Banning people isn't for the benefit of those getting banned. It's for the other people that are tired of their bullshit. It's about controlling the tone and civility of discussions.
You can choose the discussions you participate in, or should be able to (and yes Twitter should make this easier). And you should be able to express yourself even if people think you're a jerk.
Alternatively, others should be able to choose the discussions they wish to participate in, which may involve people you think are jerks.
Twitter makes it easy for anyone to say anything about anyone, and it also pushes those comments to that person. This is both the amazing thing and the Achille's heel of that system.
You can block someone, but that's too late, it's retroactive. If their goal was to insult you, mission accomplished, no obstacles.
In the case of Milo he'd encourage people to go and harass others which meant you'd spend hours and hours blocking people, they'd basically DDOS your Twitter account.
Is this acceptable behaviour? Is this something to be encouraged by not punishing it?
I don't think you realize what a lightning rod some people become through no fault of their own. That you've never been struck is simply a matter of luck or not being one of the common target groups.
Remember: Not having a Twitter account doesn't mean you can't express yourself. You didn't get kicked off the internet. You're not barred from making sites or publishing your thoughts on innumerable other places.
> Twitter ... also pushes those comments to that person.
Yes. They should fix that (if these recent changes haven't yet done that). I've had one of the worst mornings of my life in the last year when I criticised a new browser API and the author of the API refused to stop mentioning me for an hour despite being asked repeatedly to stop. Having to turn off your phone because a high profile person is angry at you is awful. Having people threaten you or publish your contact details is much worse.
Who draws the line between criticising someone and 'pushing others to harass'? Would you block people on the left who have criticised people on the right who were subsequently harassed? Milo had syringes sent to his house and his mobile number published, Totalbiscuit and his wife received a bunch of death threats. We shouldn't ban all the people who criticised them because they were subsequently harassed - I'm sure you wouldn't support that and I'd be right there with you. We should ban people who actually make credible threats, publish non-Twitter contact info on Twitter as a way of harassing others, and similar behaviour.
> Not having a Twitter account doesn't mean you can't express yourself.
Yes, just that you can't express yourself on one of the few places for discussion, and more to the point, that other people who want to hear you (and in Milo's case that was a lot of people) can't do so.
> You're not barred from making sites or publishing your thoughts on innumerable other places.
But due to Metcalfe's law none of those other places have any worth.
As one of the grandparent comments says, we don't trust the free market to protect other values, we shouldn't trust it to protect freedom of expression.
I too thought it was cool that all occupy wall street protests were de facto illegal because there was no public property to protest from anywhere even close to wall street.
> We don’t trust the free market to necessarily preserve racial equality – that’s what anti-discrimination laws are for. We don’t trust the free market to necessarily preserve worker safety – that’s what OSHA and related regulations are for. [...] Whenever we think something is important, we regulate the hell out of it, rights-of-private-companies to-set-their-own-policies be damned. But free speech? If you don’t trust the free market to sort it out, the only possible explanation is that you just don’t understand the literal text of the First Amendment.
You mean like SJW crazies "peacefully protest" any event that tries to dispute what they are selling by trying to get it banned, sabotage it, block people from attending, disrupt it?
Is it because we would like a variety of ideas to be heard, even if some of them are unsavory in the current social landscape? That we do better when we are open to a more diverse range of influences? If this is the case, I think we can't simply think of free speech in an active sense. I think the case could be made that the language of these accounts is designed to devalue the voices of particular people, thereby limiting their speech.
I don't really have a solution here. I'm made extremely uncomfortable by this, but my current line of thought is that if an actor initiates the limitation on another's right to expression, then they are the one whose speech should be limited. Think of it sort of like free speech self-defense.
The "your mean speech makes others unhappy and less likely to speak freely" is not new, one of the great things about American-style free speech is that it protects against the weaponization of offense, and limits damage of moral fads.
Thats really not what I'm talking about. I understand the push back against "SJWs" and those in the language policing community. That said, telling someone to get in the oven, which Ricky Vaughn and others are known to do, is a deliberate intimidation tactic designed to dehumanize and silence others and I don't think it needs to be protected.
Does this have the potential for abuse? Sure. In the same way that I think Zimmerman's self-defense argument was a problem, this could be implemented poorly. That doesn't mean I think it isn't an idea worth pursuing if we could adjudicate it justly.
