3 ms·

I think the question is not quite so easy as many here (and even the EFF) are making it seem. It's easy to talk about free-speech that needs to be protected at

I think the question is not quite so easy as many here (and even the EFF) are making it seem. It's easy to talk about free-speech that needs to be protected at any cost when it comes to political speech, but if we look at e.g. spam nobody argues that spam and spammers should be blocked. Now is spam less speech, because it is not political? On a similar note, if I own a large piece of land should I allow a demonstration that I disagree with cross the land because of free-speech? If no, why does a company who carries data, need to provide their "pipes" to the same people? I understand the argument that restricting speech is a slippery slope, on the other hand I agree with Popper, not restricting all speech and enabling the "intolerant" is also a slippery slope (I say that as a German, we have quite a bit of experience with this). I'm not sure how to draw easy boundaries, but making this into an argument of "easy it's free-speech that needs to be defended at all costs" seems much too simplistic.

ThrowawayR2 3y ago
Spam is speech that the recipient does not want to receive; deplatforming spammers is aligned with the recipient's desires. Deplatforming speech that the recipient does want to receive is not aligned with the recipient's desires and infringes on their ability to communicate freely. Therefore, the spam analogy is not valid.
- cycomanic 3y ago
  That's not a very good argument. Clearly there are some people who do want to see spam otherwise spam would be uneconomical because nobody would buy. On the same note there are plenty of people who don't want to see KF material. I don't think arguing by some sort of majority works. And yes lots of spam, phishing and other material gets filtered out by ISPs (somebody further up was talking about that some ISPs were blocking the full spam house list). A
gruez 3y ago
>but if we look at e.g. spam nobody argues that spam and spammers should be blocked. Now is spam less speech, because it is not political? Because the blocking is consensual. You're actively choosing to block out the spam, and if you so choose you can still see the spam. The same can't be said for deplatforming. Even if you want to read kwifarms you can't, because others have presented you from being able to access their site.
- its_ethan 3y ago
  Isn't a decent amount of spam blocked without our knowing? Telecom companies work to prevent spam phone calls, YT/Twitter/FB try to block bots or spam accounts - all that happens without users consensually blocking each account. Most people don't even realize how much "speech" has been blocked that they don't even see?
- chonkerz 3y ago
  Spammers have filed free speech lawsuits to try to get blocks taken down.

ThrowawayR2 3y ago

Spam is speech that the recipient does not want to receive; deplatforming spammers is aligned with the recipient's desires. Deplatforming speech that the recipient does want to receive is not aligned with the recipient's desires and infringes on their ability to communicate freely. Therefore, the spam analogy is not valid.

cycomanic 3y ago
That's not a very good argument. Clearly there are some people who do want to see spam otherwise spam would be uneconomical because nobody would buy. On the same note there are plenty of people who don't want to see KF material. I don't think arguing by some sort of majority works. And yes lots of spam, phishing and other material gets filtered out by ISPs (somebody further up was talking about that some ISPs were blocking the full spam house list). A

gruez 3y ago

>but if we look at e.g. spam nobody argues that spam and spammers should be blocked. Now is spam less speech, because it is not political? Because the blocking is consensual. You're actively choosing to block out the spam, and if you so choose you can still see the spam. The same can't be said for deplatforming. Even if you want to read kwifarms you can't, because others have presented you from being able to access their site.

its_ethan 3y ago
Isn't a decent amount of spam blocked without our knowing? Telecom companies work to prevent spam phone calls, YT/Twitter/FB try to block bots or spam accounts - all that happens without users consensually blocking each account. Most people don't even realize how much "speech" has been blocked that they don't even see?
chonkerz 3y ago
Spammers have filed free speech lawsuits to try to get blocks taken down.