6 ms·

The tricky part about neutrality is that "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor" Of course, it's not always

by davidw 4y ago

The tricky part about neutrality is that "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor" Of course, it's not always clear what injustice is and reasonable people might disagree, but I think there are certain minimum standards, like "anti-semitism and blatant racism are bad".

malfist 4y ago
Removing my comment, it was misunderstood as me supporting hate speech, which was not my intention.
- davidw 4y ago
  > Neutrality means I get to say what I want and you can't get mad at me or get my job to fire me. Twitter as a company/platform never went after anyone's job. Free speech does not mean that speech is without consequences.
  - throw10920 4y ago
    "Consequences" are enacted by an authority. The thing that happens on Twitter is "mob justice". EDIT: I did not read carefully before commenting, this comment is irrelevant.
    - davidw 4y ago
      The 'authority' mentioned was an employer, who is free to hire and fire people at will in he US, in many cases. Turns out that employing, say, a nazi, is not popular at many companies. This can certainly go to far, but it's kind of up to the employer, isn't it.
      - throw10920 4y ago
        I misread. You're right, it's fully reasonable for companies to remove individuals from employment due to their own speech (but nobody else's).
- becquerel 4y ago
  There's a lot of people on twitter who just want to say the n-word, want to say Kanye is right about Jewish people, want to say LGBT people are groomers, etc. I personally don't see the justice in letting people who want to cause material harm to others - people who'd put me in a camp if they had their way - like that have a platform, no-questions-asked
  - arghnoname 4y ago
    There's a philosophical thing here and people have different views. The ACLU used to defend the right for the KKK and neo-nazis to parade around in jewish neighborhoods doing holocaust denial, etc, and if I remember correctly many of their lawyers doing such work were Jewish. The view if those people are idiots, and they can say this if they want, and more decent people (who outnumber the bigots) will counter the bigoted speech with their own. No one can credibly deny that some speech is harmful. We'd all like to suppress some speech that we don't like, but the reason free speech advocates take the position they take (generally) is that once speech is prohibited the status quo regime will ban legitimate criticisms. So the good has to be accepted with the bad. It's a tough issue. If I'm honest I favor censorship of views that I believe are harmful, but would object strenuously if my point of view is censored. I also think being called slurs, etc, is an unpleasant user experience, to say the least, so from a business perspective if nothing else I get why that is censored. Still, the censorship has gone too far in my view. We need to figure out a way to circle this square.
    - davidw 4y ago
      Beyond all that, which is a tough issue, Twitter is also a company, and if people are freely throwing around the N word and crazy conspiracy garbage, normal people are going to leave. Advertisers are going to leave with them. See this bit of discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33375286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33375286
      - skissane 4y ago
        I guess Musk is going to put less emphasis on outright bans, and more on “quarantining”. He might not ban an account posting racial slurs all day long, but it won’t be recommended, it won’t come up in search unless you set some special flag, and non-followers who visit it will get some kind of warning interstitial “Many users have reported this content as highly offensive, are you sure you want to view it?” Ads will only be displayed if the advertiser explicitly opts in.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  In that case, it is impossible for Twitter to achieve neutrality (in that they can't control how viewers respond to a particular individual's odious tweets). If anything removing these sorts of tweets was a nice gift to bigots, covering their tracks for them.
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  Lmao, no. Neutrality means that twitter won't delete your vile tweet. I'll absolutely screenshot it and report it to your employer, should it be truly heinous behavior that would make your coworkers uncomfortable.
three_seagrass 4y ago
You're all arguing about a red herring anyways. As with many of the things Elon has tweeted or said, appearing to value free speech for Twitter was just him appealing to conservatives, upset with their perception of cancel culture. Wait to see if Elon actually makes any TOS and policy changes in the next month, and debate then.
- memish 4y ago
  My entire life free speech was a liberal value and I believe it still is. Why are people saying it's conservative all of a sudden?
  - likeclockwork 4y ago
    My entire life private property was a right-wing value. Why are they against it all of a sudden?
