4 ms·

Why is it that modern liberal ideology is so censorship heavy? I want all of my "political enemies" to be on Twitter, I want the heads of Iran, North Korea, etc

Why is it that modern liberal ideology is so censorship heavy? I want all of my "political enemies" to be on Twitter, I want the heads of Iran, North Korea, etc to be on twitter, I want "misinformation" to be on Twitter because the "solution" to all of the above is infinitely worse. From what I've seen on new-twitter, no speech liberals used to say is now banned. It's just been opened up to the right, which I guess is the problem?

ceejayoz 2y ago
> From what I've seen on new-twitter, no speech liberals used to say is now banned. Tweeting the mere word "cisgender" will get your post's visibility limited for "hateful conduct".
piva00 2y ago
> It's just been opened up to the right, which I guess is the problem? You really don't see any issue with giving access to hate speech through a mass media platform? What is your suggestion for a solution when Nazis and other hate groups can boost their messaging on a massive scale? If you say "better education" or "let the marketplace of ideas work" I have a bridge to sell you.
- EcommerceFlow 2y ago
  Hate speech is an arbitrary term used to censor political opponents, as there's no logical way to discern what is and isn't hate speech. I used to think that was obvious, and even others like Noam Chomsky agree with me, but I guess not. So no I don't see any issue, I'd prefer everyone have equal access to free speech, world wide. On a slight separate thought, I've always wondered how much of a minority I am in that thinking these days. 10%? 5? 1? It's literally that "Yes, you are all wrong" meme come to life.
  - piva00 2y ago
    > Hate speech is an arbitrary term used to censor political opponents, as there's no logical way to discern what is and isn't hate speech. I think the Cambridge dictionary definition is a good starting point, even if it doesn't have a consistent meaning across every facet of political/social discussion: > public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation If your speech expresses hate or encourages violence it shouldn't have a platform, no matter if you are a progressive hating on conservatives or any other group of people. Don't you agree that's at least a good baseline to start curtailing this on mass media platforms? I'd prefer a world where people calling for the death of Jews, black people, conservatives, white people, whatever group it is to not have a way to reach big cohorts of the population. > So no I don't see any issue, I'd prefer everyone have equal access to free speech, world wide. And that's where we diverge, dogmatic approaches like this don't leave any room for discussion or arguments, you have a belief which is not too dissimilar to a religious one... In reality allowing absolute free speech including people calling and encouraging the death of others on a massive scale is detrimental to civilisation. Quick edit: you can have free speech, it doesn't mean it's free from consequences. One of those consequences is that hateful speech might not be allowed in mass media platforms, you can still spread your hate speech person-to-person, that's not a crime in many places.
    - EcommerceFlow 2y ago
      >And that's where we diverge, dogmatic approaches like this don't leave any room for discussion or arguments, you have a belief which is not too dissimilar to a religious one... In reality allowing absolute free speech including people calling and encouraging the death of others on a massive scale is detrimental to civilization. We had that for decades and civilization was just fine. Hell, don't we supposedly have that today with Twitter, yet civilization is just fine. What happened after 2016 and 2020 was infinitely worse, with huge segments of the AMERICAN population unable to express their views. Who are you to dictate what society/civilization is allowed to think/view? The one thing I'll agree with you on is the removal of financial incentives from these websites. I do want all viewpoints on these websites, but I of course understand the removal of financial payments for posts that "go viral" praising Stalin or Hitler or something.
