3 ms·

> If their choices were unpopular, people would flock to alternatives. They don't. What you are saying is actively happening right now. Certain people dont l

by alt227 2y ago

> If their choices were unpopular, people would flock to alternatives. They don't. What you are saying is actively happening right now. Certain people dont like that another certain group of people have been allowed back onto Twitter, and so they are going in droves to Mastodon/Bluesky/Threads/TruthSocial etc. Twitter has received an 87% drop in revenue since reinstating previously blocked accounts. Id say people are flocking to alternatives. This is creating an extremely fragmented society, all creating their own bubble of what they want to see. History has shown that where this happens it increases aggression and intense reaction, where people are not used to seeing things they disagree with and so when they do they react more violently. > Firms have a right to their property, and the choices of how they maximize revenue on it. Of course they do, but what this generally turns into in the modern age is 'The left doesnt like what the right have to say, block them plz". Then this turns into a political argument, when in fact one group of people just dont want to hear what a different group of people have to say because 'it offends them'. > I mean, should the head of a media firm be threatened by the Government or President, and forced to comply with their preferred style of gatekeeping? We have rules and laws to prevent this as it is recognised as being a threat.

intended 2y ago
>>> If their choices were unpopular, people would flock to alternatives. They don't. >What you are saying is actively happening right now. Oh. I am wrong. SO we don't need to enforce rules on free speech, People are able to choose who to interact with. >This is creating an extremely fragmented society, all creating their own bubble of what they want to see So we SHOULD enforce rules of free speech, because people dont want to hear what others are saying? So we should have free speech, but we should control listening? >We have rules and laws to prevent this as it is recognised as being a threat. Wait really? Someone is suing the President for threatening Meta/Zuckerberg? Who? Would you be on board with launching a lawsuit against a government which threatened a media firm ?
- alt227 2y ago
  To be honest, I have no idea what opinion you are trying to form here. You are twisting and turning my words all over the place and I am unable to gather your thoughts into a coherent point. You seem to be trying to pin me down to an opinion, and Im not really sure why. Do I, a random person on the internet, matter to you that much that you need to clarify my exact opinion on stuff?
  - intended 2y ago
    Sure, let me summarize. Your position: >Your position: >… t and 'protect' their audience from it. That IMO is anti free speech, as the 'protect' part of the term is abiguous/subjective and depends on the beliefs/opinions of the gatekeepers. Your position ignores the rights given to firms to run their business, and the choice of their speech via citizens united. Firms have a right to do what they please, as long as it is legal. You dont like what firms do. You want to make them behave a certain way. You are asking the government to force them to do so. This kills free speech. ——- The position that you set up, is inherently in contradiction to the norms of reality. I am a policy person and understand the trade offs here intimately, which is leading to me playing fast and loose, resulting in confusion. And yes - you matter to me. Why shouldn’t you? You seem intelligent, or if not, you value looking intelligent. It would be interesting to see how you resolve the contradiction that your position throws up. ———
    - alt227 2y ago
      Fair enough. > You want to make them behave a certain way. You are asking the government to force them to do so. Im actually not doing that. I dont know where I gave you that impression but I do not believe the government should force any company to allow full free speech on their commercial platform. > Your position ignores the rights given to firms to run their business, and the choice of their speech via citizens united. We are talking about twitter here in this context, which has been many times quoted as saying they are upholding free speech. The opinions you are referencing here apply to that company because that is what they state. Im not talking about all companies and their right to control what people say on their platforms, I feel this is more of an ideological discussion around Twitter/any social media which claims to uphold free speech in their public forum. Therefore the contradiction does not really exist IMO, because they are being held to their own values and not mine. Interesting thought experiment, I enjoyed chewing that over for a bit. Thanks :)
concordDance 2y ago
> This is creating an extremely fragmented society, all creating their own bubble of what they want to see It has always been thus. E.g. right wingers did not use twitter back in 2021. I will grant it's getting worse though... for instance, the battle here on hackernews between left and right has strongly intensified and it looks like the left will win the downvote/flagging war and the right will stop posting in (and reading) political threads.

by alt227 2y ago

intended 2y ago

>>> If their choices were unpopular, people would flock to alternatives. They don't. >What you are saying is actively happening right now. Oh. I am wrong. SO we don't need to enforce rules on free speech, People are able to choose who to interact with. >This is creating an extremely fragmented society, all creating their own bubble of what they want to see So we SHOULD enforce rules of free speech, because people dont want to hear what others are saying? So we should have free speech, but we should control listening? >We have rules and laws to prevent this as it is recognised as being a threat. Wait really? Someone is suing the President for threatening Meta/Zuckerberg? Who? Would you be on board with launching a lawsuit against a government which threatened a media firm ?

alt227 2y ago
To be honest, I have no idea what opinion you are trying to form here. You are twisting and turning my words all over the place and I am unable to gather your thoughts into a coherent point. You seem to be trying to pin me down to an opinion, and Im not really sure why. Do I, a random person on the internet, matter to you that much that you need to clarify my exact opinion on stuff?
- intended 2y ago
  Sure, let me summarize. Your position: >Your position: >… t and 'protect' their audience from it. That IMO is anti free speech, as the 'protect' part of the term is abiguous/subjective and depends on the beliefs/opinions of the gatekeepers. Your position ignores the rights given to firms to run their business, and the choice of their speech via citizens united. Firms have a right to do what they please, as long as it is legal. You dont like what firms do. You want to make them behave a certain way. You are asking the government to force them to do so. This kills free speech. ——- The position that you set up, is inherently in contradiction to the norms of reality. I am a policy person and understand the trade offs here intimately, which is leading to me playing fast and loose, resulting in confusion. And yes - you matter to me. Why shouldn’t you? You seem intelligent, or if not, you value looking intelligent. It would be interesting to see how you resolve the contradiction that your position throws up. ———
  - alt227 2y ago
    Fair enough. > You want to make them behave a certain way. You are asking the government to force them to do so. Im actually not doing that. I dont know where I gave you that impression but I do not believe the government should force any company to allow full free speech on their commercial platform. > Your position ignores the rights given to firms to run their business, and the choice of their speech via citizens united. We are talking about twitter here in this context, which has been many times quoted as saying they are upholding free speech. The opinions you are referencing here apply to that company because that is what they state. Im not talking about all companies and their right to control what people say on their platforms, I feel this is more of an ideological discussion around Twitter/any social media which claims to uphold free speech in their public forum. Therefore the contradiction does not really exist IMO, because they are being held to their own values and not mine. Interesting thought experiment, I enjoyed chewing that over for a bit. Thanks :)

concordDance 2y ago

> This is creating an extremely fragmented society, all creating their own bubble of what they want to see It has always been thus. E.g. right wingers did not use twitter back in 2021. I will grant it's getting worse though... for instance, the battle here on hackernews between left and right has strongly intensified and it looks like the left will win the downvote/flagging war and the right will stop posting in (and reading) political threads.