This is something people have to relearn over and over again.
A lot of the people who are not upset with Meta limiting opinions and
content related to the war in Gaza¹.
Were gloating and happy when Meta limited opinions and content from
right wing politicians² not so long ago.
Once you invite censorship for content you dont like, how can you expect
it wont bite you in the ass later on.
This is why freedom of speech is an important principle.
That overshadows how someone "feels" about speech.
Everyone is in favor of freedom of speech.
""Dictators such as Stalin and Hitler, were in favor of freedom of speech
for views they liked only.
If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of
freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."
-Noam Chomsky
Slightly related though originating from a different context.
First they came for the socialists,
and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller
Which in this context I use it to highlight that the protection of freedom
of speech is not something you can ignore because you dont care about
a topic.
One must speak out against censorship and against limiting freedom of speech,
whenever it is being limited.
If we dont, then it becomes a bit more limited, and a little bit more,
and eventually it will strike upon something you do care about,
and it is far too late to speak up.
¹,² For this post I am assuming this is accurate.
But i cannot prove either.
While I agree that one's views on censorship should not be based on whether one agrees or disagrees with the views presently impacted, I don't think your comparisons are reasonable for multiple reasons:
- Stalin and Hitler were _state_ censorship, where the state itself (and its heavy-handed use of force) were used to silence dissent. Meta is not a state, and Meta is not itself using force.
- When Niemöller says "they came for ...", he doesn't mean shadow-banning social media accounts. Silencing accounts on social media isn't _nothing_ but it's also definitely not equivalent to being sent to a prison camp.
- I think there is a legitimate broader question about what "censorship" should mean when talking about companies whose products involve communication. A requirement that user-provided messages should have equal reach irrespective of what they're saying seems to is in tension with the firm having its own freedom to not put certain things on their screens, on pages with their branding.
> One must speak out against censorship and against limiting freedom of speech, whenever it is being limited.
- I also think there's a legitimate question of whether people have a right to spread false information, including deliberate misinformation, irrespective of the platform. Claims that a chemical is medically effective in treating a specific disease need to be backed by clinical evidence. Intentionally lying to harm someone's reputation is defamation. "Censorship" in the form of "you can't criticize The Party" or "you can't publish that novel with its dangerous ideas" seems pretty different from "you can't say that your horse drug treats covid". Perhaps all viewpoints should have the same freedoms of expression, but we don't get to have our own facts. One can have principled reasons for believing that not all speech should be equally free.
I don't think the question will land on the issue if people have a right to spread false information. Instead the big question will be if people have a right to decide which information is false and which is not. If people do not have this right, and we instead want a small elected people to have a exclusive right to define which information is false, then what form of process should those people be elected.
A common argument of anti-censorship advocacy is to only allow censorship if a court of law has agrees to it, and then only if that law is identical in every country. Only then do we have a direct link between elected people who has mandate to define what is true and what is false.
With the covid chemical in question one should ask why the person who suggested horse drugs was not charged and found guilty in the country where they reside. Why did the law allow people to provide harmful medical advice in time of a pandemic?
I used to believe this, but the sad reality of modern society is that the current "meta" is suppressing viewpoints that damage society from your point of view, and if you decide not to play the meta by, say, opting for carte blanche free speech, others who have damaging views that actively harm your position will embrace this "meta" instead and YOUR views will eventually be suppressed (see Karens flooding local school boards to get basic LGBT literature banned, who have no problem being hypocritical about the fact that they just want to censor things they disagree with but will leave literal Nazi literature alone). It's an arms race of who can control the dialogue and get their views in front of the most eyeballs, unfortunately, and if you fail to see it that way, you will lose.
In the face of fascism, restraint in the name of principles make you weaker than the fascist.
>The sad reality of modern society is that the current "meta" is suppressing viewpoints that damage society from your point of view,
My viewpoint is freedom of speech regardless of my opinion of it, or yours.
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
― George Orwell
> If you decide not to play the meta by, say, opting for carte blanche free speech, others who have damaging views that actively harm your position will embrace this "meta"
My viewpoint is freedom of speech regardless of my opinion of it, or yours.
If people express viewpoints I do not agree with I will fight for their right to say it. That is what freedom of speech means.
Which is why ACLU defended a Nazi group´s right to protest.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
― S.G. Tallentyre, The Friends of Voltaire
I dont care who is doing the burning, nor why they are doing it.
People burning or banning books is the antithesis of freedom of speech.
Something I clearly reject.
>. It's an arms race of who can control the dialogue and get their views in front of the most eyeballs, unfortunately, and if you fail to see it that way, you will lose. In the face of fascism, restraint in the name of principles make you weaker than the fascist.
You appear to advocate that your opinion of the world must be the true opinion, and thus, needs to be enforced and dissent silenced lest our nation becomes "facist"¹
This means that you become the arbiter of what is truth and what is not.
What is harmfull or not.
Or yu delegate this ot the state, or to private corporations or all of the above.
That is the definition of an autocracy in my opinion.
You would probably be more comfortable in Saudi Arabia where dissent is
dealt with in a proactive manner.
“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”
-- Oscar Wilde
The position you have about this topic serves the status quo of corporations and advertisers deciding on what speech is acceptable. That is the status quo today with the major tech platforms. Personally I find it detestable. And you'd find your viewpoints a bit extreme in countries around the world. Nazi speech in Germany is banned for a good reason and is popular with the populace.
And sharing quotes by long dead authors is hardly relevant to the systems we've built today which reward inflammatory speech for the sake of monetizing eyeballs. Personally I find that more dystopian than setting some rules for engagement about how you discuss sensitive topics, like we have here on HN. But that's expensive to do so these platforms just deplatform such content no matter how inflammatory or neutrally it is presented.