      - piva00 2y ago
        > We had that for decades and civilization was just fine. Hell, don't we supposedly have that today with Twitter, yet civilization is just fine. When exactly did we have ways to spread a message across the globe instantly, effortlessly, while also having the capacity to generate fake engagement/support at massive scale for hate-filled points of view to drive naïve audiences into them through history? > What happened after 2016 and 2020 was infinitely worse, with huge segments of the AMERICAN population unable to express their views. They can express their views, just not on some types of media which have a massive reach. Broadcast radio and TV have regulations on what can be said on air due to its reach, why does broadcast over the internet should be any different? If you post on Twitter you are broadcasting. You can still tell your friends at the dinner table that you hate Jews, you won't be arrested for that, the worst outcome is being socially shunned for having an abhorrent opinion. You should not be able to distribute that messaging across the larger population. I ask this with honest curiosity: how do you expect society to deal with this issue? When 14 years old boys start getting bombarded by abhorrent speech such as encouraging the hate and killing of other groups, when some uneducated person falls into a conspiracy theory? How do you deal with the stochastic processes this start without curtailing access to the platform that allows this to be distributed? You are conflating free speech with free access to broadcasting platforms, those are definitely not the same.
  - ARandumGuy 2y ago
    Hate speech is one of those things that's hard to nail down a perfect academic definition, but is often easy to spot in practice. I may not be able to tell you exactly where the line is, but I can tell you that (for example) a Nazi saying "Jews deserved the Holocaust" is well across that line.
    - EcommerceFlow 2y ago
      Easy for who to spot? Who elected these "spotters"? Which cultural norm is the accepted normal for what is and isn't considered crossing the line? Is it Islamic? Ancient Roman or Aztec? Modern Chinese? White American Liberal? Each of those has radically different views on what is and isn't considered "hate speech".
      - ARandumGuy 2y ago
        Maybe I should have clarified a little bit: It's easy to spot hate speech if your moral framework starts with the idea that everyone is entitled to a base level of life and human dignity. I acknowledge that that's not a universal idea. But quite frankly I don't particularly value the opinion of people who disagree with that sentiment. Moral relevancy is kind of a cop out argument. We don't need literally everyone in the world to agree on something before we start taking action. Advocate for your own opinion, don't hide behind theoretical people across time and space. Finally, I'm going to flip your argument a bit. You're the one who stated that there's no logical way to identify hate speech, so why don't you provide some examples? What are some things that you've seen identified as hate speech, where you disagree with that assessment?
      - taylodl 2y ago
        Advocating for genocide is difficult for you to spot as hate speech? Really? How about advocating for the diminishing of people's civil liberties based on factors such as age, sex, sexual orientation, or religious views - that's difficult for you to spot as hate speech? Really? We've passed the days of "cultural norms" and have entered the era of universal human rights. This is a recent transition, but it isn't hard to spot hate speech or hate crimes.
- arkh 2y ago
  Your hate speech is some other group cultural norm. The hate speech censorship is just how bullies managed to use political correctness to be able to bully again.

