I read it the exact opposite. I read it as a guy throwing a literal tantrum because people he doesn’t like are allowed to criticize people he does like.
Disallowing discussion is never “making the world better” it’s quieting it for a bit while breeding contempt and violence. It’s why Trump is in office. You take away peoples voices, if anything you strengthen their beliefs.
When you push them to places where only like minded individuals hang out, the filter bubble becomes unbreakable.
Quieting voices you do not like is never a positive. Period. It’s a child’s solution. Understanding and exchange of ideas without condescension.
It's not "disallowing discussion", it's "not giving someone a platform." The author isn't saying he wants the person not to be able to say what he's saying, but that Twitter shouldn't give him a microphone to spew his vitriol.
It certainly can be a positive thing to remove people's megaphones who are not acting in good faith, who are spreading violence and vitriol. There's almost no room for "understanding and exchange of ideas" on twitter, and definitely not what Alex Jones et. al. is seeking from the platform.
I also think that one of the biggest issues facing "understanding and exchange of ideas" in general is the idea that no one can be earnest or genuine in their outrage. Your original post used the term "virtue signaling," but even saying that the person is "throwing a tantrum" is purposefully trying to diminish the idea that the OP might be rationally upset about the events that have unfolded.
It's as dishonest and biased to describes the entire issue as "disallowing discussion" or "quieting voices you don't like" as it is to describe abortion as "murdering babies". It says you don't actually want to talk about it.
US public perception might have swung to favor a different weighting, but not following this is clearly far from "not wanting to talk about it".
I still think it is a great example for this HN thread though, as having different opinions is suddenly perceived as a hostile act with - presumably - mean intentions.
I do not think that @jack will have an easy time of it in the months to come. Whatever he does will cause someone to enter into frothing ragegasms directed at him and the company.
Yet, it's clear that twitter cannot maintain it's status as "the place where everybody wants to be because it's where everybody is." without taking steps to protect the quality of the experience and the integrity of it's audience.
The discomfort that Dorsey and Zuckerberg have with enforcing something like a reality principle on their platform may have been praiseworthy and of noble intent; but we're starting to understand that the second order effects of letting people undermine public perceptions of truth and validity have serious consequences that are damaging if not fatal to the society that hosts these platforms and the workers that build and operate them.
My personal believe is that neither work out in a way we'd like it to.
Censorship can, under the right circumstances, be effective but requires either a very delicate hand and be more or less invisible or oppressing the opposition until it exhausted itself one way or another. Sometimes it seems to work out only to end up reinforcing believes, leading to a deeper internalization and radicalization.
Education requires focused, continued, honest effort. It requires rolling that damn boulder up the hill until the hill itself starts to erode under your feet. It's a excruciatingly slow process. And it's so easy to forget that it needs to be a dialog no matter how much you think you're right.
I'm a strong advocate for the latter, but it's easy to see why so many gravitate to the former.
Have you considered that you're on the wrong side of this one? Twitter has been mass banning right wing figures for over two years now, including Republican candidates for Congress. It hasn't made the platform any better. If anything, the platform continues to degrade with every politically-oriented mass banning.
Given that the Republican party has allowed people who openly support ethnic cleansing and racial division to be part of the party. I'm pretty comfortable with being part of the opposition to that agenda.
Can we stop with the "we try to make the word better" company mottos? You can't say this if you're in it for the money and trying to get more every quarter
It's really curious how free speech for all was a widespread liberal value until they got control over the platforms. Now, it's free speech for me, not for thee.
> It's really curious how free speech for all was a widespread liberal value until they got control over the platforms. Now, it's free speech for me, not for thee.
You're laboring under two misconceptions. First, that free speech is a "liberal" value, and second, that social media platforms are run to promote a "liberal" agenda.
The first is indisputable. The left pushed free speech as a liberal value for decades (at least) specifically to get rid of blasphemy and obscenity laws. The second: are you suggesting twitter regularly purges right wing figures, including Republican candidates for congress, because twitter is of the political right? And, no, Twitter is not neutral, precisely for the aforementioned reason.
The first is mentioned and protected by the Constitution, and often employed by Republicans and the right to defend and justify their speech and politics, so no.
>Are you suggesting twitter regularly purges
As soon as you used the word "purge" your bias becomes apparent, so I'm going to find a better use of my time. Good day.
I'd like to point out that "liberal" and "leftist" are not the same thing.
Yes, they're often used interchangeably in contemporary American politics, but the traditional usage remains. Free speech is absolutely a "liberal value" - and for what it's worth, that's coming from an extreme libertarian that is diametrically opposed to most of the Democratic platform.
You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct, but I don't think the prior commenter was making that distinction, so I stand by my comment in the context that I believe they intended.
I was, actually. Using English and everything. I clearly make the distinction between left and liberal in this comment: "The left pushed free speech as a liberal value"
I'm sorry but this argument that "X silicon valley company is just a private company and has no responsibility to free speech" is just not going to fly in the coming years.
I just read another HN article about how amazon just got a $10B pentagon contract. You can't tell me in a time where the public space has moved onto their platforms that they have absolutely nothing to do with the government and so have nothing to do with free speech.
A corp establishing a effective monopoly on a share of everyday life should be held to the same scrutiny as a government. Especially if it intermingles with it.
edit: word
I'm sorry, but social media and even internet access are not rights nor are they provided to you by the government.
The reason you can say whatever you want on the internet is tolerance. Not because its an inalienable right.
