Running an invisible forum with no engagement didn't even bring them close to the actual problems of running social media. When you're twitter or facebook, you literally have the FBI meeting with you regularly to censor speech.
There will always be people who want to take away your freedom of speech; especially other countries. Any exception to freedom of speech basically can never be weaponized. "Hate Speech" is readily and easily weaponized against your political opponents.
Everyone gets the right to speak or nobody does. Which is what we have right now. I realize where this post shall go.
A democracy where you cannot speak to your political opponents is a democracy doomed to collapse.
Harrasment, doxing, threats, intimidation; there's all sorts of perfectly legal ways (or illegal-but-never-prosecuted ways, which count as "legal") to make people decide it's simply not worth saying certain things.
Intimidation is the act of using threats - direct and indirect - humiliation, embarrassment & co. to make other people too fearful to perform actions which they would otherwise be free to engage in.
For that, speech is usually more than enough, especially if performed by a large ingroup against a small outgroup.
Oh, ok. But, I thought they were referring to the term freedom of speech as in the first amendment (not includes obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and the advocacy of imminent lawless action) because they've given an example of cyberbullying
"I'll doxx you if you don't shut up"? Or, more generally, a constant barrage of things like "kill yourself" or "you're a [insert slur here]", which doesn't rise to a First Amendment violation but definitely has the effect of silencing people?
That's how non physical bullying and cyberbullying works.
How?
edit: you've just picked another (tautological) form of speech for which you're not explaining how it suppresses the freedom of others to speak. The question-begging word "bullying" here is the hint. The "bully" would refer to it as commentary, not bullying.
Can Donald Trump be bullied? Can a racist mass shooter? "Bullying" is a value judgement.
Definitely a prisoner's dilemma .. an applicable take on where all this is going is Popper's Paradox Of Tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance). Not sure that Elon and many other seemingly well-intended social media free-speech advocates fully grasp the implications of this.
Definitely a prisoner's dilemma .. an applicable take on where all this is going is Popper's Paradox Of Tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance). Not sure that Elon and many other seemingly well-intended social media free-speech advocates fully grasp the implications of this.
In terms of paradox of tolerance. Even in the USA, there are limits on free speech.
You cant advocate for violence in the USA. Not only is this not protected by free speech, it's a crime.
The assertion of "tolerance without limit" doesnt apply. There's your limits right there.
Elon's twitter never changed this rule. You may not advocate for violence on twitter. This is not in contradiction with Elon's free speech absolutism.
What's important to understand is say Reddit who has eliminated free speech. What do you earn? You earn echo chambers, you divide your populous. You never solve your problems. Each side sees only the worst of the other side. Nobody talks to each other again. Political polarization is 100% because of no free speech on social media.
You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks.
I'm shadow banned and flagged on HN so I can't respond to you until it's lifted. Guess it was more than a 1 hour ban. Imagine attempting to have a conversation on HN and not being able to reply
Good ole -10, goto jail for me. Thanks prisoners dilemma.
How ironic, but not surprising. What a waste of time. So long and thanks for all the fish.
You can actually advocate violence legally in the US, just not as directly as you might want to. Talk to a lawyer first. Some of the key things to remember are that you don't mention a time or place of what you want to happen, and leave the details of exactly who's going to do it and what the specific action is a bit fuzzy.
Comments
Running an invisible forum with no engagement didn't even bring them close to the actual problems of running social media. When you're twitter or facebook, you literally have the FBI meeting with you regularly to censor speech.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62688532
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files
Democracy is a bit of a prisoner's dilemma.
There will always be people who want to take away your freedom of speech; especially other countries. Any exception to freedom of speech basically can never be weaponized. "Hate Speech" is readily and easily weaponized against your political opponents.
Everyone gets the right to speak or nobody does. Which is what we have right now. I realize where this post shall go.
A democracy where you cannot speak to your political opponents is a democracy doomed to collapse.
Freedom of speech itself can be used to hinder others freedom of speech.
I've never seen anyone say this before. Could you elaborate how? Like speaking over someone so they may not speak?
Harrasment, doxing, threats, intimidation; there's all sorts of perfectly legal ways (or illegal-but-never-prosecuted ways, which count as "legal") to make people decide it's simply not worth saying certain things.
Intimidation is the act of using threats - direct and indirect - humiliation, embarrassment & co. to make other people too fearful to perform actions which they would otherwise be free to engage in.
For that, speech is usually more than enough, especially if performed by a large ingroup against a small outgroup.
That's how non physical bullying and cyberbullying works.
That's one of the reasons the whole hate speech topic became an issue.
I can't seem to make the connection here.
If everyone is free to speak their minds, how can it be used to silence others?
Even more improbable in the context of cyberbullying. Tyler the Creator's cyberbullying tweet appears to be more relevant than this take.
Obvious example: “I’ll kill you if you don’t shut up.”
Oh, ok. But, I thought they were referring to the term freedom of speech as in the first amendment (not includes obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and the advocacy of imminent lawless action) because they've given an example of cyberbullying
"I'll doxx you if you don't shut up"? Or, more generally, a constant barrage of things like "kill yourself" or "you're a [insert slur here]", which doesn't rise to a First Amendment violation but definitely has the effect of silencing people?
Imagine dozens of people calling every comment you make wrong, unprofessional or dumb.
There aren't many people for whom this would have no effect on the nature and quantity of their comments.
How?
edit: you've just picked another (tautological) form of speech for which you're not explaining how it suppresses the freedom of others to speak. The question-begging word "bullying" here is the hint. The "bully" would refer to it as commentary, not bullying.
Can Donald Trump be bullied? Can a racist mass shooter? "Bullying" is a value judgement.
https://www.wtps.org/cms/lib8/NJ01912980/Centricity/Domain/7...
I think people who kill themselves are pretty much finally suppressed in their freedom of speech.
Definitely a prisoner's dilemma .. an applicable take on where all this is going is Popper's Paradox Of Tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance). Not sure that Elon and many other seemingly well-intended social media free-speech advocates fully grasp the implications of this.
We simply cannot tolerate those who think that the government should have a hand in suppressing political speech.
In terms of paradox of tolerance. Even in the USA, there are limits on free speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
You cant advocate for violence in the USA. Not only is this not protected by free speech, it's a crime.
The assertion of "tolerance without limit" doesnt apply. There's your limits right there.
Elon's twitter never changed this rule. You may not advocate for violence on twitter. This is not in contradiction with Elon's free speech absolutism.
What's important to understand is say Reddit who has eliminated free speech. What do you earn? You earn echo chambers, you divide your populous. You never solve your problems. Each side sees only the worst of the other side. Nobody talks to each other again. Political polarization is 100% because of no free speech on social media.
I'm shadow banned and flagged on HN so I can't respond to you until it's lifted. Guess it was more than a 1 hour ban. Imagine attempting to have a conversation on HN and not being able to reply
Good ole -10, goto jail for me. Thanks prisoners dilemma.
How ironic, but not surprising. What a waste of time. So long and thanks for all the fish.
You can actually advocate violence legally in the US, just not as directly as you might want to. Talk to a lawyer first. Some of the key things to remember are that you don't mention a time or place of what you want to happen, and leave the details of exactly who's going to do it and what the specific action is a bit fuzzy.