4 ms·

Why not? In my country, these opinions are uttered so openly and commonly that it does not even raise an eyebrow. Infact these are cherished religious beliefs,

Why not? In my country, these opinions are uttered so openly and commonly that it does not even raise an eyebrow. Infact these are cherished religious beliefs, even. Yet, there are viewpoints that would be considered so utterly innocent in the west as to be as unnoticeable as punctuation, that have led to actual mob violence and lynchings, and I am talking this decade, not some old era bygones. Such speech is considered equivalent to yelling "Fire" in an open theater, to use a common internet retort on free speech, because of the effect it has on the masses, and we have laws on blasphemy specifically for this. You would think, oh surely I would never say anything offensive to any group, but for Funzies, have a scroll here: https://twitter.com/search?q=blasphemy%20(from%3ASAMRIReports) https://twitter.com/search?q=blasphemy%20(from%3ASAMRIReport... So, whose blasphemies are considered sacred, mine or yours? Be careful when asking for diversity. You might get it. ---- Americans do seem to take free speech for granted.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
> Such speech is considered equivalent to yelling "Fire" in an open theater, to use a common internet retort on free speech, because of the effect it has on the masses, and we have laws on blasphemy specifically for this. Just FYI, the "fire in a crowded theater" is actually a widely-spread yet terrible example, as it was actually overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. So, yelling fire in a crowded theater is actually legally not addressed by either decision and the famous quote is part of an overturned ruling.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  It's actually not a _terrible_ example it was partially overturned in brandenurg v ohio. It's still applicable if it actually inspires lawless action.
SpaceManNabs 4y ago
> In my country, these opinions are uttered so openly and commonly that it does not even raise an eyebrow I don't think we should frame free speech standards based on Pakistan, if your bio is correct.
- ryzvonusef 4y ago
  I am indeed in Pakistan, and the point I am trying to make is, why not? "Diverse" council, right? My region comprises of a BILLIONS people, and twitter is a global website, why do you expect Twitter to ban hate speech acc to what average American internet person wants, but not acc to rules of other countries? Remember, I am not talking merely about legally limited speech, I am talking about stuff that causes societal discomfort. If it's a "diverse" council, then there are bound to be people from this part of the world. And if they give, with a straight face, the examples you see in the funzies link as example of hate speech they would like to be moderated.... How would you feel, if your tweet was blocked, and the reason given is something you, and any body from your part of the world, would personally consider to be as offense as not ending your sentence with a fullstop would be to a grammar nazi...but to the council it was considered as offensive as perhaps saying the N-word? I am talking from a purely academic point of view, but you have to realise the scope of these matters. Pakistan might not be able to affect Twitter moderation, but India? definitely, too big a market to ignore. The Gulf Countries are already investors alongside Musk, so them too. EU has already given the halt signal.
  - SpaceManNabs 4y ago
    > India? definitely, too big a market to ignore My personal opinion and absolutely dissociated from my employer: I am not going to talk about economic decisions or market pressure, but free speech standards should also be not framed around India's standards. A diverse council shouldn't have to include viewpoints that are wrong. Defining wrong is certainly a difficult measure to elaborate, but free speech standards that include some religious persecution are definitely in that wrong category. Bigots will always say that they aren't bigots.
- brigandish 4y ago
  Isn't that the point they're making? Not that the specific utterances matter but that the freedom to utter them matters, any or all of them, your blasphemies and mine. Then we can try to have a grown up conversation about it because we've taken oppression/suppression and hence violence off the table. Real progress can then be made.
padjo 4y ago
Yeah it’s almost like moderation is a really hard problem that requires serious people to think deeply about it, not something that can be solved with vague platitudes about freedom.
pupppet 4y ago
Free speech does not mean everyone deserves a soap box. Nobody has the inherit right for their views to be publicized by a private company. Try forcing your way in front of a camera at your nearest news station and see how that works out for you.
- ryzvonusef 4y ago
  but that's absolutely the wrong example, to take your analogy, YOU are the news station, YOU are the content generator, and Twitter is perhaps like.... the cable company? Twitter isn't providing you and a platform for free; it sells ads alongside it. And if its moderation is too strict, then it's not an effective platform. which goes to my original question, strict according to whom?
  - pupppet 4y ago
    Nope. News stations don't generate content, they report it. If you think YOU are the news station because you generate content you're watching too much Fox News.

gjsman-1000 4y ago

> Such speech is considered equivalent to yelling "Fire" in an open theater, to use a common internet retort on free speech, because of the effect it has on the masses, and we have laws on blasphemy specifically for this. Just FYI, the "fire in a crowded theater" is actually a widely-spread yet terrible example, as it was actually overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. So, yelling fire in a crowded theater is actually legally not addressed by either decision and the famous quote is part of an overturned ruling.

mikkergp 4y ago
It's actually not a _terrible_ example it was partially overturned in brandenurg v ohio. It's still applicable if it actually inspires lawless action.

SpaceManNabs 4y ago

> In my country, these opinions are uttered so openly and commonly that it does not even raise an eyebrow I don't think we should frame free speech standards based on Pakistan, if your bio is correct.

ryzvonusef 4y ago
I am indeed in Pakistan, and the point I am trying to make is, why not? "Diverse" council, right? My region comprises of a BILLIONS people, and twitter is a global website, why do you expect Twitter to ban hate speech acc to what average American internet person wants, but not acc to rules of other countries? Remember, I am not talking merely about legally limited speech, I am talking about stuff that causes societal discomfort. If it's a "diverse" council, then there are bound to be people from this part of the world. And if they give, with a straight face, the examples you see in the funzies link as example of hate speech they would like to be moderated.... How would you feel, if your tweet was blocked, and the reason given is something you, and any body from your part of the world, would personally consider to be as offense as not ending your sentence with a fullstop would be to a grammar nazi...but to the council it was considered as offensive as perhaps saying the N-word? I am talking from a purely academic point of view, but you have to realise the scope of these matters. Pakistan might not be able to affect Twitter moderation, but India? definitely, too big a market to ignore. The Gulf Countries are already investors alongside Musk, so them too. EU has already given the halt signal.
- SpaceManNabs 4y ago
  > India? definitely, too big a market to ignore My personal opinion and absolutely dissociated from my employer: I am not going to talk about economic decisions or market pressure, but free speech standards should also be not framed around India's standards. A diverse council shouldn't have to include viewpoints that are wrong. Defining wrong is certainly a difficult measure to elaborate, but free speech standards that include some religious persecution are definitely in that wrong category. Bigots will always say that they aren't bigots.
brigandish 4y ago
Isn't that the point they're making? Not that the specific utterances matter but that the freedom to utter them matters, any or all of them, your blasphemies and mine. Then we can try to have a grown up conversation about it because we've taken oppression/suppression and hence violence off the table. Real progress can then be made.

padjo 4y ago

Yeah it’s almost like moderation is a really hard problem that requires serious people to think deeply about it, not something that can be solved with vague platitudes about freedom.

pupppet 4y ago

Free speech does not mean everyone deserves a soap box. Nobody has the inherit right for their views to be publicized by a private company. Try forcing your way in front of a camera at your nearest news station and see how that works out for you.

ryzvonusef 4y ago
but that's absolutely the wrong example, to take your analogy, YOU are the news station, YOU are the content generator, and Twitter is perhaps like.... the cable company? Twitter isn't providing you and a platform for free; it sells ads alongside it. And if its moderation is too strict, then it's not an effective platform. which goes to my original question, strict according to whom?
- pupppet 4y ago
  Nope. News stations don't generate content, they report it. If you think YOU are the news station because you generate content you're watching too much Fox News.