5 ms·

Hmm, I would have expected more outrage from the US "free speech absolutists" over this US government decision ;)

by flohofwoe 1mo ago

politician 1mo ago
Did you catch the part where A/I Collective is operated by foreign parties outside the US?
- Arainach 1mo ago
  If you believe in civil liberties as rights and ideals, your belief shouldn't stop at borders.
  - politician 1mo ago
    [flagged]
    - vrganj 1mo ago
      Do you think your country is the only one that thought of free speech? Your particular implementation is irrelevant, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by giving us a lecture on how some foreign country justifies their self-perception. That being said, it is somewhat humorous how you're confirming the stereotypes that apparently even that needs guns and violence over there somehow?
      - politician 1mo ago
        [flagged]
        Arainach 1mo ago
        > Hmm, I would have expected more outrage from the US "free speech absolutists" over this US government decision The crowd that claims to be in favor of free speech should be in favor of free speech for everyone, not just US citizens. This thread isn't about the government - it's about how HN's very vocal "free speech" crowd are actually libertarians who want to say awful things and not get called out rather than people who stand up for the concept of free speech in general.
        politician 1mo ago
        Why is my position invalid? I'm in favor of the exact type of free speech provided by the Bill of Rights for citizens of the USA, of which I am one, and that I do not care about the fantastical universal "for everyone" form of free speech that is being pushed on HN? Let your own countries defend their own "free speech" rights. The UN cannot defend it for you, and you cannot defend it for yourself.
        mitxela 1mo ago
        So you only care about things that benefit you?
        vrganj 1mo ago
        So basically your position is imperialism mixed with some weird provincial fetishization of some document, not being pro free speech? And you wonder why people consider that both ugly and simultaneously ridiculous?
    - lokar 1mo ago
      The Declaration of Independence, constitution and bill of rights aim to recognize and protect rights everyone is born with.
  - xienze 1mo ago
    Good point, we should also allow foreign organizations to contribute to US election campaigns and make Facebook ads because they might also believe in civil liberties as rights and ideals, uh... right?
    - mitxela 1mo ago
      [dead]
    - Arainach 1mo ago
      Money isn't speech.
      - x-complexity 1mo ago
        As you said yourself: > > If you believe in civil liberties as rights and ideals, your belief shouldn't stop at borders. If you believe in civil liberties as rights and ideals, your belief shouldn't stop at money. Either the right extends everywhere, including money, or it doesn't.
        Arainach 1mo ago
        That doesn't follow. It's OK to say you wish a politician was dead. It's not OK to pay someone to kill them. It's OK to say that you support some criminal activity (let's say Luigi), but it's not OK to offer direct financial support for their crimes.
        x-complexity 1mo ago
        > It's OK to say you wish a politician was dead. It's not OK to pay someone to kill them. Both actions are equivalent, as such words are (social and/or political) capital bounties offered to the masses in return for fulfilling the death of said politician. Capital always exists, even in the form of words. To deny a variant of capital whilst allowing another variant is inconsistent/doublespeak. Just because it's not printed onto a piece of denominated paper, doesn't mean that such capital doesn't exist.
- flohofwoe 1mo ago
  Funny, the same US "free speech absolutists" get upset about "censorship" outside the US (mostly in EU countries) all the time, so it would be completely on point.
  - Petersipoi 1mo ago
    I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. You seem to be saying the "free speech absolutists" getting upset about censorship in the EU is a bad thing. While, at the same time, saying them not getting upset about this is a bad thing. In criticizing their inconsistencies, you are highlighting and simultaneously missing your own inconsistencies.
    - rexpop 1mo ago
      This is not how accusations of hypocrisy work. I don't have to agree with any particular stance of yours in order to accuse you of hypocrisy.
  - mitxela 1mo ago
    [dead]
  - mitxela 1mo ago
    No E.U. censorship happened here and they're still legally allowed to operate in Italy. In the past they've been attacked by Italy several times and always won. This is a pure US threat against a pure European entity. It's like if France thought it could shut down Samsung - and then Samsung quit operating.