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      The right to own private property is and has always been a liberal value. The (absurd, imho) belief that such a right should preclude any sort of government regulation is a libertarian value.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Because liberal used to mean "supporting liberty" (the classical definition). But it has come to mean "agreeing with a certain set of beliefs and policies", and (recently) trying to de-platform anyone who publicly disagrees. And, in our bipolar political spectrum, those who disagree with the "liberals" are the "conservatives", who are therefore the ones the "liberals" are trying to de-platform. So the "conservatives" believe very strongly in free speech (at the moment) because it's their speech that is currently getting crimped. And, seeing the trends, they think it's likely to get worse in the future. (As, say, anything disagreeing with the current "liberal" position gets labeled "racist" or "transphobic" or something, designed to make it virtuous to censor.)
  - 4y ago
vagabund 4y ago
> there are certain minimum standards The American constitution has done a uniquely good job of enumerating those limits. It seems like a stretch to paint a de facto adherence to free speech (as outlined by the law of the land in a given jurisdiction) as oppressive, when the status quo has been unilateral normative judgements of relevant political speech by an unrepresentative cabal of employee-activists.
- davidw 4y ago
  Twitter != The government. It's tricky because these platforms are huge, and are a public square in many ways. But they are also companies. The local newspaper is not required to print some anti-semitic screed. A local bar can kick out nazis. People do have alternative ways of freely expressing themselves. Due to the massive size of these platforms, it feels a bit different, though in that being removed from one could really alter your online presence. I don't have all the answers. And I suspect that Elon Musk does not, either, but we will have to wait and see...
  - vagabund 4y ago
    Sure, I agree Musk underestimates the scope of the challenge. I'm personally of the belief that network effects have granted Twitter a relatively unassailable cultural position, or at least enough of a moat to greatly reduce competitive pressures, and so should be subjected to different standards than a local bar or paper -- and if the analogy is to a newspaper, then Twitter should be treated as a publisher with all the attendant regulatory baggage that carries. It's hard for them to argue they have a right, as a private company, to shape the conversation, and in the same breath claim they're shielded from legal responsibility for what takes place on their site. It's definitely a tricky debate, but in my personal value stack I place individuals' freedom of speech much higher than a private company's right to refuse service, so that's where I fall.
    - davidw 4y ago
      > network effects have granted Twitter a relatively unassailable cultural position Hard to say... there are massive network effects, but switching costs are also pretty low. Facebook seemed pretty solid not so long ago.
andy_ppp 4y ago
Yes, my guess is they piss off the least amount of people right now, Musk is likely to make it much worse. Still, I might get an edit button so I'll be happy about that!
PM_me_your_math 4y ago
In my experience with Twitter, and most situations, the who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed is largely subjective. There is very little objectivity. The old twitter way was; "any speech that makes me offended or uncomfortable is oppressive" ...which would ultimately lead to a shadow ban or permanent "suspension" of the account labelled as "oppressive." A great example of this is the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of accounts, which were permanently banned in October of 2021. Their own thought crime was posting revelations from Ashely Biden's diary and Hunter Biden's laptop. The excuse was " Russian disinformation" but news of late have proven Twitter's statement as clear disinformation in itself. Musk had already said content that is illegal won't be permitted, and troublemakers will be dealt with, and that perma-ban will be final course, not the first & only.
bshereabove78 4y ago
Neutrality is neutrality. <---- that's a big period. Last time I went to Switzerland, didn't look like an oppressive place to me. Actually the rest of the world did.
jiggawatts 4y ago
> minimum standards, like "anti-semitism and blatant racism are bad". Minimum western standards. Anti-semitism is a “good” if you’re a Palestinian. Racism similarly can be “good” for members of a minority fighting for literal survival.
fooker 4y ago
And the tricky part of choosing a side is that you are the oppressor according to the other side. Are you going to be correct all the time? Or even majority of the time? If you believe in your capability to be correct all the time, might as well make billions in the market and help fight injustice everywhere.
qu4z-2 4y ago
No you haven't, that's just what people tell you to try to get you to take sides. The oppressor will also happily make that argument to you, btw.

