4 ms·

> You can demand the right to free speech. You can't demand everyone has to listen. You can't demand that everyone has to listen, but you can absolutely demand

> You can demand the right to free speech. You can't demand everyone has to listen. You can't demand that everyone has to listen, but you can absolutely demand a neutral channel where people who want to listen can go to listen to you. People that don't want to listen to you can use that channel too, without opting in to follow you. Nobody is forced to listen, nobody is forced to be silent. What you really want, instead, is that nobody should be able to listen to the speech you don't like because you're afraid that other people might decide they like it.

version_five 3y ago
> What you really want, instead, is that nobody should be able to listen to the speech you don't like because you're afraid that other people might decide they like it. Well said.
- jpmoral 3y ago
  In many cases, it's not because you're (the general "you") being "suppressed". It's just that you're tiresome. A few weeks ago someone was ranting about something (some movie he claimed was being given the woke treatment). I told him that he shouldn't get so worked up about it. In hindsight, his response should've been predictable. "Oh, so I'm not allowed to have an opinion?". I told him it was fine to have an opinion and share it, but that I thought he should just skip watching the movie and not get worked up about creative choices he disagreed with. I wasn't trying to "suppress wrongthink", I just found it very tiresome. Edit: granted that wasn't about science, but I find the dynamic is often similar.
  - curtisblaine 3y ago
    Yeah, this happens on both sides. You just need to mention you disagree with creative use of pronouns, or with certain categories of sexuality, or with the unhealthiness of clinical obesity, or the understanding of privilege, and you're met with accusations of genocide.
gochi 3y ago
Neutral channels don't exist, never have never will. So the demand doesn't make any sense. By operating, the channel must make self-preservation decisions, these decisions cannot be neutral.
- version_five 3y ago
  Do you think telephones and email should be censored?
  - gochi 3y ago
    Both already are.
  - Etrnl_President 3y ago
    They shouldn't be; Everyone should have an equal chance to expose themselves as idiots. Censorship denies this.
- toomim 3y ago
  Yes they do, in the law: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1003/neutrality-speech https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1003/neutrality...
dotnet00 3y ago
This has nicely summarized my biggest complaint with how a lot of the fediverse seems to be intended to work. Mastodon etc seem to mostly be designed with the intention of having a lot of large nodes that can federate. This results in the same issues as mainstream social media on those nodes. This also reflects in the lack of meaningful discovery tools. Of course this is resolved by setting up ones own server, and there is at least a corner of the fediverse of truly free speech nodes. But this just makes me feel that the design should have always been towards a large network of small nodes, with associated discovery tools.
hackerlight 3y ago
> Nobody is forced to listen This is an overly reductive take on how social media would work with no moderation (no censorship). Recommendations that show up on my Home timeline aren't all voluntary, I'm often reading things that I would prefer not to read. I don't have complete power to curate my feed. What a lot of people want is not more censorship per se, it's for this recommendation system to be changed in order to deemphasize polarizing and toxic content and promote less polarizing content. Basically, many of us want to alter the social dynamics (which were arbitrarily chosen in the first place) in a healthy direction, rather than ratchet up the censorship. > but you can absolutely demand a neutral channel where people who want to listen can go to listen to you Rumble exists, so even if they were censored on Youtube, they still have a "neutral channel where people who want to listen can go to listen". > What you really want, instead, is that nobody should be able to listen to the speech you don't like because you're afraid that other people might decide they like it. Pretty much yes, but this is a euphemistic/strawman take on the fears of those you're arguing against. I am indeed "afraid" that people will "decide they like" extremist content, thereby becoming radicalized and committing a terrorist attack or voting in someone far worse than Trump. It's not them liking the content that I'm afraid of. It's the secondary consequences of that liking. I want to stop those consequences from happening. Ultimately, the objective is to protect our freedoms, even if it means sacrificing a little freedom (of speech) in the here and now.
- curtisblaine 3y ago
  > Recommendations that show up on my Home timeline aren't all voluntary This is an orthogonal problem; I absolutely agree that recommendations are bad. Incidentally, many people "on the other side" (the ones you want to silence) agree with this, as they're constantly shown content they wouldn't otherwise consume, which in their case is mainstream and all-pervasive. This is exacerbated by the fact that, if they try to set up their social media, they get deplatformed by cloud providers, payment processors, etc. > I want to stop those consequences from happening. We have a law system to stop these consequences from happening. The moment an extremist acts with violence, they are stopped with violence by law. > Ultimately, the objective is to protect our freedoms, even if it means sacrificing a little freedom (of speech) in the here and now. And you get to decide which speech is dangerous and which speech is not, which ideas are dangerous and which ideas are not, from the height of your moral superiority, I guess.

