4 ms·

>free speech rights of users who want a well-moderated community I can't even wrap my head around this argument. Is the speech of the people who want a modera

>free speech rights of users who want a well-moderated community I can't even wrap my head around this argument. Is the speech of the people who want a moderated community restricted? It may be other things, but it isn't a "free speech" infringement on these people. Free speech is about "speech" first.

sirsinsalot 4y ago
A common trope of people unwilling to take responsibility for their own feelings is to blame the world. If they read something they don't like, it's the fault of the platform. It couldn't possibly be that they should take responsibility for their own offence and close the tab or log out of the service. Or even, maybe, engage in self reflection to try and deal with their feelings and move on.
lucumo 4y ago
One detail where this could come into play is when some bad actors shout down other discussions. Online this can happen when spammers just post hundreds of viagra ads, or when people get doxed for unpopular opinions. As an aside, free speech absolutists always ignore the inconvenient existence of spam. The absolutist position would definitely support the complete takeover of forums by spam, but I have yet to see an absolutist openly accept that.
- SyzygistSix 4y ago
  "Free speech" is actually the freedom to express ideas. Viagra ads are not really expression.
  - lucumo 4y ago
    Of course they are. No less than any other "recommendation".
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Sure it is — the idea mainly being expressed is that it is good and you should spend money on it.
trinovantes 4y ago
Group A wants to say X that Group B doesn't like. Group B sends massive amount of unrelated messages into the Twitterverse using the same hashtags to bury Group A's message. Do you leave it alone and thus allow Group A's freedom of speech be effectively suppressed or intervene and suppress Group B? Either way, somebody's free speech is being violated.
- themaninthedark 4y ago
  That is the heckle veto isn't it? Pretty sure I was told that the louder group is the one that is the winner. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ P.S. I hope that the author sincerely regrets making this comic.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    That's a purposefully insincere way of reading that comic. All that comic says is that being told "no" and "you're wrong" and people disagreeing with you isn't a violation of your free speech. It's saying that people unwilling to listen to you doesn't mean you aren't allowed to speak.
    - themaninthedark 4y ago
      So you disagree with my parent on the fact that if A's message is being downed out by B's message that is not suppression of freedom of speech? >Do you leave it alone and thus allow Group A's freedom of speech be effectively suppressed or intervene and suppress Group B? Either way, somebody's free speech is being violated. Currently China is doing just that, drowning out the protests with a flood of louder voices. https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/28/tech/twitter-china-protests-spam/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/28/tech/twitter-china-protests-s... Is that free speech? >All that comic says is that being told "no" and "you're wrong" and people disagreeing with you isn't a violation of your free speech. From the text of the comic: >If you're yelled at(which includes heckling), boycotted, have your show canceled(otherwise known as fired), or get banned from an Internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated. Formatting mine. That is a tad more than just being told 'no' or 'your wrong', isn't it. It is normalizing attacking the other. I stand by what I said, the comic is bad and I hope that the author feels bad about it.

sirsinsalot 4y ago

A common trope of people unwilling to take responsibility for their own feelings is to blame the world. If they read something they don't like, it's the fault of the platform. It couldn't possibly be that they should take responsibility for their own offence and close the tab or log out of the service. Or even, maybe, engage in self reflection to try and deal with their feelings and move on.

lucumo 4y ago

One detail where this could come into play is when some bad actors shout down other discussions. Online this can happen when spammers just post hundreds of viagra ads, or when people get doxed for unpopular opinions. As an aside, free speech absolutists always ignore the inconvenient existence of spam. The absolutist position would definitely support the complete takeover of forums by spam, but I have yet to see an absolutist openly accept that.

SyzygistSix 4y ago
"Free speech" is actually the freedom to express ideas. Viagra ads are not really expression.
- lucumo 4y ago
  Of course they are. No less than any other "recommendation".
- ben_w 4y ago
  Sure it is — the idea mainly being expressed is that it is good and you should spend money on it.

trinovantes 4y ago

Group A wants to say X that Group B doesn't like. Group B sends massive amount of unrelated messages into the Twitterverse using the same hashtags to bury Group A's message. Do you leave it alone and thus allow Group A's freedom of speech be effectively suppressed or intervene and suppress Group B? Either way, somebody's free speech is being violated.

themaninthedark 4y ago
That is the heckle veto isn't it? Pretty sure I was told that the louder group is the one that is the winner. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ P.S. I hope that the author sincerely regrets making this comic.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  That's a purposefully insincere way of reading that comic. All that comic says is that being told "no" and "you're wrong" and people disagreeing with you isn't a violation of your free speech. It's saying that people unwilling to listen to you doesn't mean you aren't allowed to speak.
  - themaninthedark 4y ago
    So you disagree with my parent on the fact that if A's message is being downed out by B's message that is not suppression of freedom of speech? >Do you leave it alone and thus allow Group A's freedom of speech be effectively suppressed or intervene and suppress Group B? Either way, somebody's free speech is being violated. Currently China is doing just that, drowning out the protests with a flood of louder voices. https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/28/tech/twitter-china-protests-spam/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/28/tech/twitter-china-protests-s... Is that free speech? >All that comic says is that being told "no" and "you're wrong" and people disagreeing with you isn't a violation of your free speech. From the text of the comic: >If you're yelled at(which includes heckling), boycotted, have your show canceled(otherwise known as fired), or get banned from an Internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated. Formatting mine. That is a tad more than just being told 'no' or 'your wrong', isn't it. It is normalizing attacking the other. I stand by what I said, the comic is bad and I hope that the author feels bad about it.