3 ms·
I disagree. What the free speech side is arguing is that by trying to restrict "reach" you are trying to prevent interested consumers of that speech from ever h
by lliamander 4y ago
I disagree. What the free speech side is arguing is that by trying to restrict "reach" you are trying to prevent interested consumers of that speech from ever hearing it.
The prime example is when someone's tweets don't show up in the timelines of subscribers. People who specifically what to hear that speech never get a chance to.
- blitzar 4y agoDeplatforming is simply a form of limiting reach, a twitter ban isnt an internet ban
- luckylion 4y agoAnd disallowing someone to live on earth isn't a death sentence. They can always migrate to Mars.
- SantalBlush 4y agoWas this comment transmitted via internet, and are we on Twitter?
- luckylion 4y agoThe point is a more general one: deplatforming is censorship in all but name because of coordination. You're gone from Twitter, "go build your own", you do and the CDN blocks you, "go build your own", you do and providers don't peer with you. Limiting reach on the other hand is a much better alternative. I can still communicate with other experts about the inconvenient truth that cows are not real, I just don't pop up in your search when you search for "where does milk come from".
- SantalBlush 4y agoI completely reject the notion that asking someone to build their own site is censorship, or that a private company turning away users is censorship. If someone has an internet provider, they have the means to communicate. It has always been this way, and only recently have certain groups raised an issue with the way internet content creation works.
- luckylion 4y ago> If someone has an internet provider, they have the means to communicate. Right, but what if that internet provider turns them away? How do they communicate? Do they ask Space X to shoot up a few satellites for them? If Musk says No, do they build their own rockets?
- SantalBlush 4y agoIt's not worth debating the slippery slope that is conjured up here, unless you can prove that someone actually needed to build their own rockets because every IP has turned them away from hosting a legal website.
- hn_go_brrrrr 4y agoThat's true, except the people pushing to "deplatform" someone are usually trying to get them banned everywhere.
- PartiallyTyped 4y agoThat's not an issue of the platform, that's simple boycotting and companies just have to make the choice of either biting the bullet and keeping them, or banning them. In all this however, lies a question that nobody asked, what's the responsibility of the party getting banned? Why should the person have the right to spill bigotry and hatred without facing any consequences?
- hn_go_brrrrr 4y agoThis question is asked and answered all over HN, any time a debate touching on "free speech" comes up, including the current top-voted comment. Independent of that: what crosses the line is nowhere like settled. Many people like to act as if what they find offensive must obviously be treated as if it were beyond the pale. They're probably living in a small filter bubble where the speech in question is unquestionably offensive. Their views are rarely majority opinions, however.
- lliamander 4y agoI don't think I disagree with either of those statements, and I don't think they refute anything I said (in case that was your intention).