Because free (i.e. unrestricted) speech is anti-fragile.
When speech is restricted to just the conventional wisdom (or really: what those in power are okay with), arguments no longer win the day and our ideas and beliefs about the world become fragile, vulnerable to catastrophic disruption by those who see reality more clearly.
History has shown that any restriction on speech ("book burning") is a slippery slope, so if we want the anti-fragile properties—and we really, really do—that means accepting some speech that is plainly wrong or offensive.
I think the idea that speech is anti-fragile works to a point, but is ultimately a bit naive about the way that power structures and language works. Its entirely possible to limit someone else's ability to communicate simply by communicating. Speaking isn't the same thing as being heard. I'm not talking about speech that is merely offensive here. I'm talking about speech that is specifically designed to dehumanize and devalue others. Obviously the line is murky here, and I'm not saying I have a perfect system worked out by any means, but I think the investigation is worthwhile.
It's rather glib, actually. There is a legitimate question of whether companies like Twitter should operate with neutrality on these issues, regardless of how poorly the issue is broached.
I did, and I agree it was neutral. I'm referring to the conversation that always follows these sorts of things. People insisting that free speech means neo-nazis should be allowed to spread their message of hate.
Are you serious? Literally right now is the exact reason free speech means neo-nazis should be allowed to spread their message of hate. Someone who supports and is allied with these very neo-nazis and white supremacists is now the head of the United States government.
The reason we have been tolerating neo-nazis for so long is that we've established a principle called free speech, and we've developed a legal theory and a society where Trump cannot use his power to turn the tables and ban discussion of things he finds objectionable: perhaps he'd like to institute a ban on discussing racial justice because he finds it "hateful" and divisive? Perhaps he (or someone in his administration) would like to ban the hateful, hateful folks who advocate legalizing what he would call the murder of unborn children?
Now is the exact moment you should be on your knees thanking all of those assholes who defended the freedom of speech of the neo nazis of every time period against governments who acted with the best intentions, trying to stop hate. Because the hateful ones are now the ones who get to decide what 'hateful' means.
Your post is not grounded in either fact or logic. Tell me, for example, of US government attempts to suppress neo-nazi speech.I'm only aware of one case from the 1970s where the State government of Illinois objected but was out-argued by the ACLU. The case is summarized at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...
As for Trump, $10 says you're in for a big surprise.
Anything can be labelled as hate speech from the perspective of someone who doesn't agree. Today it's them getting suspended, tomorrow it might be you.
The social justice movement in the U.S. for example is so successful, because they exploit this. They're failures at life that label everything that makes others more successful than them hateful to get it changed.
I'm not worried about neo-nazi speech. Most countries have plenty of precedent for regulating hate speech. I'm worried about speech that isn't quite at the neo-nazi level. What do we do to speech that is only kind of hate speech? My gut says to err on the side of freedom and let it stay, however I do find it extremely annoying on reddit and wish all those people would just leave, so I can sympathize with those who want to ban it.
the only reason twitter is still around is because of momentum and because their failure to find a good business model prevents others from coming on to the scene.
they have a false monopoly and I will be glad when they finally go broke and/or are replaced by a better service.
37 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 71.4 ms ] threadFacebook doesn't have a militarized police force.
You are, however, forced to live under whatever government gets elected.
If you delete their account they won't learn anything or cease to exist, they'll just be angry at you somewhere else and come back later.
BTW: https://twitter.com/kthorjensen/status/798959676855455744
Communities die when they're overrun by jerks.
Alternatively, others should be able to choose the discussions they wish to participate in, which may involve people you think are jerks.
You can block someone, but that's too late, it's retroactive. If their goal was to insult you, mission accomplished, no obstacles.
In the case of Milo he'd encourage people to go and harass others which meant you'd spend hours and hours blocking people, they'd basically DDOS your Twitter account.
Is this acceptable behaviour? Is this something to be encouraged by not punishing it?
I don't think you realize what a lightning rod some people become through no fault of their own. That you've never been struck is simply a matter of luck or not being one of the common target groups.
Remember: Not having a Twitter account doesn't mean you can't express yourself. You didn't get kicked off the internet. You're not barred from making sites or publishing your thoughts on innumerable other places.
