6 ms·
We don't want a legal government apparatus in place for determining what can be said on the internet. The first thing that will happen is the categories of thi
by laughing_man 9mo ago
We don't want a legal government apparatus in place for determining what can be said on the internet. The first thing that will happen is the categories of things you can't say will slowly start to expand to include everything that threatens the power of the government. What happened during covid is bad enough.
If your reaction to "hate speech" is to get the government to remove the speaker from the internet, what you're doing is more dangerous, in the long run, than the speech you don't like.
- _vqpz 9mo agoSo what suggestion do you have for people who don't want to deal with hate speech on platforms if the platforms won't do anything because it cuts into their bottom line?
- ozlikethewizard 9mo agoI'd suggest they stop using the platforms. Probably the best decision I ever made, never looked back.
- laughing_man 9mo ago[flagged]
- _vqpz 9mo agoDo you think there should be any kind of moderation for hate speech?
- MrMember 9mo agoFrom the government? Absolutely not.
- _vqpz 9mo agoNo, and I was not asking you
- afpx 9mo agoThe people of the world seem to underestimate how important free speech is to the typical US citizen. No one else in the world has free speech rights. We view it as very important to have. What this allows: - Hate speech (non-violent) - Holocaust/genocide denial - Blasphemy and religious mockery - Insulting leaders, judges, and the state - Burning flags and national symbols - Abstract praise of extremist ideologies - Offensive political misinformation - Harsh personal insults (non-defamatory) - Publishing leaked material - Advocacy of civil disobedience in the abstract An outsider many view that as going "too far", but you limit one, it's the path to limiting them all.
- mdhb 9mo agoThis is just such a ridiculous joke in 2026 that nobody outside the US and many inside it could continue to take the idea that the US has any actual interest in free speech as a principled argument. We have all just watched for the last decade the people who cried the loudest about it immediately do a 180 the moment they got the political power to practice it. I can’t think of a single prominent “free speech absolutist” who didn’t fail this test miserably and immediately. So no, I don’t actually believe that the US values it above all else, I think that’s some bullshit that people say because they are only interested in the idea that they personally can say and do whatever they feel like and it doesn’t extend beyond that in practice.
- karmakurtisaani 9mo agoThe free speech absolutist is such a hilarious caricature these days. "I might not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it!" Well, as long as it's hateful and not woke or about (shivers in disgust) labor unions.
- afpx 9mo agoYou seem pretty upset. I get how it's difficult to think when one has high anxiety. But, when one slows down a little bit, it makes more sense.
- laughing_man 9mo agoNo, except what the site owner wants to do to foster a particular type of community.
- cmxch 9mo agoNot from a government, or with any power, influence, or assistance imparted by government to effect or enforce it.
- foldr 9mo ago> If your reaction to "hate speech" is to get the government to remove the speaker from the internet, what you're doing is more dangerous, in the long run, than the speech you don't like. My natural sympathies lie with this position, but is it evidence based? At least currently, more problems seem to be caused by disinformation and hate speech than are caused by government censorship (at least in the US and EU). That’s not to say that the dangers associated with disinformation and hate speech necessarily justify censoring them (any more than the dangers associated with alcohol necessarily justified prohibition), but if the argument for an absolutist stance on free speech is going to be the consequentialist argument that it’s the less dangerous option, then this has to be evaluated empirically.
- laughing_man 9mo agoHow do you propose to evaluate something like that empirically?
- foldr 9mo agoOk, maybe 'empirically' was a bit pompous. What I meant is, if you're saying that X is more dangerous than Y, then that's not a pure statement of principle, it's a claim about the real world. Right now, we're seeing a pretty big advertisement for the dangers of disinformation and hate speech, whereas political discourse in the US and EU remains pretty open. You could say that this is a blip and that in the long run, any form of censorship is more dangerous. But I think someone making your argument should at least acknowledge that present circumstances might appear to refute it.
- laughing_man 9mo agoI don't see hate speech and disinformation as much of a danger. There are plenty of countervailing voices on the internet. And we have plenty of evidence from literally all of human history on the dangers of censorship. Totalitarianism and free speech can't coexist.
- 9mo ago
- dyauspitr 9mo agoWho is we? I do want exactly that.
- laughing_man 9mo agoYou want to live under a totalitarian government?
- dyauspitr 9mo agoWe already are.
- laughing_man 9mo agoThat's ridiculous.
- dyauspitr 9mo agoWhat’s more totalitarian than going door-to-door and breaking in without a warrant in violation of the fourth amendment?
- laughing_man 9mo agoWhere is this happening?
- dyauspitr 9mo agoMinnesota https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-immigration-us-citizen-detained-hmong-d009590a491c0c8243ef21ef24db7182 https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-immigration-us-citizen-...
- laughing_man 9mo agoICE says he was living with two child molesters for whom they did have warrants.