| |
| ▲ | techblueberry 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | No one is trying to regulate speech. And actually, the traditional solution was a duel to the death. | | |
| ▲ | twoodfin 2 days ago | parent [-] | | What else could “at some point we limit your freedom of expression” possibly mean? | | |
| ▲ | troad 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, such a coherent argument: "no one is trying to restrict your speech, and if they were it would be good actually." There are people who just can't admit to themselves they actually hate free speech. Because they're people who've never needed it. They've never been abolitionists speaking against slavery, or civil rights leaders speaking against apartheid - whether in South Africa or the American South. They've never been gay people fighting for equality, or trans people fighting to survive. They've never been an unfavoured minority - ethnic, religious, sexual, linguistic, what have you. They don't need free speech, so why should you? Everyone else already has all the rights that they could possibly want or need, so as far as they're concerned, all these people are needlessly disruptive to the public order. So they maintain a fiction of collectivism, in reality a majoritarian hegemony, while silencing anyone who'd speak out against it. They can't quite bring themselves to say they oppose free speech, but they act in practice to undermine it. It is a contemptible stance. Somewhere out there is a young lesbian in Russia finding her people on social media, a young atheist in Saudi Arabia making friends online. And the majority is as ever ready to throw the most vulnerable under the bus, so that they, the majority, don't need to take a modicum of responsibility for their own idle doomscrolling. And if they need to whip up a moral panic to do so, fine. More efficient that way, helps override people's rationality. | | |
| ▲ | techblueberry 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Somewhere out there is a young lesbian in Russia finding her people on social media, a young atheist in Saudi Arabia making friends online.. The real problem is, the oppression of these people is already happening. Mark Zuckerberg is not your friend and he’s come out saying he wants to make it harder for LGBTQ+ youth to find each other and be safe online. Idle doomscrolling is not the problem, monopolization and the lack of real choice is. You really want young women looking for information on abortion to be connected to anti-abortion support groups? Young gay folks to be sent conversion therapy literature, that young lesbian in Russia to be turned into the police? This isn’t speculation, it’s happening now. Your ideals are noble, but you’re trying to protect something we’ve already lost. The days when social media was owned by folks pretending to be in the left are long gone. | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | techblueberry a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’m not one of those people, I hate free speech. Also, wtf are you on about, none of the people you mentioned need infinite scroll and addictive algorithms to connect with eachother. Aside from the fact that these social media companies have LITERALLY put their finger on the lever to prevent the kind of people you’re talking about from connecting with eachother! If you want to defend those people then what we need is better protocols and platforms, not giant trillion dollar companies with three people in control of speech. There is zero excuse to defend addictive algorithms with “but won’t you think of the underprivileged” | | |
| ▲ | troad 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure, kiddo. I'm sure sweeping regulations of social media won't have any consequences on people's ability to express themselves. I'm sure all these regulations will be well tailored and have absolutely no overreach. And I'm sure a pliant, non-E2E-encrypted, non-anonymous social media will be super safe for oppressed minorities in the hands of the Saudi, Russian, etc authorities. (Or authorities closer to home, if things go even more pear-shaped for minorities than they already are.) > I’m not one of those people, I hate free speech. Cool. Then we have nothing to talk about. I'm not trying to win you over in some fetishistic 'debate me bro' manner. Your stated ideology is deeply hostile to my existential needs, as part of a fragile minority that exists at the sufferance of the majority. If you're openly seeking to destroy free speech, then I don't require your agreement, I require your defeat. "Debate me bro" is a luxury reserved for privileged teenagers on Reddit with nothing at stake, including you, as is apparent from your blithe dismissal of civil rights that made it possible for me to exist in the modern world at all. | | |
| ▲ | techblueberry 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Social media is already in the hands of all those folks. Saudi Arabia was an investor in Twitter. Zuckerberg is literally an advisor to the president. All your worst fears are coming true! You’ve already lost your freedom of speech. Fight to get it back! https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/facebooks-discriminat... At some point I think we’re going to regulate these social media companies and it won’t be perfect, but similar to cigarettes we’ll figure it out and it will be largely fine. Have we all become reaganites internalizing his "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"? We’re going to start needing a definition of freedom of speech that includes corporations, because we’re already in a world where they don’t need the states help to censor you. I’m not even confident the governments monopoly on violence is long for this world if Peter Thiel gets his way. | | | |
| ▲ | 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | intended 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The traditional solution worked for traditional problems. I suspect most people don’t remember WHY free speech itself is valued. It’s often treated in a talismanic sense. At least in America, a good part of the value of Free speech comes because it is a fundamental building block to having a vibrant market place of ideas. Since no one has a monopoly on truth, our best model is to have a fair competitive market place that allows good ideas to thrive, even if they are uncomfortable. The traditional risk to the free exchange of ideas was government control; the suppression of trade. However, in the era we live in, we have evolved to find ways to shape the market through market capture. Through overwhelming the average user, instead of controlling speech. Bannon called this “flooding the zone”. The traditional solution ensured a working and vibrant marketplace for its era. I don’t know what tools we will develop for the modern era. Do note, we depend on content moderation to keep forums like HN running. The fundamental power of content moderation is censorship. Without the exercise of these censorial powers, we would not be able to have this discussion. |
|