by davidw 4y ago

malfist 4y ago

Removing my comment, it was misunderstood as me supporting hate speech, which was not my intention.

davidw 4y ago
> Neutrality means I get to say what I want and you can't get mad at me or get my job to fire me. Twitter as a company/platform never went after anyone's job. Free speech does not mean that speech is without consequences.
- throw10920 4y ago
  "Consequences" are enacted by an authority. The thing that happens on Twitter is "mob justice". EDIT: I did not read carefully before commenting, this comment is irrelevant.
  - davidw 4y ago
    The 'authority' mentioned was an employer, who is free to hire and fire people at will in he US, in many cases. Turns out that employing, say, a nazi, is not popular at many companies. This can certainly go to far, but it's kind of up to the employer, isn't it.
    - throw10920 4y ago
      I misread. You're right, it's fully reasonable for companies to remove individuals from employment due to their own speech (but nobody else's).
becquerel 4y ago
There's a lot of people on twitter who just want to say the n-word, want to say Kanye is right about Jewish people, want to say LGBT people are groomers, etc. I personally don't see the justice in letting people who want to cause material harm to others - people who'd put me in a camp if they had their way - like that have a platform, no-questions-asked
- arghnoname 4y ago
  There's a philosophical thing here and people have different views. The ACLU used to defend the right for the KKK and neo-nazis to parade around in jewish neighborhoods doing holocaust denial, etc, and if I remember correctly many of their lawyers doing such work were Jewish. The view if those people are idiots, and they can say this if they want, and more decent people (who outnumber the bigots) will counter the bigoted speech with their own. No one can credibly deny that some speech is harmful. We'd all like to suppress some speech that we don't like, but the reason free speech advocates take the position they take (generally) is that once speech is prohibited the status quo regime will ban legitimate criticisms. So the good has to be accepted with the bad. It's a tough issue. If I'm honest I favor censorship of views that I believe are harmful, but would object strenuously if my point of view is censored. I also think being called slurs, etc, is an unpleasant user experience, to say the least, so from a business perspective if nothing else I get why that is censored. Still, the censorship has gone too far in my view. We need to figure out a way to circle this square.
  - davidw 4y ago
    Beyond all that, which is a tough issue, Twitter is also a company, and if people are freely throwing around the N word and crazy conspiracy garbage, normal people are going to leave. Advertisers are going to leave with them. See this bit of discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33375286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33375286
    - skissane 4y ago
      I guess Musk is going to put less emphasis on outright bans, and more on “quarantining”. He might not ban an account posting racial slurs all day long, but it won’t be recommended, it won’t come up in search unless you set some special flag, and non-followers who visit it will get some kind of warning interstitial “Many users have reported this content as highly offensive, are you sure you want to view it?” Ads will only be displayed if the advertiser explicitly opts in.
bee_rider 4y ago
In that case, it is impossible for Twitter to achieve neutrality (in that they can't control how viewers respond to a particular individual's odious tweets). If anything removing these sorts of tweets was a nice gift to bigots, covering their tracks for them.
ohgodplsno 4y ago
Lmao, no. Neutrality means that twitter won't delete your vile tweet. I'll absolutely screenshot it and report it to your employer, should it be truly heinous behavior that would make your coworkers uncomfortable.

three_seagrass 4y ago

You're all arguing about a red herring anyways. As with many of the things Elon has tweeted or said, appearing to value free speech for Twitter was just him appealing to conservatives, upset with their perception of cancel culture. Wait to see if Elon actually makes any TOS and policy changes in the next month, and debate then.

