3 ms·

Should we deplatform people we don’t agree with?

by clnq 4y ago

krapp 4y ago
If we own the platform, yes, we should (and do) have the right to do just that. We can also kick people out of our house we don't agree with, and businesses can refuse service to people they don't agree with. The news doesn't have to print everything it's given. TV stations don't have to broadcast every tape that comes in the mail. The alternative is to be forced to platform people you don't agree with, and who may even seek to do you harm, which would be a violation of freedom of speech, freedom of association as well as personal liberty.
- clnq 4y ago
  I did not speak about forcing anyone to do anything, but rather about what would be the right thing to do. Could you steel-man this idea instead?
  - krapp 4y ago
    I don't believe there is an objectively right thing to do. Inherent in the right to free speech is the right to allow dangerous speech to spread - speech isn't value neutral. It balances against the right of association - the right to speak is not de facto a right to be heard on all platforms. Choosing where to draw the line is a matter of personal preference. Personally, I believe even reprehensible people have the right to speak, congregate and spread their ideas, but also that society has a moral duty to prevent the spread of harmful speech even in the name of free speech (see the paradox of tolerance,) and they aren't entitled to an arbitrarily large platform. Of course such a position is fraught with the potential for abuse, since the definitions for "harmful" and "useful" speech are arbitrary (speech against slavery was considered harmful at one point of course.) but I still think this position is preferable to the alternatives.
    - clnq 4y ago
      I agree. Should we then respect Joe Rogan’s right to host and give platform to controversial (or even reprehensible) guests if he chooses to do so? Does that reflect poorly on his moral character or not necessarily? Also, is there value for society in surfacing reprehensible ideas?
      - GavinMcG 4y ago
        Interesting questions. What do you think?
        clnq 4y ago
        I think we should not judge Joe Rogan for the guests he hosts or who he gives platform to. And I think he is right to interview people some might consider reprehensible. The conversations are interesting and illuminating, and he is skilled at respectfully interviewing those he does not align with. This is all valuable in our society, and it’s helpful in breaking up echo chambers. I am not a big fan of Joe Rogan, but I respect podcasters like him or Lex Fridman who facilitate exchange of various ideas without judgement. Would you disagree?

Should we deplatform people we don’t agree with?

by clnq 4y ago

Should we deplatform people we don’t agree with?

If we own the platform, yes, we should (and do) have the right to do just that. We can also kick people out of our house we don't agree with, and businesses can refuse service to people they don't agree with. The news doesn't have to print everything it's given. TV stations don't have to broadcast every tape that comes in the mail. The alternative is to be forced to platform people you don't agree with, and who may even seek to do you harm, which would be a violation of freedom of speech, freedom of association as well as personal liberty.

clnq 4y ago
I did not speak about forcing anyone to do anything, but rather about what would be the right thing to do. Could you steel-man this idea instead?
- krapp 4y ago
  I don't believe there is an objectively right thing to do. Inherent in the right to free speech is the right to allow dangerous speech to spread - speech isn't value neutral. It balances against the right of association - the right to speak is not de facto a right to be heard on all platforms. Choosing where to draw the line is a matter of personal preference. Personally, I believe even reprehensible people have the right to speak, congregate and spread their ideas, but also that society has a moral duty to prevent the spread of harmful speech even in the name of free speech (see the paradox of tolerance,) and they aren't entitled to an arbitrarily large platform. Of course such a position is fraught with the potential for abuse, since the definitions for "harmful" and "useful" speech are arbitrary (speech against slavery was considered harmful at one point of course.) but I still think this position is preferable to the alternatives.
  - clnq 4y ago
    I agree. Should we then respect Joe Rogan’s right to host and give platform to controversial (or even reprehensible) guests if he chooses to do so? Does that reflect poorly on his moral character or not necessarily? Also, is there value for society in surfacing reprehensible ideas?
    - GavinMcG 4y ago
      Interesting questions. What do you think?
      - clnq 4y ago
        I think we should not judge Joe Rogan for the guests he hosts or who he gives platform to. And I think he is right to interview people some might consider reprehensible. The conversations are interesting and illuminating, and he is skilled at respectfully interviewing those he does not align with. This is all valuable in our society, and it’s helpful in breaking up echo chambers. I am not a big fan of Joe Rogan, but I respect podcasters like him or Lex Fridman who facilitate exchange of various ideas without judgement. Would you disagree?