3 ms·

Running an invisible forum with no engagement didn't even bring them close to the actual problems of running social media. When you're twitter or facebook, you

Running an invisible forum with no engagement didn't even bring them close to the actual problems of running social media. When you're twitter or facebook, you literally have the FBI meeting with you regularly to censor speech. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62688532 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62688532 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files Democracy is a bit of a prisoner's dilemma. There will always be people who want to take away your freedom of speech; especially other countries. Any exception to freedom of speech basically can never be weaponized. "Hate Speech" is readily and easily weaponized against your political opponents. Everyone gets the right to speak or nobody does. Which is what we have right now. I realize where this post shall go. A democracy where you cannot speak to your political opponents is a democracy doomed to collapse.

LBJsPNS 4y ago
[flagged]
- incomingpain 4y ago
  >Quack quack quack quack quack. You identify as a duck? The stated goal of HN is to enable conversations and prevent becoming an echo chamber. guess they failed.
  - LBJsPNS 4y ago
    Absurd premises receive absurd responses.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      It's absurd that the FBI meets with social media regularly to discuss which accounts or ideas to minimize, prioritize, ban, or make immune from ban? Or is it absurd to think that people should hear from their political opponents?
  - axus 4y ago
    Winston turned a little sideways in his chair to drink his mug of coffee. At the table on his left the man with the strident voice was still talking remorselessly away....He held some important post in the FICTION DEPARTMENT....It was just a noise, a quack-quack-quacking....Every word of it was pure orthodoxy, pure Ingsoc....Winston had a curious feeling that this was not a real human being but some kind of dummy. It was not the man's brain that was speaking, it was his larynx. The stuff that was coming out of him consisted of words, but it was not speech in the true sense: it was noise uttered in unconsciousness, like the quacking of a duck.
- Simplicitas 4y ago
  I once shot a duck in my pajamas .. what it was doing there, I have no idea! Wait! It was an elephant.
croes 4y ago
Freedom of speech itself can be used to hinder others freedom of speech.
- incomingpain 4y ago
  >Freedom of speech itself can be used to hinder others freedom of speech. I've never seen anyone say this before. Could you elaborate how? Like speaking over someone so they may not speak?
  - croes 4y ago
    That's how non physical bullying and cyberbullying works. That's one of the reasons the whole hate speech topic became an issue.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      > That's how non physical bullying and cyberbullying works. How? edit: you've just picked another (tautological) form of speech for which you're not explaining how it suppresses the freedom of others to speak. The question-begging word "bullying" here is the hint. The "bully" would refer to it as commentary, not bullying. Can Donald Trump be bullied? Can a racist mass shooter? "Bullying" is a value judgement.
      - croes 4y ago
        https://www.wtps.org/cms/lib8/NJ01912980/Centricity/Domain/745/The%20truth%20behind%206%20disturbing%20cyberbullying%20cases%20that%20turned%20into%20suicide.pdf https://www.wtps.org/cms/lib8/NJ01912980/Centricity/Domain/7... I think people who kill themselves are pretty much finally suppressed in their freedom of speech.
    - otuva 4y ago
      I can't seem to make the connection here. If everyone is free to speak their minds, how can it be used to silence others? Even more improbable in the context of cyberbullying. Tyler the Creator's cyberbullying tweet appears to be more relevant than this take.
Simplicitas 4y ago
Definitely a prisoner's dilemma .. an applicable take on where all this is going is Popper's Paradox Of Tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance). Not sure that Elon and many other seemingly well-intended social media free-speech advocates fully grasp the implications of this.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  We simply cannot tolerate those who think that the government should have a hand in suppressing political speech.
- incomingpain 4y ago
  >Definitely a prisoner's dilemma .. an applicable take on where all this is going is Popper's Paradox Of Tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance). Not sure that Elon and many other seemingly well-intended social media free-speech advocates fully grasp the implications of this. In terms of paradox of tolerance. Even in the USA, there are limits on free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... You cant advocate for violence in the USA. Not only is this not protected by free speech, it's a crime. The assertion of "tolerance without limit" doesnt apply. There's your limits right there. Elon's twitter never changed this rule. You may not advocate for violence on twitter. This is not in contradiction with Elon's free speech absolutism. What's important to understand is say Reddit who has eliminated free speech. What do you earn? You earn echo chambers, you divide your populous. You never solve your problems. Each side sees only the worst of the other side. Nobody talks to each other again. Political polarization is 100% because of no free speech on social media. >You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks. I'm shadow banned and flagged on HN so I can't respond to you until it's lifted. Guess it was more than a 1 hour ban. Imagine attempting to have a conversation on HN and not being able to reply Good ole -10, goto jail for me. Thanks prisoners dilemma. How ironic, but not surprising. What a waste of time. So long and thanks for all the fish.
  - Vecr 4y ago