- kennywinker 1mo ago
  So free speech absolutists don't care about free speech, just free speech for americans on american soil? Not very absolutist then...
  - estearum 1mo ago
    "Free speech absolutists" demonstrably don't even care about free speech for Americans on American soil. "Free speech absolutism" is, in 99.9999% of cases, a euphemism for 1) holding abhorrent views and 2) being a gigantic fucking crybaby when someone criticizes you for them.
- overfeed 1mo ago
  The US free speech advocates had plenty to day about Julian Assange, an Australian stuck in the Ecuadorean embassy all the way across the Atlantic.
RIMR 1mo ago
Did you really though? I never understood the "free speech absolutists" to care about speech they disagreed with. They made it clear that they only accept "patriotic" speech a long time ago.
- Timon3 1mo ago
  That much was obvious for a long time to anyone paying attention. But I honestly believe that their success at newspeak-ing so many concepts was one of the final nails in America's coffin. I hope I'll live until their fascist phase ends & historians can properly investigate all the immoral and illegal ways they've been influencing the population. My prediction is that they've scaled Cambridge Analytica to a level that'll make you sick.
xoa 1mo ago
I'm a free speech absolutist (albeit one of apparently few people who actually knows what "free speech" is [0]) and I'm absolutely outraged and infuriated by this action and a long history of anti-speech actions by the USG, though this particular Administration is unprecedented in terms of censorship, general evil and authoritarianism in modern history. I also think it's unfortunate how many people in favor of all sorts of censorship now attack stawmen and treat something so vitally important as a joke like you have. The unseriousness you treat something incredibly serious with has become an endemic problem in our society, and directly inspires nihilism/fatalism/tribalism etc, feelings which in turn directly support authoritarianism. ---- 0: For example, if HN bans you, shadowbans you, makes your posts dead by default, flags, or downvotes, that's all free speech.
- pet_the_bird 1mo ago
  I am not sure I see a fundamental distinction between HN censoring your speech on their platform or the government preventing you from speaking in public. Both are censoring you right? Is the difference the fact that HN is free to regulate its own platform as it wants to? For a large part I see people using digital platforms as a primary method of expressing their thoughts and opinions. Governments in both the US and the EU have imposed restrictions on what platforms may host. I think we have not reconciled yet how to reinterpret free speech online. Im no expert on free speech, of free speech absolutism, so please let inform me :)
  - kurthr 1mo ago
    If I have a public platform and refuse to sponsor/publish/platform your speech, that is my free speech right! You don't have the right to force me to speak your words. Only the government is prohibited (by 1st amendment) from censoring/limiting speech (that does not cause or promote violence or injury to others). There are also some restrictions and protections also offered to the press (eg libel and defamation) and common carriers, along with the abomination of the DMCA. Personally, I don't consider paid speech to be free speech, and I don't consider corporations to by humans, but the supreme court does. Remember, facts aren't real, there is no truth, and crime is legal (in the current "Justice" Dept).
eikenberry 1mo ago
This is such a small blip in all the crap this administration is perpetrating that most are probably not aware of it or are drowned out in the rage over inflation, tariffs, wars, immigrants, etc.
- mitxela 1mo ago
  They shut down basically the entire global left wing blogging space since this group was hosting it.
vmg12 1mo ago
I hate to see this strawman every single time there is an attack on free speech. You are actually mocking the fight for free speech. You aren't attacking the hypocrites that only use it when convenient. The only purpose this rhetoric serves is to justify using the power of government to silence opponents the next time your side happens to be in power.
- nomel 1mo ago
  I think the ability for good concepts to be "tainted" by the opposition is the most dangerous manifestation of tribalism/group think, in modern society.
  - MelonArmiger 1mo ago
    Freeze peach was never a good concept. The libertarian Internet was a mistake and the world will be a better place when it's gone.
    - nomel 1mo ago
      I don't think I'm on the internet enough to understand what you're trying to say here.
      - MelonArmiger 1mo ago
        You haven't noticed real life?

