3 ms·

> So use the same techniques you’re decrying? ..But who cancels the, err, cancel-ers? Jokes aside, I'm always surprised by people who manage to conflate "fre

> So use the same techniques you’re decrying? ..But who cancels the, err, cancel-ers? Jokes aside, I'm always surprised by people who manage to conflate "freedom of speech" rights with the idea all speech should be given every single megaphone that exists for every other type of speech. Yes, the government shouldn't hunt you down for using racial slurs on your homestead far away from society, but society shouldn't have to give people who hurl racial slurs their primetime news slots. It's usually much easier for normal people to reason about NBC and a racist than the slightly more abstracted and much more online idea of "[private internet infrastructure] should always be made available for every person, because speech!!"

sickofparadox 3y ago
I don't think I've said anything of the sort, your company generally should not be forced to provide service to people. Your company should also not be pressured to stop doing business with people because someone does not like that person. That is all I have said.
- paulmd 3y ago
  > Your company should also not be pressured to stop doing business with people because someone does not like that person these people have the same right to speech that you do, why do you feel this right should be suppressed for them (but - presumably - not for yourself)? if their speech is more persuasive then surely that's the marketplace of ideas working as intended, right? why should the government step in and restrict the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association?
  - sickofparadox 3y ago
    You are responding to points I have not made, I have not said that the government should come in and restrict anyone's rights. Please try harder to understand the discussion you are joining before making an essentially off-topic post.
- DetroitThrow 3y ago
  I used NBC as my example instead of PBS to illustrate my point regarding the dissonance between "Your company should also not be pressured to stop doing business with people [because of societal backlash]" and "Your company generally should not be forced to provide service to people", actually, because they need to run ads. It goes like this: NBC runs a guy hurling racial slurs in their primetime slot. Society is outraged, stops tuning into Seinfeld: 2023, and generally the brand is tarnished. The party which pays NBC, their advertisers, stop wanting to pay for a brand that is associated with a guy hurling racial slurs. NBC now has to voluntarily choose between advertiser revenue being correctly allocated away from them as a racial slur broadcaster towards their competitors on the principle of "we are not going to be pressured to stop doing business with racial slur guy", or to make more money. As a shareholder of NBC, I'd think it as very silly to choose option 1, and the invisible hand would have guided NBC to voluntarily drop this person simply because "your company generally should not be forced to provide service to people". Does this make the dissonance between these two concepts that we're all talking about seem a bit clearer?
  - sickofparadox 3y ago
    I think it would be silly to be mad at NBC for the content of someone else's media, even if it is on their platform. Be mad at the racist guy.
    - DetroitThrow 3y ago
      > I think it would be silly to be mad at NBC for the content of someone else's media, even if it is on their platform. Be mad at the racist guy. So to be clear, you think other people will (or perhaps should) interpret NBC broadcasting a random guy who throws racial slurs on their primetime slots as "someone else's media", and think it's silly to be mad at them for broadcasting random racist guy on their primetime slots. I'm going to the bar later and will pose the same hypothetical to some regulars and randoms in my relatively purple city and state. I will bring up the same hypothetical, and argue your point, and will return their reactions about what if anything should happen about racist guy on NBC. If I'm not beaten up, I'll let you know what their reactions are! My personal prediction: They will find the take that "individuals in society should both think and act different, but the rules of society ought not force a change in behavior" as ideas that are counter to each other, and the whole argument as similar to the bleating of George Costanza.

sickofparadox 3y ago

I don't think I've said anything of the sort, your company generally should not be forced to provide service to people. Your company should also not be pressured to stop doing business with people because someone does not like that person. That is all I have said.

paulmd 3y ago
> Your company should also not be pressured to stop doing business with people because someone does not like that person these people have the same right to speech that you do, why do you feel this right should be suppressed for them (but - presumably - not for yourself)? if their speech is more persuasive then surely that's the marketplace of ideas working as intended, right? why should the government step in and restrict the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association?
- sickofparadox 3y ago
  You are responding to points I have not made, I have not said that the government should come in and restrict anyone's rights. Please try harder to understand the discussion you are joining before making an essentially off-topic post.
DetroitThrow 3y ago
I used NBC as my example instead of PBS to illustrate my point regarding the dissonance between "Your company should also not be pressured to stop doing business with people [because of societal backlash]" and "Your company generally should not be forced to provide service to people", actually, because they need to run ads. It goes like this: NBC runs a guy hurling racial slurs in their primetime slot. Society is outraged, stops tuning into Seinfeld: 2023, and generally the brand is tarnished. The party which pays NBC, their advertisers, stop wanting to pay for a brand that is associated with a guy hurling racial slurs. NBC now has to voluntarily choose between advertiser revenue being correctly allocated away from them as a racial slur broadcaster towards their competitors on the principle of "we are not going to be pressured to stop doing business with racial slur guy", or to make more money. As a shareholder of NBC, I'd think it as very silly to choose option 1, and the invisible hand would have guided NBC to voluntarily drop this person simply because "your company generally should not be forced to provide service to people". Does this make the dissonance between these two concepts that we're all talking about seem a bit clearer?
- sickofparadox 3y ago
  I think it would be silly to be mad at NBC for the content of someone else's media, even if it is on their platform. Be mad at the racist guy.
  - DetroitThrow 3y ago
    > I think it would be silly to be mad at NBC for the content of someone else's media, even if it is on their platform. Be mad at the racist guy. So to be clear, you think other people will (or perhaps should) interpret NBC broadcasting a random guy who throws racial slurs on their primetime slots as "someone else's media", and think it's silly to be mad at them for broadcasting random racist guy on their primetime slots. I'm going to the bar later and will pose the same hypothetical to some regulars and randoms in my relatively purple city and state. I will bring up the same hypothetical, and argue your point, and will return their reactions about what if anything should happen about racist guy on NBC. If I'm not beaten up, I'll let you know what their reactions are! My personal prediction: They will find the take that "individuals in society should both think and act different, but the rules of society ought not force a change in behavior" as ideas that are counter to each other, and the whole argument as similar to the bleating of George Costanza.