3 ms·

What? The far right is against free speech. They only ever screech about free speech when someone is experiencing social consequences. They whine about actual

What? The far right is against free speech. They only ever screech about free speech when someone is experiencing social consequences. They whine about actual Nazi rhetoric earning bans on private companies' platforms, then turn around and open investigations on people criticizing their masked police force. Attending protests gets you added to the terrorist watchlist.

rayiner 4mo ago
The proper response to that is to support free speech values in both circumstances. Otherwise, we’re just going to be fighting about the details of whether particular conduct falls within the letter of the free speech protections.
- Larrikin 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - fc417fc802 4mo ago
    [flagged]
- plagiarist 4mo ago
  My objection to their comment is that the right does not protect these values. I have zero idea what they're talking about contrasting against. They seem to be suggesting the center and left do not respect these rights and the far right does.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - fc417fc802 4mo ago
    Party A vaguely claims to support X but fails to do so in practice. Party B uses this to their advantage, making lots of noise about supporting X. Sure, maybe they won't follow through with that if elected but they're still scoring points while campaigning. If you are broadly aligned with party A and also feel quite strongly about X then this will be an objectionable situation all around.
- atmavatar 4mo ago
  There's a very important distinction to be made. Nazi rhetoric earning bans on private platforms happens because a large number of people organize in protest against such rhetoric. Advertisers see this and don't want to be associated with it, so the ad-driven platforms make the obvious choice to remove the Nazis. This is an example of people exercising their free speech and their often overlooked freedom of/from association. Nothing stops the Nazis from creating their own platform or buying out an existing one, which is why we have Gab, Truth Social, and X. They're also free to organize themselves and try convincing people to leave the platforms which banned them and/or convince advertisers to apply pressure to let them stay. You have to appreciate the absurdity of getting airtime on nearly every right wing media platform to complain about being silenced, though. Arguing private platforms should be forced to keep Nazi rhetoric around isn't meaningfully different from arguing I shouldn't be able to kick a guest out of my house when they start spouting intolerable bullshit.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
      I would absolutely draw a distinction between government enforced censorship and private platforms censoring content. Where it becomes a larger problem is if the private platform is an effective monopoly; using monopoly power to censor viewpoints would be a bad. Normally we would call a monopoly platform a common carrier and outlaw censorship by them.
      - CM30 4mo ago
        The issue is that there are plenty of large companies that are effectively censoring legal views, and making it harder for people to setup alternative platforms that support them. For example, Visa and Mastercard control much of the payment infrastructure used online, and have far stricter rules about the type of content they allow payments for than what many countries actually allow. Same with Paypal to some extent, or Cloudflare, or cloud hosting platforms like AWS.
- ben4next 4mo ago
  [dead]
cramer4next 4mo ago
[flagged]
- actionfromafar 4mo ago
  The feds hire the nazis now, that could have something to do with it.
  - cramer4next 4mo ago
    [flagged]

rayiner 4mo ago

The proper response to that is to support free speech values in both circumstances. Otherwise, we’re just going to be fighting about the details of whether particular conduct falls within the letter of the free speech protections.

Larrikin 4mo ago
[flagged]
- fc417fc802 4mo ago
  [flagged]
plagiarist 4mo ago
My objection to their comment is that the right does not protect these values. I have zero idea what they're talking about contrasting against. They seem to be suggesting the center and left do not respect these rights and the far right does.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- fc417fc802 4mo ago
  Party A vaguely claims to support X but fails to do so in practice. Party B uses this to their advantage, making lots of noise about supporting X. Sure, maybe they won't follow through with that if elected but they're still scoring points while campaigning. If you are broadly aligned with party A and also feel quite strongly about X then this will be an objectionable situation all around.
atmavatar 4mo ago
There's a very important distinction to be made. Nazi rhetoric earning bans on private platforms happens because a large number of people organize in protest against such rhetoric. Advertisers see this and don't want to be associated with it, so the ad-driven platforms make the obvious choice to remove the Nazis. This is an example of people exercising their free speech and their often overlooked freedom of/from association. Nothing stops the Nazis from creating their own platform or buying out an existing one, which is why we have Gab, Truth Social, and X. They're also free to organize themselves and try convincing people to leave the platforms which banned them and/or convince advertisers to apply pressure to let them stay. You have to appreciate the absurdity of getting airtime on nearly every right wing media platform to complain about being silenced, though. Arguing private platforms should be forced to keep Nazi rhetoric around isn't meaningfully different from arguing I shouldn't be able to kick a guest out of my house when they start spouting intolerable bullshit.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
    I would absolutely draw a distinction between government enforced censorship and private platforms censoring content. Where it becomes a larger problem is if the private platform is an effective monopoly; using monopoly power to censor viewpoints would be a bad. Normally we would call a monopoly platform a common carrier and outlaw censorship by them.
    - CM30 4mo ago
      The issue is that there are plenty of large companies that are effectively censoring legal views, and making it harder for people to setup alternative platforms that support them. For example, Visa and Mastercard control much of the payment infrastructure used online, and have far stricter rules about the type of content they allow payments for than what many countries actually allow. Same with Paypal to some extent, or Cloudflare, or cloud hosting platforms like AWS.
ben4next 4mo ago
[dead]

cramer4next 4mo ago

[flagged]

actionfromafar 4mo ago
The feds hire the nazis now, that could have something to do with it.
- cramer4next 4mo ago
  [flagged]