3 ms·

I think this is the dangerous opinion that led us down the censorship path that the article is decrying. “Pro-social” and “anti-social” are subjective, not obj

by efitz 4y ago

I think this is the dangerous opinion that led us down the censorship path that the article is decrying. “Pro-social” and “anti-social” are subjective, not objective. To a religious conservative, it would be pro-social to say “marriage should only be between one man and one woman”. To many progressives, this would be “anti-social”. Here’s a conundrum. Is “we should kill all nazis” pro-social or anti-social? On its face it seems to promote violence, so maybe anti-social, but the people it’s targeted at themselves support horrific views. As a Gen X libertarian, I am pretty much a free speech absolutist (I support minimal legal limits such as CSAM because there must have been victimization involved). It boggles my mind that so many young people today don’t support free speech; tides of culture and government change and if you allow free speech to slip away when trends support suppressing ideas you oppose, it won’t be there for you when ideas that you support are in the crosshairs.

andsoitis 4y ago
AFAIK Musk has also characterized himself as a free speech absolutist but has now re-suspended Ye. I’d be curious to hear whether you think that this suspension is compatible with free speech absolutism? Put differently, was Musk simply marketing himself as an absolutist (to win over following) but is in reality a pragmatist, willing to bend his stance when he views it in his own or society’s best interest?
- seanw444 4y ago
  Yes. That much was obvious when he kept Alex Jones banned over an anecdote. It's more of a marketing tactic, not an exercise of morals. If liberals already hate Elon, then the best course of action is for him to pander predominantly to people on the right. Right now, the best way to do that is by advertising free speech.
- efitz 4y ago
  For now, Twitter can ban whoever it wants, but I don't think that banning Ye really aligns with free speech absolutism. Mandatory disclaimer: I found Ye's comments highly offensive (and stupid), but that is not my standard for censorship.
prohobo 4y ago
It's not subjective at all, it's a judgement of whether speech aligns with cooperation or attack as understood in human nature within tribes/communities. Pro-social doesn't mean "positive" or "good" or "correct", it means that it's an attempt at progress or improvement for the community, from some sincere point of view. "We should kill all nazis" is pro-social in terms of sincere critique, and anti-social in the threat of wanting to kill them. If we're at war with nazis then calling to kill them is likely mostly pro-social. If they're part of our tribe, whereby you are threatening your own people, then it's definitively anti-social. "We shouldn't accept nazis" is fully pro-social, and so is "we should all be nazis". We can instinctively tell when someone is trying to be cooperative or offensive (attacking, deliberately destructive) to us in some way. We have the capability of recognizing it even if there are cultural/moral/logical (epistemic) divides. We just have to take the time to understand the other party's perspective and situation, then we can categorize their behavior.

by efitz 4y ago

andsoitis 4y ago

AFAIK Musk has also characterized himself as a free speech absolutist but has now re-suspended Ye. I’d be curious to hear whether you think that this suspension is compatible with free speech absolutism? Put differently, was Musk simply marketing himself as an absolutist (to win over following) but is in reality a pragmatist, willing to bend his stance when he views it in his own or society’s best interest?

seanw444 4y ago
Yes. That much was obvious when he kept Alex Jones banned over an anecdote. It's more of a marketing tactic, not an exercise of morals. If liberals already hate Elon, then the best course of action is for him to pander predominantly to people on the right. Right now, the best way to do that is by advertising free speech.
efitz 4y ago
For now, Twitter can ban whoever it wants, but I don't think that banning Ye really aligns with free speech absolutism. Mandatory disclaimer: I found Ye's comments highly offensive (and stupid), but that is not my standard for censorship.

prohobo 4y ago

It's not subjective at all, it's a judgement of whether speech aligns with cooperation or attack as understood in human nature within tribes/communities. Pro-social doesn't mean "positive" or "good" or "correct", it means that it's an attempt at progress or improvement for the community, from some sincere point of view. "We should kill all nazis" is pro-social in terms of sincere critique, and anti-social in the threat of wanting to kill them. If we're at war with nazis then calling to kill them is likely mostly pro-social. If they're part of our tribe, whereby you are threatening your own people, then it's definitively anti-social. "We shouldn't accept nazis" is fully pro-social, and so is "we should all be nazis". We can instinctively tell when someone is trying to be cooperative or offensive (attacking, deliberately destructive) to us in some way. We have the capability of recognizing it even if there are cultural/moral/logical (epistemic) divides. We just have to take the time to understand the other party's perspective and situation, then we can categorize their behavior.