4 ms·

The Westminster Declaration

20 points by olalonde 3y ago

levzettelin 3y ago
Discourse is never free; in no society. The question is just what kinds of discourse are allowed. Depending on what you care about, different societies will work better or worse for you (or be more free or less free, to adopt the lingo of this declaration). In other words, "freedom" is a subjective quality that depends what an individual cares about.
- xwkd 3y ago
  I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
  - krapp 3y ago
    I suspect that, if it came down to it, you wouldn't. It's easy to wrap yourself in the nobility of someone else's words but you have your limits like everyone else.
    - xwkd 3y ago
      You can suspect whatever you would like. I don't mind. Your comment is rather disrespectful and yet, if someone tried to shut you up, I would proportionately respond. You have a right to your disrespectful speech.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
slg 3y ago
Some diametrically opposed people on that list. That is the problem with the whole free speech debate. If you got all these people into one room, there would be no agreement on what "free speech" actually means. The result is that any vague declaration like this is meaningless. Completely free speech means allowing stuff like fraud and distribution of child porn so even most "free speech absolutists" aren't actually in favor of completely unrestricted speech. So everyone claims to be for free speech and the debate shifts to changing definitions in order to match their already held opinion.
- femiagbabiaka 3y ago
  Diametrically opposed except for on the issue of free speech. Which they define directly in the declaration based on the international definition. I highly doubt there would be any disagreement between signatories about the legality of CSAM in a free speech regime, to say that this is the issue to be focused on in the light of the loss of rights within the last century is misguided IMO.
  - slg 3y ago
    > Which they define directly in the declaration based on the international definition. Does that include hate speech? Does that include the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising? Does that include the right to "cancel" someone? There is no single definition that everyone agrees on. That is what the CSAM example is supposed to highlight. Not that anyone wants to allow it, but that everyone agrees that this speech isn't actually covered by free speech. Once you admit that not all speech deserves to be free, you have to decide what speech should count because it isn't everything.
    - femiagbabiaka 3y ago
      > Does that include hate speech? Yes. > Does that include the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising? Yes, although this is a bit tangential as this declaration is mostly concerned with freedom of personal political speech, and in most countries companies and individuals are distinguished from each other. Actually this is also the case for the U.S., except for in the case of political speech for reasons. > Does that include the right to "cancel" someone? If by cancel, you mean to fire someone for speech, that’s really a matter of employment law, which differs by country and even industry. If you mean the right to “call out”, yes. How did I ascertain this? By reading the UDHR, Article 19: > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. The only part everyone (everyone here meaning every government and every tech company) hasn’t decided on is whether or not to enforce Article 19, which is why the declaration encourages them to. I think in general there has been a kind of anemia combined with infantilization introduced into political discourse where people believe issues are too complex or too divisive to be resolved. When we decide that issues are too complicated to be decided on by the polis, only the most extreme viewpoints will end up seeing their goals accomplished. Which is precisely what has happened on the issue of free speech, as governments ban protest, ban certain kinds of speech, all while ostensibly (but not really) “speaking for the people”.
ipnon 3y ago
Everyone wants free speech for open society but nobody wants X, 4chan, bots, bullies or pundits! You have to hold your nose people. The price to pay is rabid disagreement, dangerous ideas, motivated influence, psychological warfare, public relations, the list goes on. But the alternative is far worse: A civilization where all good ideas go to waste, resentment is momentous, and every problem is intractable without explosive consequences.
- krapp 3y ago
  By setting one as an alternative to the other, you seem to be implying that rabid disagreement, dangerous ideas, motivated influence and psychological warfare don't lead to momentous resentment, intractable problems or explosive consequences. Rather the purpose of the former is very often the execution of the latter, unless you believe that extremists only ever engage in abstract debate for the sake of pure intellectual exercise. The failure to accept one as an inevitable consequence of the other is intellectually dishonest. You're ignoring second and third order consequences, and you're insisting people simply tolerate harassment, bigotry and threats of violence against themselves simply because you don't want the even the most excremental of ideals to "go to waste," or more likely because you simply find the chaos entertaining. If you want the entire world to be run by the standards of 4chan, great. Go somewhere else, find a dark corner of the internet and piss in your own punchbowl. Adults are trying to have a civilization here.
  - drewcoo 3y ago
    > You're ignoring second and third order consequences, and you're insisting people simply tolerate harassment, bigotry and threats of violence against themselves simply because [ad hominems] First, nobody is ignoring second and third order consequences as evidenced by the discussion of consequences in the GP comment. Second, nobody suggested "simply tolerating" because free speech absolutists see speech as a thing they can engage in, not just something that happens to them. There is room for a more rational discussion of this, but please understand that I think you have every right to your style of discourse, too.
owisd 3y ago
They're using such a wide definition of censorship that it'd be impossible to create a tech platform without censorship as there's just too much content for a single individual to consume, so one way or another the design decisions in the platform are going to prioritise which content to show to users in the time they have available. Light touch moderation has the exact opposite effect on public debate than this article is intending: A simple chronological feed prioritises the loudest voices and censors infrequent posters. Voting prioritises shorter snappier content and censors thoughtful longform content.
- bhupy 3y ago
  Censorship != moderation: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/moderation-is-different-from-censorship https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/moderation-is-different-fro...

