6 ms·

I bet there is some policy you would oppose on KickStarter. Lets try this: a KickStarter to raise money to lobby for making encryption illegal. And let's assum

by 323 4y ago

I bet there is some policy you would oppose on KickStarter. Lets try this: a KickStarter to raise money to lobby for making encryption illegal. And let's assume it's very successful and it raises tens of millions of dollars. How would you feel about that? Would you sign a petition requesting KickStarter drop it because it's against freedom of speech?

dannyobrien 4y ago
That's fascinating difference in perspective, because I wouldn't even think of protesting Kickstarter under those circumstances, despite having been pro-encryption activist most of my life.
- 323 4y ago
  I didn't say I agree, just that I've observed that ~95% of people who say they are "free speech", "maximum liberty" and so on it's quite easy to find something they would strongly want to censor. On HN that would be speech against nuclear energy or against encryption.
  - adammarples 4y ago
    Well bear in mind your example completely fell flat before you claim it's easy to find one
    - 323 4y ago
      I guess you forgot how many HNers urged everyone to boycott Microsoft, Oracle and Amazon and to quit those companies when it was revealed they wanted to get contracts with the US military. Just like now KickStarter is under similar pressure.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        Should they not be able to use their free speech to advocate for that?
        LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
        And others are just pointing out that this isn't a grass-roots movement of hurt or concerned individuals and actually is the same manipulative media outlets that have blown everything out of proportion for years, hoping to create a backlash.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        Is that not permitted under free speech?
        LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
        To some degree, no. As these media outlets collaborate with government, as the twitter files are showing, they lose their right to have their own voice. I doubt Kickstarter or Gawker has crossed the line, but it is there to be crossed.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        That’s a novel interpretation of the First Amendment.
  - r3trohack3r 4y ago
    You’re conflating “being opposed” to “deplatforming” We will take your example, encryption. Let’s say I strongly support encryption and I create a social media platform called Squibbit. Now, a group organizes on Squibbit calling for a ban on encryption. One approach: I take it upon myself to organize another group on Squibbit using the platform the same way as everyone else (re: no special promotion, no admin only flagging, etc. just good old fashioned squibbling). Compare this to another approach: I ban anyone who says they support a prohibition on encryption and use admin tools to promote voices in support of encryption. Compare this to a final approach: the government decides it has a vested interest in encryption and wants to sway the voting population to support candidates who are pro-encryption. They ask Squibbit to ban all accounts opossing encryption and promote voices in support of encryption. These three approaches are not the same. Do not conflate them.
    - 323 4y ago
      What if a lot of programmers working at Squibbit are threatening to quit if the company doesn't ban the anti encryption group? You know, just like they did when it was revealed Microsoft and Google wanted to sign contracts with the US military.
      - jchw 4y ago
