4 ms·

Free Speech Absolutists should firmly support people saying asshole things. Unless only certain people are allowed to be assholes with their speech.

snvzz 4y ago
>Free Speech Absolutists should firmly support people saying asshole things. Understandable, but without impersonation. i.e. Don't put words into other's mouths.
- panarky 4y ago
  Twitter's new owner promised to allow all speech that is legal under the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He demonstrated his high-minded principles by reinstating the account of his friend who had been banned for anti-Semitic speech. But parody accounts that criticize the new owner are somehow a step too far. The unifying principle appears to have nothing to do with what is legal under the U.S. Constitution, but instead whether the new owner personally wants to amplify or suppress the speech. Hard to believe that all that talk about the wisdom of the founders and the value of unrestricted free speech was just bullshit.
  - dmix 4y ago
    > But parody accounts that criticize the new owner are somehow a step too far. Elon claims she was suspended for impersonating a comedian not Elon. She later changed it to Elons name but the original report she was banned for was someone else. Saying this is only about protecting the boss doesn't really hold up. Having rules again Impersonation isn't wrongthink. Thats a big stretch and sounds a bit desperate. I also highly doubt the new rules are "everything goes except what is illegal". They haven't even announced what the new policy is but there's no way it's going to be a free for all for prominent accounts (random accounts were always given more leeway because there are simply too many of them). Twitter went hardcore in one (highly inconsistent) direction. You could significanty pull back from aggressive moderation and still not be an "illegal or all" scenario. Which is far more likely to be the case given pressure from advertising and because it makes sense as a product descision. People didn't care about Twitters moderation until they went hardcore. The solution doesn't need to be hardcore in the other direction to be a big improvement.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  Absolute means Absolute. And we all immediately understood those accounts were parody and not really Musk provided that you had more than a room temperature IQ.
  - snvzz 4y ago
    >And we all immediately understood those accounts were parody Maybe. The problem is that unless it's made explicit, I am going to assume that someone WILL get confused. >Absolute means Absolute Absolutely. But not using my name. It's your speech, not mine.
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      > Maybe. The problem is that unless it's made explicit, I am going to assume that someone WILL get confused. This was the original point of the blue check marks, which is the point of the parody. And you're making an argument which is adjacent to everyone needing to use "/s" because some people can't figure out sarcasm or irony on their own (also adjacent to the "think of the children" argument).
- jfengel 4y ago
  Either you're absolutist, or you're not. That's one of the few things I'm willing to be absolutist about. Once you start carving out exceptions, it's reasonable to start looking for more. Personally, I think there should be all kinds of exceptions when it come to "free speech". But in particular, I don't think that "No exceptions, except this one that just occurred to me" is a sound position.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    So then if you have 2 people, person 1 who only wants death threats to be disallowed. And person 2, a person who thinks that any criticism of the government should be banned, then you think that these two people are the same? That would be ridiculous. Support of free speech is on a spectrum. And yes, some people support free speech more than other people, and not everyone is the same. Some people support more free than others, even if everyone wants death threats banned.
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      > even if everyone wants death threats banned. Be awfully nice if everyone wanted death threats banned. There are people who make excuses for death threats under the logic that none of them are serious so people on the internet should all just grow thicker skin.
- seanhunter 4y ago
  Not putting any words into anyone's mouth: By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.[1] So there doesn't seem to be any kind of carve out there. [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376

snvzz 4y ago

>Free Speech Absolutists should firmly support people saying asshole things. Understandable, but without impersonation. i.e. Don't put words into other's mouths.

panarky 4y ago
Twitter's new owner promised to allow all speech that is legal under the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He demonstrated his high-minded principles by reinstating the account of his friend who had been banned for anti-Semitic speech. But parody accounts that criticize the new owner are somehow a step too far. The unifying principle appears to have nothing to do with what is legal under the U.S. Constitution, but instead whether the new owner personally wants to amplify or suppress the speech. Hard to believe that all that talk about the wisdom of the founders and the value of unrestricted free speech was just bullshit.
- dmix 4y ago
  > But parody accounts that criticize the new owner are somehow a step too far. Elon claims she was suspended for impersonating a comedian not Elon. She later changed it to Elons name but the original report she was banned for was someone else. Saying this is only about protecting the boss doesn't really hold up. Having rules again Impersonation isn't wrongthink. Thats a big stretch and sounds a bit desperate. I also highly doubt the new rules are "everything goes except what is illegal". They haven't even announced what the new policy is but there's no way it's going to be a free for all for prominent accounts (random accounts were always given more leeway because there are simply too many of them). Twitter went hardcore in one (highly inconsistent) direction. You could significanty pull back from aggressive moderation and still not be an "illegal or all" scenario. Which is far more likely to be the case given pressure from advertising and because it makes sense as a product descision. People didn't care about Twitters moderation until they went hardcore. The solution doesn't need to be hardcore in the other direction to be a big improvement.
lamontcg 4y ago
Absolute means Absolute. And we all immediately understood those accounts were parody and not really Musk provided that you had more than a room temperature IQ.
- snvzz 4y ago
  >And we all immediately understood those accounts were parody Maybe. The problem is that unless it's made explicit, I am going to assume that someone WILL get confused. >Absolute means Absolute Absolutely. But not using my name. It's your speech, not mine.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    > Maybe. The problem is that unless it's made explicit, I am going to assume that someone WILL get confused. This was the original point of the blue check marks, which is the point of the parody. And you're making an argument which is adjacent to everyone needing to use "/s" because some people can't figure out sarcasm or irony on their own (also adjacent to the "think of the children" argument).
jfengel 4y ago
Either you're absolutist, or you're not. That's one of the few things I'm willing to be absolutist about. Once you start carving out exceptions, it's reasonable to start looking for more. Personally, I think there should be all kinds of exceptions when it come to "free speech". But in particular, I don't think that "No exceptions, except this one that just occurred to me" is a sound position.
- stale2002 4y ago
  So then if you have 2 people, person 1 who only wants death threats to be disallowed. And person 2, a person who thinks that any criticism of the government should be banned, then you think that these two people are the same? That would be ridiculous. Support of free speech is on a spectrum. And yes, some people support free speech more than other people, and not everyone is the same. Some people support more free than others, even if everyone wants death threats banned.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    > even if everyone wants death threats banned. Be awfully nice if everyone wanted death threats banned. There are people who make excuses for death threats under the logic that none of them are serious so people on the internet should all just grow thicker skin.
seanhunter 4y ago
Not putting any words into anyone's mouth: By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.[1] So there doesn't seem to be any kind of carve out there. [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376