3 ms·

This group seems to exist just to disrupt and remove speech that they don't like. https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Submission-White-House-Tas

by Dig1t 3y ago

This group seems to exist just to disrupt and remove speech that they don't like. https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Submission-White-House-Taskforce-to-address-Online-Harassment-and-Abuse-TFGBV-Consultation-September-2022-1.pdf https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Submissio... "In respect of technology-facilitated gender-based harassment and abuse, we have worked to: ● Disrupt bad actors and their monetization of violent misogyny, such as high profile misogynist Andrew Tate;" Later: "Ads were recorded on clips in which Tate: ● Labels a former partner who accused him of assault “a dumb hoe”, viewed 12.8m times ● Talks about fighting women, saying “grip her up by the neck”, viewed 1.6m times ● Describes putting his “imprint” on 18-19 year-old girls, viewed 8.4m times ● Claims “being a man” means “being territorial” of women, viewed 3.3m times." I mean, if they don't like these quotes, I have a library of rap songs to show them that are a million times more "harmful". I don't agree with anything that Tate says, but I will defend his right to say it. Groups that exist to stifle free speech are doing more harm than good for society, by creating an environment where people are scared or unable to say unpopular things. Tate's comments are abhorrent but I think working to shut people up is a ruinous idea in a free and open society. I feel similarly about their other campaigns in this document. Let people speak, even if you don't like what they say, you cannot have a dialogue or change someone's mind if you stifle them. Free speech is only good for the difficult topics, it's not important for the easy things that everyone agrees with. So yeah, these people seem biased and censorious IMO

guax 3y ago
That's how they're exercising their free speech. Andrew Tate uses a similar strategy to coerce and limit his adversaries speech. It's absolutely fair to criticize and expose things you don't agree with. You're doing it right now. It's societal debate. What's not good is when the government does it. Like Republican book bannings, show censoring, etc. If you say something controversial and people band together to call you idiot is fine. If the government puts you in jail, not fine.
ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
have you considered the possibility that you yourself are biased and censorious, and exist just to disrupt and remove speech you don't like, e.g. the speech of this group? after all, nobody here is disrupting andy's right to free speech, but since he's doing more harm than good to society, it's totally okay to not propagate his speech and to encourage others not to
- Dig1t 3y ago
  I suppose you are correct, that they as a group are just exercising their right to speech. The difference is that these are no longer individuals, these are organizations of people, and in some cases these organizations are more powerful than the government itself (Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, etc). I’m not trying to censor this group at all, they are infinitely more powerful than myself. It’s not even possible for an individual to censor an organization like this. They however, could completely destroy my life if I said the wrong thing. They could have me fired, cause me to receive death threats, prevent my employment in entire sectors of the economy, all the usual fun stuff that comes along with being cancelled. Which is extremely effective in stopping people from exercising their right to speech. I’m not arguing that what they are doing is not technically legal. But my argument is that it is against the spirit of what the first amendment was intended to be. It is de facto censorship.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    I consider the fact that We The People can organize against something we find heinous to be a pro, not a con. As for "destroying your life" (i.e. firing you) because you "said the wrong thing", it sounds like you're talking about collective action by people who simply don't want to associate with you, which is their right, and seems totally fine to me, depending on how inconsiderate what you said was, which reflects who you are as a person (who wants to associate with an asshole?) Indeed, collective action is a feature, not a bug, of society, and peoples' freedom of [un-]association trumps your desire to say whatever you want without consequence You should report death threats to the police, but they'd pale in comparison to the the volume and nastiness of death threats ("saying the wrong thing") from organized hate that this group tries to fight against

by Dig1t 3y ago

guax 3y ago

That's how they're exercising their free speech. Andrew Tate uses a similar strategy to coerce and limit his adversaries speech. It's absolutely fair to criticize and expose things you don't agree with. You're doing it right now. It's societal debate. What's not good is when the government does it. Like Republican book bannings, show censoring, etc. If you say something controversial and people band together to call you idiot is fine. If the government puts you in jail, not fine.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

have you considered the possibility that you yourself are biased and censorious, and exist just to disrupt and remove speech you don't like, e.g. the speech of this group? after all, nobody here is disrupting andy's right to free speech, but since he's doing more harm than good to society, it's totally okay to not propagate his speech and to encourage others not to

Dig1t 3y ago
I suppose you are correct, that they as a group are just exercising their right to speech. The difference is that these are no longer individuals, these are organizations of people, and in some cases these organizations are more powerful than the government itself (Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, etc). I’m not trying to censor this group at all, they are infinitely more powerful than myself. It’s not even possible for an individual to censor an organization like this. They however, could completely destroy my life if I said the wrong thing. They could have me fired, cause me to receive death threats, prevent my employment in entire sectors of the economy, all the usual fun stuff that comes along with being cancelled. Which is extremely effective in stopping people from exercising their right to speech. I’m not arguing that what they are doing is not technically legal. But my argument is that it is against the spirit of what the first amendment was intended to be. It is de facto censorship.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  I consider the fact that We The People can organize against something we find heinous to be a pro, not a con. As for "destroying your life" (i.e. firing you) because you "said the wrong thing", it sounds like you're talking about collective action by people who simply don't want to associate with you, which is their right, and seems totally fine to me, depending on how inconsiderate what you said was, which reflects who you are as a person (who wants to associate with an asshole?) Indeed, collective action is a feature, not a bug, of society, and peoples' freedom of [un-]association trumps your desire to say whatever you want without consequence You should report death threats to the police, but they'd pale in comparison to the the volume and nastiness of death threats ("saying the wrong thing") from organized hate that this group tries to fight against