Yes. They should fix that (if these recent changes haven't yet done that). I've had one of the worst mornings of my life in the last year when I criticised a new browser API and the author of the API refused to stop mentioning me for an hour despite being asked repeatedly to stop. Having to turn off your phone because a high profile person is angry at you is awful. Having people threaten you or publish your contact details is much worse.
Who draws the line between criticising someone and 'pushing others to harass'? Would you block people on the left who have criticised people on the right who were subsequently harassed? Milo had syringes sent to his house and his mobile number published, Totalbiscuit and his wife received a bunch of death threats. We shouldn't ban all the people who criticised them because they were subsequently harassed - I'm sure you wouldn't support that and I'd be right there with you. We should ban people who actually make credible threats, publish non-Twitter contact info on Twitter as a way of harassing others, and similar behaviour.
> Not having a Twitter account doesn't mean you can't express yourself.
Yes, just that you can't express yourself on one of the few places for discussion, and more to the point, that other people who want to hear you (and in Milo's case that was a lot of people) can't do so.
> You're not barred from making sites or publishing your thoughts on innumerable other places.
But due to Metcalfe's law none of those other places have any worth.
As one of the grandparent comments says, we don't trust the free market to protect other values, we shouldn't trust it to protect freedom of expression.
TLDR:
> We don’t trust the free market to necessarily preserve racial equality – that’s what anti-discrimination laws are for. We don’t trust the free market to necessarily preserve worker safety – that’s what OSHA and related regulations are for. [...] Whenever we think something is important, we regulate the hell out of it, rights-of-private-companies to-set-their-own-policies be damned. But free speech? If you don’t trust the free market to sort it out, the only possible explanation is that you just don’t understand the literal text of the First Amendment.
They don't need anyone's help. Let their movement fail and maybe they'll protect yours next time.
I don't agree with conservatives on much, but we can sure agree on this:
Stop giving "participation awards" to people who clearly have lost.
Why do we value free speech?
Is it because we would like a variety of ideas to be heard, even if some of them are unsavory in the current social landscape? That we do better when we are open to a more diverse range of influences? If this is the case, I think we can't simply think of free speech in an active sense. I think the case could be made that the language of these accounts is designed to devalue the voices of particular people, thereby limiting their speech.
I don't really have a solution here. I'm made extremely uncomfortable by this, but my current line of thought is that if an actor initiates the limitation on another's right to expression, then they are the one whose speech should be limited. Think of it sort of like free speech self-defense.
Kind of tangential, but this Mark Ames piece on censorship is really good: https://pando.com/2015/02/04/the-geometry-of-censorship-and-...
[edit] just took a closer look and I'm not really familiar with those accts aside from RV, so I can't really speak on harassment here
Does this have the potential for abuse? Sure. In the same way that I think Zimmerman's self-defense argument was a problem, this could be implemented poorly. That doesn't mean I think it isn't an idea worth pursuing if we could adjudicate it justly.
Because free (i.e. unrestricted) speech is anti-fragile.
When speech is restricted to just the conventional wisdom (or really: what those in power are okay with), arguments no longer win the day and our ideas and beliefs about the world become fragile, vulnerable to catastrophic disruption by those who see reality more clearly.
History has shown that any restriction on speech ("book burning") is a slippery slope, so if we want the anti-fragile properties—and we really, really do—that means accepting some speech that is plainly wrong or offensive.
Let me respectfully suggest that your original comment was poorly worded, given your stated intent here.
Best.
The reason we have been tolerating neo-nazis for so long is that we've established a principle called free speech, and we've developed a legal theory and a society where Trump cannot use his power to turn the tables and ban discussion of things he finds objectionable: perhaps he'd like to institute a ban on discussing racial justice because he finds it "hateful" and divisive? Perhaps he (or someone in his administration) would like to ban the hateful, hateful folks who advocate legalizing what he would call the murder of unborn children?
Now is the exact moment you should be on your knees thanking all of those assholes who defended the freedom of speech of the neo nazis of every time period against governments who acted with the best intentions, trying to stop hate. Because the hateful ones are now the ones who get to decide what 'hateful' means.
As for Trump, $10 says you're in for a big surprise.
The social justice movement in the U.S. for example is so successful, because they exploit this. They're failures at life that label everything that makes others more successful than them hateful to get it changed.
The new right doesnt even seem worried, they seem keen to build their own platforms and shut out badthink too.
they have a false monopoly and I will be glad when they finally go broke and/or are replaced by a better service.