3 ms·

> Its mere existence made normal users less likely to use Reddit despite users needing to go out of their way to see that objectionable content. To me it’s kin

> Its mere existence made normal users less likely to use Reddit despite users needing to go out of their way to see that objectionable content. To me it’s kind of perverse logic. If a platform hosts persons that some powerful group of people want to be removed - than I can trust the platform to less likely to remove me, when and if I cross some powerful or just loud and anger people. Like: there is a lot of people in the US that I do not like, but I rather live in a country with 14th Amendment than in a country without one. I’ve tried both :)

slg 4y ago
It’s funny you mention the 14th Amendment. It is a little over 150 years old. For the first century interracial marriage wasn't on the list of protections provided by the 14th. When enough people consistently say you shouldn't be allowed to do something, we won't allow you to do it. When enough people say you should be allowed, you will be. Maybe that is cynical, but that is life in a democracy. Churchill was right about it being the worst form of government.
- MikePlacid 4y ago
  > It is a little over 150 years old. Not everywhere in the world. I’ve spent 40 years in a country without one. > When enough people consistently say you shouldn't be allowed to do something, we won't allow you to do it. Exactly. You guys can lose your 1st amendment pretty quickly.
  - slg 4y ago
    >Exactly. You guys can lose your 1st amendment pretty quickly. The example of the 14th Amendment was meant to show that these amendments don't have some innate meaning or special true power. The 1st Amendment only ever means what the majority wants it to mean (a loose definition of majority, the US is a republic not a democracy, etc.). We will never lose the 1st Amendment, however we are constantly having a debate over what the 1st Amendment actually means. From a practical perspective, your rights are not innate or god given, they are majority given. That is how these systems work and no one has yet found a system that can improve on that approach.

slg 4y ago

It’s funny you mention the 14th Amendment. It is a little over 150 years old. For the first century interracial marriage wasn't on the list of protections provided by the 14th. When enough people consistently say you shouldn't be allowed to do something, we won't allow you to do it. When enough people say you should be allowed, you will be. Maybe that is cynical, but that is life in a democracy. Churchill was right about it being the worst form of government.

MikePlacid 4y ago
> It is a little over 150 years old. Not everywhere in the world. I’ve spent 40 years in a country without one. > When enough people consistently say you shouldn't be allowed to do something, we won't allow you to do it. Exactly. You guys can lose your 1st amendment pretty quickly.
- slg 4y ago
  >Exactly. You guys can lose your 1st amendment pretty quickly. The example of the 14th Amendment was meant to show that these amendments don't have some innate meaning or special true power. The 1st Amendment only ever means what the majority wants it to mean (a loose definition of majority, the US is a republic not a democracy, etc.). We will never lose the 1st Amendment, however we are constantly having a debate over what the 1st Amendment actually means. From a practical perspective, your rights are not innate or god given, they are majority given. That is how these systems work and no one has yet found a system that can improve on that approach.