Hmm, I would have expected more outrage from the US "free speech absolutists" over this US government decision ;)

politician 1mo ago

Did you catch the part where A/I Collective is operated by foreign parties outside the US?

Arainach 1mo ago
If you believe in civil liberties as rights and ideals, your belief shouldn't stop at borders.
- politician 1mo ago
  [flagged]
  - vrganj 1mo ago
    Do you think your country is the only one that thought of free speech? Your particular implementation is irrelevant, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by giving us a lecture on how some foreign country justifies their self-perception. That being said, it is somewhat humorous how you're confirming the stereotypes that apparently even that needs guns and violence over there somehow?
    - politician 1mo ago
      [flagged]
      - Arainach 1mo ago
        > Hmm, I would have expected more outrage from the US "free speech absolutists" over this US government decision The crowd that claims to be in favor of free speech should be in favor of free speech for everyone, not just US citizens. This thread isn't about the government - it's about how HN's very vocal "free speech" crowd are actually libertarians who want to say awful things and not get called out rather than people who stand up for the concept of free speech in general.
        politician 1mo ago
        Why is my position invalid? I'm in favor of the exact type of free speech provided by the Bill of Rights for citizens of the USA, of which I am one, and that I do not care about the fantastical universal "for everyone" form of free speech that is being pushed on HN? Let your own countries defend their own "free speech" rights. The UN cannot defend it for you, and you cannot defend it for yourself.
        mitxela 1mo ago
        So you only care about things that benefit you?
        vrganj 1mo ago
        So basically your position is imperialism mixed with some weird provincial fetishization of some document, not being pro free speech? And you wonder why people consider that both ugly and simultaneously ridiculous?
  - lokar 1mo ago
    The Declaration of Independence, constitution and bill of rights aim to recognize and protect rights everyone is born with.
- xienze 1mo ago
  Good point, we should also allow foreign organizations to contribute to US election campaigns and make Facebook ads because they might also believe in civil liberties as rights and ideals, uh... right?
  - mitxela 1mo ago
    [dead]
  - Arainach 1mo ago
    Money isn't speech.
    - x-complexity 1mo ago
      As you said yourself: > > If you believe in civil liberties as rights and ideals, your belief shouldn't stop at borders. If you believe in civil liberties as rights and ideals, your belief shouldn't stop at money. Either the right extends everywhere, including money, or it doesn't.
      - Arainach 1mo ago
        That doesn't follow. It's OK to say you wish a politician was dead. It's not OK to pay someone to kill them. It's OK to say that you support some criminal activity (let's say Luigi), but it's not OK to offer direct financial support for their crimes.
        x-complexity 1mo ago
        > It's OK to say you wish a politician was dead. It's not OK to pay someone to kill them. Both actions are equivalent, as such words are (social and/or political) capital bounties offered to the masses in return for fulfilling the death of said politician. Capital always exists, even in the form of words. To deny a variant of capital whilst allowing another variant is inconsistent/doublespeak. Just because it's not printed onto a piece of denominated paper, doesn't mean that such capital doesn't exist.
flohofwoe 1mo ago
Funny, the same US "free speech absolutists" get upset about "censorship" outside the US (mostly in EU countries) all the time, so it would be completely on point.
- Petersipoi 1mo ago
  I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. You seem to be saying the "free speech absolutists" getting upset about censorship in the EU is a bad thing. While, at the same time, saying them not getting upset about this is a bad thing. In criticizing their inconsistencies, you are highlighting and simultaneously missing your own inconsistencies.
  - rexpop 1mo ago
    This is not how accusations of hypocrisy work. I don't have to agree with any particular stance of yours in order to accuse you of hypocrisy.
- mitxela 1mo ago
  [dead]
- mitxela 1mo ago
  No E.U. censorship happened here and they're still legally allowed to operate in Italy. In the past they've been attacked by Italy several times and always won. This is a pure US threat against a pure European entity. It's like if France thought it could shut down Samsung - and then Samsung quit operating.
kennywinker 1mo ago
So free speech absolutists don't care about free speech, just free speech for americans on american soil? Not very absolutist then...
- estearum 1mo ago
  "Free speech absolutists" demonstrably don't even care about free speech for Americans on American soil. "Free speech absolutism" is, in 99.9999% of cases, a euphemism for 1) holding abhorrent views and 2) being a gigantic fucking crybaby when someone criticizes you for them.
overfeed 1mo ago
The US free speech advocates had plenty to day about Julian Assange, an Australian stuck in the Ecuadorean embassy all the way across the Atlantic.