memish 4y ago
My entire life free speech was a liberal value and I believe it still is. Why are people saying it's conservative all of a sudden?
- likeclockwork 4y ago
  My entire life private property was a right-wing value. Why are they against it all of a sudden?
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    The right to own private property is and has always been a liberal value. The (absurd, imho) belief that such a right should preclude any sort of government regulation is a libertarian value.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Because liberal used to mean "supporting liberty" (the classical definition). But it has come to mean "agreeing with a certain set of beliefs and policies", and (recently) trying to de-platform anyone who publicly disagrees. And, in our bipolar political spectrum, those who disagree with the "liberals" are the "conservatives", who are therefore the ones the "liberals" are trying to de-platform. So the "conservatives" believe very strongly in free speech (at the moment) because it's their speech that is currently getting crimped. And, seeing the trends, they think it's likely to get worse in the future. (As, say, anything disagreeing with the current "liberal" position gets labeled "racist" or "transphobic" or something, designed to make it virtuous to censor.)
- 4y ago

vagabund 4y ago

> there are certain minimum standards The American constitution has done a uniquely good job of enumerating those limits. It seems like a stretch to paint a de facto adherence to free speech (as outlined by the law of the land in a given jurisdiction) as oppressive, when the status quo has been unilateral normative judgements of relevant political speech by an unrepresentative cabal of employee-activists.

davidw 4y ago
Twitter != The government. It's tricky because these platforms are huge, and are a public square in many ways. But they are also companies. The local newspaper is not required to print some anti-semitic screed. A local bar can kick out nazis. People do have alternative ways of freely expressing themselves. Due to the massive size of these platforms, it feels a bit different, though in that being removed from one could really alter your online presence. I don't have all the answers. And I suspect that Elon Musk does not, either, but we will have to wait and see...
- vagabund 4y ago
  Sure, I agree Musk underestimates the scope of the challenge. I'm personally of the belief that network effects have granted Twitter a relatively unassailable cultural position, or at least enough of a moat to greatly reduce competitive pressures, and so should be subjected to different standards than a local bar or paper -- and if the analogy is to a newspaper, then Twitter should be treated as a publisher with all the attendant regulatory baggage that carries. It's hard for them to argue they have a right, as a private company, to shape the conversation, and in the same breath claim they're shielded from legal responsibility for what takes place on their site. It's definitely a tricky debate, but in my personal value stack I place individuals' freedom of speech much higher than a private company's right to refuse service, so that's where I fall.
  - davidw 4y ago
    > network effects have granted Twitter a relatively unassailable cultural position Hard to say... there are massive network effects, but switching costs are also pretty low. Facebook seemed pretty solid not so long ago.

andy_ppp 4y ago

Yes, my guess is they piss off the least amount of people right now, Musk is likely to make it much worse. Still, I might get an edit button so I'll be happy about that!

PM_me_your_math 4y ago

In my experience with Twitter, and most situations, the who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed is largely subjective. There is very little objectivity. The old twitter way was; "any speech that makes me offended or uncomfortable is oppressive" ...which would ultimately lead to a shadow ban or permanent "suspension" of the account labelled as "oppressive." A great example of this is the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of accounts, which were permanently banned in October of 2021. Their own thought crime was posting revelations from Ashely Biden's diary and Hunter Biden's laptop. The excuse was " Russian disinformation" but news of late have proven Twitter's statement as clear disinformation in itself. Musk had already said content that is illegal won't be permitted, and troublemakers will be dealt with, and that perma-ban will be final course, not the first & only.

bshereabove78 4y ago

Neutrality is neutrality. <---- that's a big period. Last time I went to Switzerland, didn't look like an oppressive place to me. Actually the rest of the world did.

jiggawatts 4y ago

> minimum standards, like "anti-semitism and blatant racism are bad". Minimum western standards. Anti-semitism is a “good” if you’re a Palestinian. Racism similarly can be “good” for members of a minority fighting for literal survival.

fooker 4y ago

And the tricky part of choosing a side is that you are the oppressor according to the other side. Are you going to be correct all the time? Or even majority of the time? If you believe in your capability to be correct all the time, might as well make billions in the market and help fight injustice everywhere.

qu4z-2 4y ago

No you haven't, that's just what people tell you to try to get you to take sides. The oppressor will also happily make that argument to you, btw.