        We're not arguing that the situation doesn't happen. We're arguing that it's a crappy situation. But let's untangle something. There is a legitimate difference between this and ICE boycotts. Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc. are signing B2B contracts and making specific deals to work with the U.S. military or ICE or whatever group. This is not the same issue. It's similar, but different in very important ways. One is the type of interaction. Business to business contracts are Not like using a platform as a user. A contract is a mutual agreement that is negotiated between two businesses. There are almost always dedicated employees whose responsibilities include dealing with a given contract, not to mention if there's any work to be done as a result of it. This is a very different interaction from merely being one of a million users on a public open-registration platform. Two is who is protesting. I think some employee protests are silly, but not all of them. If employees don't want to work for a company that is doing what they believe to be unethical things, they are well within reason to threaten to leave the company. I don't necessarily want to draw a direct conclusion about other similar events here, I'm just trying to point out that we're not dealing with the same kind of relationship. I'm against banning entities from using e.g. Amazon Web Services, on the basis of their identity, if their usage is above board and legal. I'm not, however, talking about the concept of employees at Amazon not wanting to work for or with other entities directly.
  - evandale 4y ago
    > On HN that would be speech against nuclear energy or against encryption. Do you actually believe 95% of HN (or a number even remotely close to that, let's say 50%) would want discussions against nuclear energy or encryption completely censored? There's a huge difference between somebody saying "this is a stupid idea and we shouldn't even be discussing it" (I would say that) and wanting censorship actually enforced (I would never want that).
pdntspa 4y ago
Such is the price of free speech. "I may not like what you have to say, but I support your right to say it" There are other, far more honorable, avenues to killing initiatives one doesn't like. What's to say I don't start a counter-lobbying campaign? That so many embrace such a pathetic weapon as censorship speaks loudly about just how easily we sleepwalk into Orwellian society I bet a lot of these folks would happily report their neighbors to the KGB or Stasi over falsehoods and bullshit, were this the appropriate era
- mulmen 4y ago
  > "I may not like what you have to say, but I support your right to say it" The right to say “I disagree” and respond within the limits if the law is the other side of the free speech coin. The first amendment gives Kickstarter the right to control what is on their private platform. There have never been “neutral platforms”. They’re a myth. Kickstarter is doing what they think is best for them. Our legal and financial systems allow competitors to take advantage when miscalculations are made on the part of private parties. Demanding “neutrality” on private platforms is a strictly anti-speech position.
  - jchw 4y ago
    We're (or at least I'm) not demanding neutrality. I'm criticizing the needless meddling of an almost unrelated middleman on a completely legitimate transaction. Also, holding the belief that neutrality is a good ideal for open-registration platforms to have is not anti-speech. I'm sad that you think that.
  - catiopatio 4y ago
    How, exactly, is an aspirational goal of free speech a “strictly anti-speech position”?
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      See Musk for a pretty great recent example of what the aspiration tends to mean in practice.
jchw 4y ago
Personally, I would not sign a petition requesting Kickstarter drop it. It's weird to me that people even petition things like this. The toughest personal test to me was the protest against Cloudflare. I have a very personal reason to have sided with the protesters and petitioners, and honestly I had a hard time even trying to oppose it. In the end though, I just don't agree with it. The ends do not justify the means.
josephcsible 4y ago
I certainly wouldn't want such a policy to be enacted as law, but I'd never fault Kickstarter for allowing a fundraiser for a policy just because I disagree with it.