RIMR 1mo ago

Did you really though? I never understood the "free speech absolutists" to care about speech they disagreed with. They made it clear that they only accept "patriotic" speech a long time ago.

Timon3 1mo ago
That much was obvious for a long time to anyone paying attention. But I honestly believe that their success at newspeak-ing so many concepts was one of the final nails in America's coffin. I hope I'll live until their fascist phase ends & historians can properly investigate all the immoral and illegal ways they've been influencing the population. My prediction is that they've scaled Cambridge Analytica to a level that'll make you sick.

xoa 1mo ago

I'm a free speech absolutist (albeit one of apparently few people who actually knows what "free speech" is [0]) and I'm absolutely outraged and infuriated by this action and a long history of anti-speech actions by the USG, though this particular Administration is unprecedented in terms of censorship, general evil and authoritarianism in modern history. I also think it's unfortunate how many people in favor of all sorts of censorship now attack stawmen and treat something so vitally important as a joke like you have. The unseriousness you treat something incredibly serious with has become an endemic problem in our society, and directly inspires nihilism/fatalism/tribalism etc, feelings which in turn directly support authoritarianism. ---- 0: For example, if HN bans you, shadowbans you, makes your posts dead by default, flags, or downvotes, that's all free speech.

pet_the_bird 1mo ago
I am not sure I see a fundamental distinction between HN censoring your speech on their platform or the government preventing you from speaking in public. Both are censoring you right? Is the difference the fact that HN is free to regulate its own platform as it wants to? For a large part I see people using digital platforms as a primary method of expressing their thoughts and opinions. Governments in both the US and the EU have imposed restrictions on what platforms may host. I think we have not reconciled yet how to reinterpret free speech online. Im no expert on free speech, of free speech absolutism, so please let inform me :)
- kurthr 1mo ago
  If I have a public platform and refuse to sponsor/publish/platform your speech, that is my free speech right! You don't have the right to force me to speak your words. Only the government is prohibited (by 1st amendment) from censoring/limiting speech (that does not cause or promote violence or injury to others). There are also some restrictions and protections also offered to the press (eg libel and defamation) and common carriers, along with the abomination of the DMCA. Personally, I don't consider paid speech to be free speech, and I don't consider corporations to by humans, but the supreme court does. Remember, facts aren't real, there is no truth, and crime is legal (in the current "Justice" Dept).

eikenberry 1mo ago

This is such a small blip in all the crap this administration is perpetrating that most are probably not aware of it or are drowned out in the rage over inflation, tariffs, wars, immigrants, etc.

mitxela 1mo ago
They shut down basically the entire global left wing blogging space since this group was hosting it.

vmg12 1mo ago

I hate to see this strawman every single time there is an attack on free speech. You are actually mocking the fight for free speech. You aren't attacking the hypocrites that only use it when convenient. The only purpose this rhetoric serves is to justify using the power of government to silence opponents the next time your side happens to be in power.

nomel 1mo ago
I think the ability for good concepts to be "tainted" by the opposition is the most dangerous manifestation of tribalism/group think, in modern society.
- MelonArmiger 1mo ago
  Freeze peach was never a good concept. The libertarian Internet was a mistake and the world will be a better place when it's gone.
  - nomel 1mo ago
    I don't think I'm on the internet enough to understand what you're trying to say here.
    - MelonArmiger 1mo ago
      You haven't noticed real life?