ceejayoz 2y ago

> From what I've seen on new-twitter, no speech liberals used to say is now banned. Tweeting the mere word "cisgender" will get your post's visibility limited for "hateful conduct".

piva00 2y ago

> It's just been opened up to the right, which I guess is the problem? You really don't see any issue with giving access to hate speech through a mass media platform? What is your suggestion for a solution when Nazis and other hate groups can boost their messaging on a massive scale? If you say "better education" or "let the marketplace of ideas work" I have a bridge to sell you.

EcommerceFlow 2y ago
Hate speech is an arbitrary term used to censor political opponents, as there's no logical way to discern what is and isn't hate speech. I used to think that was obvious, and even others like Noam Chomsky agree with me, but I guess not. So no I don't see any issue, I'd prefer everyone have equal access to free speech, world wide. On a slight separate thought, I've always wondered how much of a minority I am in that thinking these days. 10%? 5? 1? It's literally that "Yes, you are all wrong" meme come to life.
- piva00 2y ago
  > Hate speech is an arbitrary term used to censor political opponents, as there's no logical way to discern what is and isn't hate speech. I think the Cambridge dictionary definition is a good starting point, even if it doesn't have a consistent meaning across every facet of political/social discussion: > public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation If your speech expresses hate or encourages violence it shouldn't have a platform, no matter if you are a progressive hating on conservatives or any other group of people. Don't you agree that's at least a good baseline to start curtailing this on mass media platforms? I'd prefer a world where people calling for the death of Jews, black people, conservatives, white people, whatever group it is to not have a way to reach big cohorts of the population. > So no I don't see any issue, I'd prefer everyone have equal access to free speech, world wide. And that's where we diverge, dogmatic approaches like this don't leave any room for discussion or arguments, you have a belief which is not too dissimilar to a religious one... In reality allowing absolute free speech including people calling and encouraging the death of others on a massive scale is detrimental to civilisation. Quick edit: you can have free speech, it doesn't mean it's free from consequences. One of those consequences is that hateful speech might not be allowed in mass media platforms, you can still spread your hate speech person-to-person, that's not a crime in many places.
  - EcommerceFlow 2y ago
    >And that's where we diverge, dogmatic approaches like this don't leave any room for discussion or arguments, you have a belief which is not too dissimilar to a religious one... In reality allowing absolute free speech including people calling and encouraging the death of others on a massive scale is detrimental to civilization. We had that for decades and civilization was just fine. Hell, don't we supposedly have that today with Twitter, yet civilization is just fine. What happened after 2016 and 2020 was infinitely worse, with huge segments of the AMERICAN population unable to express their views. Who are you to dictate what society/civilization is allowed to think/view? The one thing I'll agree with you on is the removal of financial incentives from these websites. I do want all viewpoints on these websites, but I of course understand the removal of financial payments for posts that "go viral" praising Stalin or Hitler or something.
    - piva00 2y ago
      > We had that for decades and civilization was just fine. Hell, don't we supposedly have that today with Twitter, yet civilization is just fine. When exactly did we have ways to spread a message across the globe instantly, effortlessly, while also having the capacity to generate fake engagement/support at massive scale for hate-filled points of view to drive naïve audiences into them through history? > What happened after 2016 and 2020 was infinitely worse, with huge segments of the AMERICAN population unable to express their views. They can express their views, just not on some types of media which have a massive reach. Broadcast radio and TV have regulations on what can be said on air due to its reach, why does broadcast over the internet should be any different? If you post on Twitter you are broadcasting. You can still tell your friends at the dinner table that you hate Jews, you won't be arrested for that, the worst outcome is being socially shunned for having an abhorrent opinion. You should not be able to distribute that messaging across the larger population. I ask this with honest curiosity: how do you expect society to deal with this issue? When 14 years old boys start getting bombarded by abhorrent speech such as encouraging the hate and killing of other groups, when some uneducated person falls into a conspiracy theory? How do you deal with the stochastic processes this start without curtailing access to the platform that allows this to be distributed? You are conflating free speech with free access to broadcasting platforms, those are definitely not the same.
- ARandumGuy 2y ago
  Hate speech is one of those things that's hard to nail down a perfect academic definition, but is often easy to spot in practice. I may not be able to tell you exactly where the line is, but I can tell you that (for example) a Nazi saying "Jews deserved the Holocaust" is well across that line.
  - EcommerceFlow 2y ago
    Easy for who to spot? Who elected these "spotters"? Which cultural norm is the accepted normal for what is and isn't considered crossing the line? Is it Islamic? Ancient Roman or Aztec? Modern Chinese? White American Liberal? Each of those has radically different views on what is and isn't considered "hate speech".
    - ARandumGuy 2y ago
      Maybe I should have clarified a little bit: It's easy to spot hate speech if your moral framework starts with the idea that everyone is entitled to a base level of life and human dignity. I acknowledge that that's not a universal idea. But quite frankly I don't particularly value the opinion of people who disagree with that sentiment. Moral relevancy is kind of a cop out argument. We don't need literally everyone in the world to agree on something before we start taking action. Advocate for your own opinion, don't hide behind theoretical people across time and space. Finally, I'm going to flip your argument a bit. You're the one who stated that there's no logical way to identify hate speech, so why don't you provide some examples? What are some things that you've seen identified as hate speech, where you disagree with that assessment?
    - taylodl 2y ago
      Advocating for genocide is difficult for you to spot as hate speech? Really? How about advocating for the diminishing of people's civil liberties based on factors such as age, sex, sexual orientation, or religious views - that's difficult for you to spot as hate speech? Really? We've passed the days of "cultural norms" and have entered the era of universal human rights. This is a recent transition, but it isn't hard to spot hate speech or hate crimes.
arkh 2y ago
Your hate speech is some other group cultural norm. The hate speech censorship is just how bullies managed to use political correctness to be able to bully again.