3 ms·

What Florida is asking for is not different than what many on the left have been asking for. The motivation is different, but the powers they want are the same.

by _skel 4y ago

What Florida is asking for is not different than what many on the left have been asking for. The motivation is different, but the powers they want are the same. People on the left need to remember that if they give the government more power to regulate speech online, whether it is to fight disinformation or hate speech or whatever else, the right wing will have the same power the next time they win office. It's so short sighted. Unless you want our society to vacillate between left-wing censorship and right-wing censorship every time power changes hands, you should oppose giving any more censorship powers to governments.

ajross 4y ago
> many on the left have been asking [to] give the government more power to regulate speech online No one on the left wants the government to do this. What happens is that "many on the left" tend to yell loudly about stuff to the extent that people in power feel they need to moderate their own speech and actions. Virtually no one on the left wants "the government" to do this. The left, in fact, is extremely dependent on its ability to exercise free speech rights to make this happen. Everyone you want to cite who got "cancelled"? They got cancelled because someone else exercised their first amendment right to a hissy fit. Literally no one is trying to censor you. They're just shouting louder (and, to some extent, better and more convincingly).
- akomtu 4y ago
  WH went as far as creating a Disinformation Board. It got quickly labeled as Ministry of Truth, and the Board got disbanded shortly after, but the message was clear.
  - ajross 4y ago
    It wasn't the White House, it was DHS. If you meant "the executive branch" you should say that, calling it the WH makes it sound like this was an effort of the office of the President and not someone three tiers down. And it wasn't going to censor anything, as Homeland Security doesn't have any such authority, it was about counter-messaging. And no one but political enemies called it the "Ministry of Truth". But indeed, the count-counter-messaging was too strong and it was shut down, because at the end of the day what amounts a PR organization isn't going to be very useful vs. the ammunition it can provide to people wanting to scream about censorship. Hilariously that statement is a perfect example of the kind of disinformation and memery techniques that that (aborted) department was trying to refute.

by _skel 4y ago

ajross 4y ago

> many on the left have been asking [to] give the government more power to regulate speech online No one on the left wants the government to do this. What happens is that "many on the left" tend to yell loudly about stuff to the extent that people in power feel they need to moderate their own speech and actions. Virtually no one on the left wants "the government" to do this. The left, in fact, is extremely dependent on its ability to exercise free speech rights to make this happen. Everyone you want to cite who got "cancelled"? They got cancelled because someone else exercised their first amendment right to a hissy fit. Literally no one is trying to censor you. They're just shouting louder (and, to some extent, better and more convincingly).

akomtu 4y ago
WH went as far as creating a Disinformation Board. It got quickly labeled as Ministry of Truth, and the Board got disbanded shortly after, but the message was clear.
- ajross 4y ago
  It wasn't the White House, it was DHS. If you meant "the executive branch" you should say that, calling it the WH makes it sound like this was an effort of the office of the President and not someone three tiers down. And it wasn't going to censor anything, as Homeland Security doesn't have any such authority, it was about counter-messaging. And no one but political enemies called it the "Ministry of Truth". But indeed, the count-counter-messaging was too strong and it was shut down, because at the end of the day what amounts a PR organization isn't going to be very useful vs. the ammunition it can provide to people wanting to scream about censorship. Hilariously that statement is a perfect example of the kind of disinformation and memery techniques that that (aborted) department was trying to refute.