LBJsPNS 4y ago

[flagged]

incomingpain 4y ago
>Quack quack quack quack quack. You identify as a duck? The stated goal of HN is to enable conversations and prevent becoming an echo chamber. guess they failed.
- LBJsPNS 4y ago
  Absurd premises receive absurd responses.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    It's absurd that the FBI meets with social media regularly to discuss which accounts or ideas to minimize, prioritize, ban, or make immune from ban? Or is it absurd to think that people should hear from their political opponents?
- axus 4y ago
  Winston turned a little sideways in his chair to drink his mug of coffee. At the table on his left the man with the strident voice was still talking remorselessly away....He held some important post in the FICTION DEPARTMENT....It was just a noise, a quack-quack-quacking....Every word of it was pure orthodoxy, pure Ingsoc....Winston had a curious feeling that this was not a real human being but some kind of dummy. It was not the man's brain that was speaking, it was his larynx. The stuff that was coming out of him consisted of words, but it was not speech in the true sense: it was noise uttered in unconsciousness, like the quacking of a duck.
Simplicitas 4y ago
I once shot a duck in my pajamas .. what it was doing there, I have no idea! Wait! It was an elephant.

croes 4y ago

Freedom of speech itself can be used to hinder others freedom of speech.

incomingpain 4y ago
>Freedom of speech itself can be used to hinder others freedom of speech. I've never seen anyone say this before. Could you elaborate how? Like speaking over someone so they may not speak?
- croes 4y ago
  That's how non physical bullying and cyberbullying works. That's one of the reasons the whole hate speech topic became an issue.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > That's how non physical bullying and cyberbullying works. How? edit: you've just picked another (tautological) form of speech for which you're not explaining how it suppresses the freedom of others to speak. The question-begging word "bullying" here is the hint. The "bully" would refer to it as commentary, not bullying. Can Donald Trump be bullied? Can a racist mass shooter? "Bullying" is a value judgement.
    - croes 4y ago
      https://www.wtps.org/cms/lib8/NJ01912980/Centricity/Domain/745/The%20truth%20behind%206%20disturbing%20cyberbullying%20cases%20that%20turned%20into%20suicide.pdf https://www.wtps.org/cms/lib8/NJ01912980/Centricity/Domain/7... I think people who kill themselves are pretty much finally suppressed in their freedom of speech.
  - otuva 4y ago
    I can't seem to make the connection here. If everyone is free to speak their minds, how can it be used to silence others? Even more improbable in the context of cyberbullying. Tyler the Creator's cyberbullying tweet appears to be more relevant than this take.

Simplicitas 4y ago

Definitely a prisoner's dilemma .. an applicable take on where all this is going is Popper's Paradox Of Tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance). Not sure that Elon and many other seemingly well-intended social media free-speech advocates fully grasp the implications of this.

pessimizer 4y ago
We simply cannot tolerate those who think that the government should have a hand in suppressing political speech.
incomingpain 4y ago
>Definitely a prisoner's dilemma .. an applicable take on where all this is going is Popper's Paradox Of Tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance). Not sure that Elon and many other seemingly well-intended social media free-speech advocates fully grasp the implications of this. In terms of paradox of tolerance. Even in the USA, there are limits on free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... You cant advocate for violence in the USA. Not only is this not protected by free speech, it's a crime. The assertion of "tolerance without limit" doesnt apply. There's your limits right there. Elon's twitter never changed this rule. You may not advocate for violence on twitter. This is not in contradiction with Elon's free speech absolutism. What's important to understand is say Reddit who has eliminated free speech. What do you earn? You earn echo chambers, you divide your populous. You never solve your problems. Each side sees only the worst of the other side. Nobody talks to each other again. Political polarization is 100% because of no free speech on social media. >You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks. I'm shadow banned and flagged on HN so I can't respond to you until it's lifted. Guess it was more than a 1 hour ban. Imagine attempting to have a conversation on HN and not being able to reply Good ole -10, goto jail for me. Thanks prisoners dilemma. How ironic, but not surprising. What a waste of time. So long and thanks for all the fish.
- Vecr 4y ago