3 ms·

You don't get to shut down speech by just adding -phobia to everything you have a strong opinion about.

anileated 2y ago
In United States a private business is free to shut down any speech it likes on its infrastructure/premises*. If you look closely, you will find that most or all do it to some speech or other. The revealing part is specifically what speech gets shut down. In other words, unless you believe Facebook is part of State or acts on behalf of the State, “you don’t get to shut down hate speech” is mereley your sentiment, not something Constitution requires from them. If Mark Z actually called hate speech “protected speech”, it is something he is free to do, but Facebook is also completely free to suppress hate speech. * https://www.nyclu.org/commentary/column-applying-constitution-private-actors-new-york-law-journal https://www.nyclu.org/commentary/column-applying-constitutio...
- skellington 2y ago
  Yes, we all know the "it's a private business they can do whatever they want" when they are suppressing right-leaning speech and then "social media needs to be regulated" when they allow right-leaning speech arguments. "Billionaire oligarchs" only became a problem when a few of them became neutral or moderately right-wing.
perth 2y ago
I mean you can be a local bar that hosts KKK rallies and sure that’s a legal thing to do (in USA), but you will still end up being known for that, probably by many names that don’t just include “phobia”. And of course, the impact of bringing together a KKK rally inherently impacts your local community since you may begin to see things like lynchings in the news or in person.
- skellington 2y ago
  Are you arguing that communities should be allowed to moderate behaviors that that community finds objectionable?
Spivak 2y ago
I see this take all the time either with *-ist and now with *-phobia and if you sincerely believe it you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the kind of content that's being discussed. It's the "anything can be a slur is you say it with enough hate" thing. You're just giving a name to the group targeted by it. The content isn't the thing that matters, it's the dehumanization and harassment.
- skellington 2y ago
  I'm only talking about the 'shutting it down' aspect. It may very well be objectionable to a group of people. Almost any speech is 'objectionable' to some group of people.
BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
In your honest opinion, is using of the term “trannies” a strong marker for what many may call “transphobia?”
- foogazi 2y ago
  From adolescents ? No From adults, yes
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    Sure, I think that’s a reasonable heuristic.
RoyalHenOil 2y ago
I would agree if it were applied equally across the board. I see no clear reason why "transgender rights, immigration or homosexuality" should specifically be spared from moderation, while other speech remains subject to censorship.
- skellington 2y ago
  What other speech? There is literally no limit to what you can say if it's negative towards white men, the church, Trump, etc. Not that I'm defending those specific things. I just notice the hypocrisy.

In United States a private business is free to shut down any speech it likes on its infrastructure/premises*. If you look closely, you will find that most or all do it to some speech or other. The revealing part is specifically what speech gets shut down. In other words, unless you believe Facebook is part of State or acts on behalf of the State, “you don’t get to shut down hate speech” is mereley your sentiment, not something Constitution requires from them. If Mark Z actually called hate speech “protected speech”, it is something he is free to do, but Facebook is also completely free to suppress hate speech. * https://www.nyclu.org/commentary/column-applying-constitution-private-actors-new-york-law-journal https://www.nyclu.org/commentary/column-applying-constitutio...

skellington 2y ago
Yes, we all know the "it's a private business they can do whatever they want" when they are suppressing right-leaning speech and then "social media needs to be regulated" when they allow right-leaning speech arguments. "Billionaire oligarchs" only became a problem when a few of them became neutral or moderately right-wing.

perth 2y ago

I mean you can be a local bar that hosts KKK rallies and sure that’s a legal thing to do (in USA), but you will still end up being known for that, probably by many names that don’t just include “phobia”. And of course, the impact of bringing together a KKK rally inherently impacts your local community since you may begin to see things like lynchings in the news or in person.

skellington 2y ago
Are you arguing that communities should be allowed to moderate behaviors that that community finds objectionable?

Spivak 2y ago

I see this take all the time either with *-ist and now with *-phobia and if you sincerely believe it you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the kind of content that's being discussed. It's the "anything can be a slur is you say it with enough hate" thing. You're just giving a name to the group targeted by it. The content isn't the thing that matters, it's the dehumanization and harassment.

skellington 2y ago
I'm only talking about the 'shutting it down' aspect. It may very well be objectionable to a group of people. Almost any speech is 'objectionable' to some group of people.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago

In your honest opinion, is using of the term “trannies” a strong marker for what many may call “transphobia?”

foogazi 2y ago
From adolescents ? No From adults, yes
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  Sure, I think that’s a reasonable heuristic.

RoyalHenOil 2y ago

I would agree if it were applied equally across the board. I see no clear reason why "transgender rights, immigration or homosexuality" should specifically be spared from moderation, while other speech remains subject to censorship.

skellington 2y ago
What other speech? There is literally no limit to what you can say if it's negative towards white men, the church, Trump, etc. Not that I'm defending those specific things. I just notice the hypocrisy.