by 323 4y ago

dannyobrien 4y ago

That's fascinating difference in perspective, because I wouldn't even think of protesting Kickstarter under those circumstances, despite having been pro-encryption activist most of my life.

323 4y ago
I didn't say I agree, just that I've observed that ~95% of people who say they are "free speech", "maximum liberty" and so on it's quite easy to find something they would strongly want to censor. On HN that would be speech against nuclear energy or against encryption.
- adammarples 4y ago
  Well bear in mind your example completely fell flat before you claim it's easy to find one
  - 323 4y ago
    I guess you forgot how many HNers urged everyone to boycott Microsoft, Oracle and Amazon and to quit those companies when it was revealed they wanted to get contracts with the US military. Just like now KickStarter is under similar pressure.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Should they not be able to use their free speech to advocate for that?
      - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
        And others are just pointing out that this isn't a grass-roots movement of hurt or concerned individuals and actually is the same manipulative media outlets that have blown everything out of proportion for years, hoping to create a backlash.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        Is that not permitted under free speech?
        LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
        To some degree, no. As these media outlets collaborate with government, as the twitter files are showing, they lose their right to have their own voice. I doubt Kickstarter or Gawker has crossed the line, but it is there to be crossed.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        That’s a novel interpretation of the First Amendment.
- r3trohack3r 4y ago
  You’re conflating “being opposed” to “deplatforming” We will take your example, encryption. Let’s say I strongly support encryption and I create a social media platform called Squibbit. Now, a group organizes on Squibbit calling for a ban on encryption. One approach: I take it upon myself to organize another group on Squibbit using the platform the same way as everyone else (re: no special promotion, no admin only flagging, etc. just good old fashioned squibbling). Compare this to another approach: I ban anyone who says they support a prohibition on encryption and use admin tools to promote voices in support of encryption. Compare this to a final approach: the government decides it has a vested interest in encryption and wants to sway the voting population to support candidates who are pro-encryption. They ask Squibbit to ban all accounts opossing encryption and promote voices in support of encryption. These three approaches are not the same. Do not conflate them.
  - 323 4y ago
    What if a lot of programmers working at Squibbit are threatening to quit if the company doesn't ban the anti encryption group? You know, just like they did when it was revealed Microsoft and Google wanted to sign contracts with the US military.
    - jchw 4y ago
      We're not arguing that the situation doesn't happen. We're arguing that it's a crappy situation. But let's untangle something. There is a legitimate difference between this and ICE boycotts. Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc. are signing B2B contracts and making specific deals to work with the U.S. military or ICE or whatever group. This is not the same issue. It's similar, but different in very important ways. One is the type of interaction. Business to business contracts are Not like using a platform as a user. A contract is a mutual agreement that is negotiated between two businesses. There are almost always dedicated employees whose responsibilities include dealing with a given contract, not to mention if there's any work to be done as a result of it. This is a very different interaction from merely being one of a million users on a public open-registration platform. Two is who is protesting. I think some employee protests are silly, but not all of them. If employees don't want to work for a company that is doing what they believe to be unethical things, they are well within reason to threaten to leave the company. I don't necessarily want to draw a direct conclusion about other similar events here, I'm just trying to point out that we're not dealing with the same kind of relationship. I'm against banning entities from using e.g. Amazon Web Services, on the basis of their identity, if their usage is above board and legal. I'm not, however, talking about the concept of employees at Amazon not wanting to work for or with other entities directly.
- evandale 4y ago
  > On HN that would be speech against nuclear energy or against encryption. Do you actually believe 95% of HN (or a number even remotely close to that, let's say 50%) would want discussions against nuclear energy or encryption completely censored? There's a huge difference between somebody saying "this is a stupid idea and we shouldn't even be discussing it" (I would say that) and wanting censorship actually enforced (I would never want that).

pdntspa 4y ago

Such is the price of free speech. "I may not like what you have to say, but I support your right to say it" There are other, far more honorable, avenues to killing initiatives one doesn't like. What's to say I don't start a counter-lobbying campaign? That so many embrace such a pathetic weapon as censorship speaks loudly about just how easily we sleepwalk into Orwellian society I bet a lot of these folks would happily report their neighbors to the KGB or Stasi over falsehoods and bullshit, were this the appropriate era

mulmen 4y ago
> "I may not like what you have to say, but I support your right to say it" The right to say “I disagree” and respond within the limits if the law is the other side of the free speech coin. The first amendment gives Kickstarter the right to control what is on their private platform. There have never been “neutral platforms”. They’re a myth. Kickstarter is doing what they think is best for them. Our legal and financial systems allow competitors to take advantage when miscalculations are made on the part of private parties. Demanding “neutrality” on private platforms is a strictly anti-speech position.
- jchw 4y ago
  We're (or at least I'm) not demanding neutrality. I'm criticizing the needless meddling of an almost unrelated middleman on a completely legitimate transaction. Also, holding the belief that neutrality is a good ideal for open-registration platforms to have is not anti-speech. I'm sad that you think that.
- catiopatio 4y ago
  How, exactly, is an aspirational goal of free speech a “strictly anti-speech position”?
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    See Musk for a pretty great recent example of what the aspiration tends to mean in practice.

jchw 4y ago

Personally, I would not sign a petition requesting Kickstarter drop it. It's weird to me that people even petition things like this. The toughest personal test to me was the protest against Cloudflare. I have a very personal reason to have sided with the protesters and petitioners, and honestly I had a hard time even trying to oppose it. In the end though, I just don't agree with it. The ends do not justify the means.

josephcsible 4y ago

I certainly wouldn't want such a policy to be enacted as law, but I'd never fault Kickstarter for allowing a fundraiser for a policy just because I disagree with it.