version_five 3y ago

> What you really want, instead, is that nobody should be able to listen to the speech you don't like because you're afraid that other people might decide they like it. Well said.

jpmoral 3y ago
In many cases, it's not because you're (the general "you") being "suppressed". It's just that you're tiresome. A few weeks ago someone was ranting about something (some movie he claimed was being given the woke treatment). I told him that he shouldn't get so worked up about it. In hindsight, his response should've been predictable. "Oh, so I'm not allowed to have an opinion?". I told him it was fine to have an opinion and share it, but that I thought he should just skip watching the movie and not get worked up about creative choices he disagreed with. I wasn't trying to "suppress wrongthink", I just found it very tiresome. Edit: granted that wasn't about science, but I find the dynamic is often similar.
- curtisblaine 3y ago
  Yeah, this happens on both sides. You just need to mention you disagree with creative use of pronouns, or with certain categories of sexuality, or with the unhealthiness of clinical obesity, or the understanding of privilege, and you're met with accusations of genocide.

gochi 3y ago

Neutral channels don't exist, never have never will. So the demand doesn't make any sense. By operating, the channel must make self-preservation decisions, these decisions cannot be neutral.

version_five 3y ago
Do you think telephones and email should be censored?
- gochi 3y ago
  Both already are.
- Etrnl_President 3y ago
  They shouldn't be; Everyone should have an equal chance to expose themselves as idiots. Censorship denies this.
toomim 3y ago
Yes they do, in the law: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1003/neutrality-speech https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1003/neutrality...

dotnet00 3y ago

This has nicely summarized my biggest complaint with how a lot of the fediverse seems to be intended to work. Mastodon etc seem to mostly be designed with the intention of having a lot of large nodes that can federate. This results in the same issues as mainstream social media on those nodes. This also reflects in the lack of meaningful discovery tools. Of course this is resolved by setting up ones own server, and there is at least a corner of the fediverse of truly free speech nodes. But this just makes me feel that the design should have always been towards a large network of small nodes, with associated discovery tools.

hackerlight 3y ago

> Nobody is forced to listen This is an overly reductive take on how social media would work with no moderation (no censorship). Recommendations that show up on my Home timeline aren't all voluntary, I'm often reading things that I would prefer not to read. I don't have complete power to curate my feed. What a lot of people want is not more censorship per se, it's for this recommendation system to be changed in order to deemphasize polarizing and toxic content and promote less polarizing content. Basically, many of us want to alter the social dynamics (which were arbitrarily chosen in the first place) in a healthy direction, rather than ratchet up the censorship. > but you can absolutely demand a neutral channel where people who want to listen can go to listen to you Rumble exists, so even if they were censored on Youtube, they still have a "neutral channel where people who want to listen can go to listen". > What you really want, instead, is that nobody should be able to listen to the speech you don't like because you're afraid that other people might decide they like it. Pretty much yes, but this is a euphemistic/strawman take on the fears of those you're arguing against. I am indeed "afraid" that people will "decide they like" extremist content, thereby becoming radicalized and committing a terrorist attack or voting in someone far worse than Trump. It's not them liking the content that I'm afraid of. It's the secondary consequences of that liking. I want to stop those consequences from happening. Ultimately, the objective is to protect our freedoms, even if it means sacrificing a little freedom (of speech) in the here and now.

curtisblaine 3y ago
> Recommendations that show up on my Home timeline aren't all voluntary This is an orthogonal problem; I absolutely agree that recommendations are bad. Incidentally, many people "on the other side" (the ones you want to silence) agree with this, as they're constantly shown content they wouldn't otherwise consume, which in their case is mainstream and all-pervasive. This is exacerbated by the fact that, if they try to set up their social media, they get deplatformed by cloud providers, payment processors, etc. > I want to stop those consequences from happening. We have a law system to stop these consequences from happening. The moment an extremist acts with violence, they are stopped with violence by law. > Ultimately, the objective is to protect our freedoms, even if it means sacrificing a little freedom (of speech) in the here and now. And you get to decide which speech is dangerous and which speech is not, which ideas are dangerous and which ideas are not, from the height of your moral superiority, I guess.