20 points by olalonde 3y ago

Discourse is never free; in no society. The question is just what kinds of discourse are allowed. Depending on what you care about, different societies will work better or worse for you (or be more free or less free, to adopt the lingo of this declaration). In other words, "freedom" is a subjective quality that depends what an individual cares about.

xwkd 3y ago
I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.
- krapp 3y ago
  I suspect that, if it came down to it, you wouldn't. It's easy to wrap yourself in the nobility of someone else's words but you have your limits like everyone else.
  - xwkd 3y ago
    You can suspect whatever you would like. I don't mind. Your comment is rather disrespectful and yet, if someone tried to shut you up, I would proportionately respond. You have a right to your disrespectful speech.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

slg 3y ago

Some diametrically opposed people on that list. That is the problem with the whole free speech debate. If you got all these people into one room, there would be no agreement on what "free speech" actually means. The result is that any vague declaration like this is meaningless. Completely free speech means allowing stuff like fraud and distribution of child porn so even most "free speech absolutists" aren't actually in favor of completely unrestricted speech. So everyone claims to be for free speech and the debate shifts to changing definitions in order to match their already held opinion.

femiagbabiaka 3y ago
Diametrically opposed except for on the issue of free speech. Which they define directly in the declaration based on the international definition. I highly doubt there would be any disagreement between signatories about the legality of CSAM in a free speech regime, to say that this is the issue to be focused on in the light of the loss of rights within the last century is misguided IMO.
- slg 3y ago
  > Which they define directly in the declaration based on the international definition. Does that include hate speech? Does that include the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising? Does that include the right to "cancel" someone? There is no single definition that everyone agrees on. That is what the CSAM example is supposed to highlight. Not that anyone wants to allow it, but that everyone agrees that this speech isn't actually covered by free speech. Once you admit that not all speech deserves to be free, you have to decide what speech should count because it isn't everything.
  - femiagbabiaka 3y ago
    > Does that include hate speech? Yes. > Does that include the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising? Yes, although this is a bit tangential as this declaration is mostly concerned with freedom of personal political speech, and in most countries companies and individuals are distinguished from each other. Actually this is also the case for the U.S., except for in the case of political speech for reasons. > Does that include the right to "cancel" someone? If by cancel, you mean to fire someone for speech, that’s really a matter of employment law, which differs by country and even industry. If you mean the right to “call out”, yes. How did I ascertain this? By reading the UDHR, Article 19: > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. The only part everyone (everyone here meaning every government and every tech company) hasn’t decided on is whether or not to enforce Article 19, which is why the declaration encourages them to. I think in general there has been a kind of anemia combined with infantilization introduced into political discourse where people believe issues are too complex or too divisive to be resolved. When we decide that issues are too complicated to be decided on by the polis, only the most extreme viewpoints will end up seeing their goals accomplished. Which is precisely what has happened on the issue of free speech, as governments ban protest, ban certain kinds of speech, all while ostensibly (but not really) “speaking for the people”.

ipnon 3y ago

Everyone wants free speech for open society but nobody wants X, 4chan, bots, bullies or pundits! You have to hold your nose people. The price to pay is rabid disagreement, dangerous ideas, motivated influence, psychological warfare, public relations, the list goes on. But the alternative is far worse: A civilization where all good ideas go to waste, resentment is momentous, and every problem is intractable without explosive consequences.

krapp 3y ago
By setting one as an alternative to the other, you seem to be implying that rabid disagreement, dangerous ideas, motivated influence and psychological warfare don't lead to momentous resentment, intractable problems or explosive consequences. Rather the purpose of the former is very often the execution of the latter, unless you believe that extremists only ever engage in abstract debate for the sake of pure intellectual exercise. The failure to accept one as an inevitable consequence of the other is intellectually dishonest. You're ignoring second and third order consequences, and you're insisting people simply tolerate harassment, bigotry and threats of violence against themselves simply because you don't want the even the most excremental of ideals to "go to waste," or more likely because you simply find the chaos entertaining. If you want the entire world to be run by the standards of 4chan, great. Go somewhere else, find a dark corner of the internet and piss in your own punchbowl. Adults are trying to have a civilization here.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  > You're ignoring second and third order consequences, and you're insisting people simply tolerate harassment, bigotry and threats of violence against themselves simply because [ad hominems] First, nobody is ignoring second and third order consequences as evidenced by the discussion of consequences in the GP comment. Second, nobody suggested "simply tolerating" because free speech absolutists see speech as a thing they can engage in, not just something that happens to them. There is room for a more rational discussion of this, but please understand that I think you have every right to your style of discourse, too.

owisd 3y ago

They're using such a wide definition of censorship that it'd be impossible to create a tech platform without censorship as there's just too much content for a single individual to consume, so one way or another the design decisions in the platform are going to prioritise which content to show to users in the time they have available. Light touch moderation has the exact opposite effect on public debate than this article is intending: A simple chronological feed prioritises the loudest voices and censors infrequent posters. Voting prioritises shorter snappier content and censors thoughtful longform content.

bhupy 3y ago
Censorship != moderation: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/moderation-is-different-from-censorship https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/moderation-is-different-fro...