://dailysceptic.org/archive/the-left-wing-case-against-lockdowns/ https://dailysceptic.org/archive/the-left-wing-case-against-...
- ploppyploppy 4y ago
  You're making ad hominem attacks and baseless claims.

d110af5ccf 4y ago
> I suppose there's an argument that twitter etc are effectively "common carriers" ... I'm not sure I buy it though. On one side of the spectrum we have your private home. Obviously your having the ability to infringe on my freedom to speak in that very specific and limited venue doesn't seem to lead to any great societal ills. On the other side of the spectrum we have a government owned public square. I think it's clear enough that any regulation of speech there including informal coercion not to speak is quite likely to lead to significant political and social problems. Limitations on government power mitigate a lot of this but certainly not all of it. And then we have large corporate owned properties, both online and in the physical world, where the public is more or less permitted to gather but the regular protections don't apply. Presumably the problems caused by regulating speech are related to scale. So at what point should regulation apply? The concept of a common carrier isn't new. Twitter hosts prominent politicians from multiple large countries. It seems obvious to me that they crossed that line some point even if I don't know precisely where it lies.
nibbleshifter 4y ago
> It sounds like a bunch of folk > that are butthurt private venues don't want to listen to their racist, homophobic, or transphobic rhetoric. Basically this. Students Unions have the absolute right to refuse to platform people (and to oppose their platforming by the institution in which they operate), if those people being given a platform runs contrary to the wishes of the student body the Union represents. Nobody has a right to anyone else's platform. Making people platform your views is coerced speech.
canistista 4y ago
People like you cannot understand virtue and you'll never be satisfied. you only understand violence and coercion. "Racist" is the equivalent of the n-word but it is directed at whites. any open forum for discussion would end with your arguments defeated so you need censorship to thrive.

That's not what this is at all, they don't give a damn about free speech. This is just a bunch of conspiracy crazies trying to push their views and complaining when nobody wants to be associated with them. Try writing your own article and submit it to their site. They won't publish it unless it's some right wing conspiracy bullshit. That's their right, of course: it's their platform and they get to choose what gets published, and anything they don't agree with gets "cancelled" for anyone who wants to use that moronic term. But then they try to turn around and get their own crap published on other, more credible platforms, because otherwise nobody will read it. And of course, these platforms, such as universities and newspapers have a reputation to protect, so they aren't going to publish a bunch of nonsense.

origin_path 4y ago
Sure they will - https://dailysceptic.org/archive/the-left-wing-case-against-lockdowns/ https://dailysceptic.org/archive/the-left-wing-case-against-...
ploppyploppy 4y ago
You're making ad hominem attacks and baseless claims.