Freedom of speech is drastically compromised when there's a lower and lower ceiling of freedom of thought. Meta or any platform limiting speech is a 2x "win" because it also limits further proliferation of such ideas.
That is, people can't think what they aren't aware of. People can't change their minds when the alternatives are limited.
Even here there are some thoughts you are not allowed to voice. And I’m not just talking about violence/etc but calling out ideas too vigorously etc will get you censored here too. “Flamewar style” is the trope used to justify it.
and in general this site also has a massive trend of people who are losing a debate leaning in to rules-lawyering as a means of suppressing disagreement etc.
“sorry sir you’re not allowed to mention that they didn’t read the literally-one-line parent comment and are replying to the exact opposite of the argument it’s making! Flagged my good sir, this is a forum for civil debate!”
A truly open and free debate includes the freedom to point out that the moon is not made of cheese and in fact I do think less of you for arguing that it is. But that’s back to the “flamewar style”. In reality not everyone is engaging in good faith or isn’t just part of some shitty bandwagon/etc and banning the ability to call that out just lowers the debate, because now it becomes a deliberate strategy that is formed by the rules themselves. Gameplaying rules-lawyering maximalists will ruin anything.
at some level, anti-censorship and curation are fundamentally opposed goals. You can’t have a high level of discourse and also be covering 101-level or incoherent arguments. And attempting to do so produces a false equivalence which results in worse outcomes for truth-seeking. The moon is not made of green cheese and it’s a waste of everyone’s time to rebut that in every single thread, against someone who doesn’t want to admit that it’s an incoherent position.
> and in general this site also has a massive trend of people who are losing a debate leaning in to rules-lawyering as a means of suppressing disagreement etc.
Is this specific to or more prevalent on this site though? Seems like common human/business behaviour. If you can’t win on merit, win on technicality, etc.
You're correct, it is common. However, it's the sell. That is, HN sells itself on not being The Common; perhaps even better than The Common. So the irony is, those defaulting to such nonsense should be the ones being down voted (for violating the community standard), and instead they take up the role of The Down Vote Police and/or disingenuous countering arguments.
I do agree with your synopses of HN. It's good and exceptional, until it's not. Then it drops of the cliff of being sound and reasonable.
Regardless, I remain fearless. That is, down votes don't stop me from expressing myself. In fact, often enough the DVs are vindication in the sense I know they didn't take the time to consider the idea(s). "This doesn't fit my oversimplified paradigm...down vote!!!" The actusl possible merit of the idea never given a chance.
I agree with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas that Congress should consider extending common carrier rules to large social media platforms and force them to carry all legal content. This would in a sense be a form of "compelled speech" in that those companies would have to expend resources to distribute communicates that their management finds objectionable, but at scale the marginal costs would be virtually zero. And they would still be able to give individual users the tools to filter out or block content that they don't want to see.
Unworkable.
Relevancy neutrality is unworkable.
Think his idea through.
Justice Thomas is not an independent thinker. Justice Scalia was an independent thinker, justice Thomas is malleable by the conservative Zeitgeist. Please take his ideas with a grain of salt.
Those at both sides of the political horseshoe [1] want it this way, and do not believe the pendulum will swing out of their favor.
The best way to enshrine this in society is with new legislation to protect our means of communication (won't happen) or robust P2P social protocols (also probably won't happen).
Remember that the ACLU used to defend everyone. Even distasteful groups such as the KKK, neo-Nazis, Nation of Islam, NAMBLA, Westboro Baptist Church. And that's what it takes to defend free speech. Defending even the speech and the people you don't like.
There needs to be a a new button on the various social media channels. One click and it fills a reply with:
"One can advocate for the Palestinian State and the rights of its people, seeking a peaceful and fair resolution to the conflict, without being aligned with Hamas.
Furthermore, employing a false dichotomy, where one is either labeled as a supporter of a cause or, or that of an extremist group, is counter-productive. It oversimplifies complex issues and stifles meaningful dialogue."
Not to the same degree or extent… the departure from reality and rejection of any facts they don’t like, rejection of scientific thinking, is waaaaay way more of a right wing problem.
If you provided the sources it would help to atleast have a productive discussion of the merits of that point of view. Without the sources it just sounds like you don't like right-wing politicians.
While that is true, I have found that quoting sources doesn’t particularly help unless people are already inclined to believe me, so it just wastes my time to find them every time.
Might be cynical, but ultimately I don’t really believe I can change any minds just with a comment. If you ask why I make the comment in the first place then, that’s a good question.
That is quite understandable. I don't think you not wanting to waste your time finding sources is cynical. The part about not believing minds can be changed might be a bit cynical, but probably warranted given the state of online discourse today. I'd suggest tho not looking at it as trying to change anyone's mind so much as having just a productive discussion where all parties involved learn something, e.g. with sources being explicit there's prly details that would be learned on both sides. Anyway, happy holidays
A lot of the people who are not upset with Meta limiting opinions and content related to the war in Gaza¹. Were gloating and happy when Meta limited opinions and content from right wing politicians² not so long ago.
Once you invite censorship for content you dont like, how can you expect it wont bite you in the ass later on.
This is why freedom of speech is an important principle. That overshadows how someone "feels" about speech.
Everyone is in favor of freedom of speech. ""Dictators such as Stalin and Hitler, were in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." -Noam Chomsky
Slightly related though originating from a different context.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller
Which in this context I use it to highlight that the protection of freedom of speech is not something you can ignore because you dont care about a topic. One must speak out against censorship and against limiting freedom of speech, whenever it is being limited. If we dont, then it becomes a bit more limited, and a little bit more, and eventually it will strike upon something you do care about, and it is far too late to speak up.
¹,² For this post I am assuming this is accurate. But i cannot prove either.