A corporation should be held accountable similar to the federal government? That is a nonsensical sentiment. How would that even be enforced? Corporations are accountable to shareholders, not the citizens of any nation.
Please think critically for a moment about what you're suggesting, keeping in mind you clearly are only suggesting this for one specific company, out of all social media companies. it's blatantly out of spite.
It is going to fly as long as the First Amendment is worded to protect you from the government.
Do you really think a Twitter ban is equal to the US government muzzling you? Or do you simply see the alternatives as not good enough and feel like folks are entitled to posting tweets?
Regardless of your (or my) opinion, Twitter is not and will never be a public service provided to you by the US government. you have no right to free speech on their platform. you are welcome to create your own centralized rival service and allow all the hate speech and abuse you want. Twitter and the like are simply not obligated to tolerate you or anyone else being a prick, just like a private message board is not obligated to tolerate the same thing.
So, yeah, I can tell you that. It's not an arguement, facts rarely are. Thems the breaks.
Your perspective is not even close to being the legal reality yet. Companies that provide a public service are considered to be a public utility and are thus subject to certain federal laws including freedom of speech. There are two cases in particular that reference freedom of speech on private property[0][1].
The two rulings are at odds with each other. The first ruling, a US supreme court case, says what you're saying. The second, which is specifically a state of California ruling, says 'individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers' and 'states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights'.
It seems this issue could wind up being decided on a state by state basis.
32 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 74.8 ms ] threadThis tweet really brings forward the debate and enhances empathy between the opponents. A really mature contribution.
Disallowing discussion is never “making the world better” it’s quieting it for a bit while breeding contempt and violence. It’s why Trump is in office. You take away peoples voices, if anything you strengthen their beliefs.
When you push them to places where only like minded individuals hang out, the filter bubble becomes unbreakable.
Quieting voices you do not like is never a positive. Period. It’s a child’s solution. Understanding and exchange of ideas without condescension.
It certainly can be a positive thing to remove people's megaphones who are not acting in good faith, who are spreading violence and vitriol. There's almost no room for "understanding and exchange of ideas" on twitter, and definitely not what Alex Jones et. al. is seeking from the platform.
I also think that one of the biggest issues facing "understanding and exchange of ideas" in general is the idea that no one can be earnest or genuine in their outrage. Your original post used the term "virtue signaling," but even saying that the person is "throwing a tantrum" is purposefully trying to diminish the idea that the OP might be rationally upset about the events that have unfolded.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/abortion/
US public perception might have swung to favor a different weighting, but not following this is clearly far from "not wanting to talk about it".
I still think it is a great example for this HN thread though, as having different opinions is suddenly perceived as a hostile act with - presumably - mean intentions.
Yet, it's clear that twitter cannot maintain it's status as "the place where everybody wants to be because it's where everybody is." without taking steps to protect the quality of the experience and the integrity of it's audience.
The discomfort that Dorsey and Zuckerberg have with enforcing something like a reality principle on their platform may have been praiseworthy and of noble intent; but we're starting to understand that the second order effects of letting people undermine public perceptions of truth and validity have serious consequences that are damaging if not fatal to the society that hosts these platforms and the workers that build and operate them.
Then I think there are two options available: - Censorship - Education
What would you choose, and think works in the long run?
Censorship can, under the right circumstances, be effective but requires either a very delicate hand and be more or less invisible or oppressing the opposition until it exhausted itself one way or another. Sometimes it seems to work out only to end up reinforcing believes, leading to a deeper internalization and radicalization.
Education requires focused, continued, honest effort. It requires rolling that damn boulder up the hill until the hill itself starts to erode under your feet. It's a excruciatingly slow process. And it's so easy to forget that it needs to be a dialog no matter how much you think you're right.
I'm a strong advocate for the latter, but it's easy to see why so many gravitate to the former.
While I don't doubt his good intentions, I can envision many ways of how it will go wrong.
You're laboring under two misconceptions. First, that free speech is a "liberal" value, and second, that social media platforms are run to promote a "liberal" agenda.
The first is mentioned and protected by the Constitution, and often employed by Republicans and the right to defend and justify their speech and politics, so no.
>Are you suggesting twitter regularly purges
As soon as you used the word "purge" your bias becomes apparent, so I'm going to find a better use of my time. Good day.
Yes, they're often used interchangeably in contemporary American politics, but the traditional usage remains. Free speech is absolutely a "liberal value" - and for what it's worth, that's coming from an extreme libertarian that is diametrically opposed to most of the Democratic platform.
I just read another HN article about how amazon just got a $10B pentagon contract. You can't tell me in a time where the public space has moved onto their platforms that they have absolutely nothing to do with the government and so have nothing to do with free speech.
I'm sorry, but social media and even internet access are not rights nor are they provided to you by the government.
The reason you can say whatever you want on the internet is tolerance. Not because its an inalienable right.
A corporation should be held accountable similar to the federal government? That is a nonsensical sentiment. How would that even be enforced? Corporations are accountable to shareholders, not the citizens of any nation.
Please think critically for a moment about what you're suggesting, keeping in mind you clearly are only suggesting this for one specific company, out of all social media companies. it's blatantly out of spite.
Do you really think a Twitter ban is equal to the US government muzzling you? Or do you simply see the alternatives as not good enough and feel like folks are entitled to posting tweets?
Regardless of your (or my) opinion, Twitter is not and will never be a public service provided to you by the US government. you have no right to free speech on their platform. you are welcome to create your own centralized rival service and allow all the hate speech and abuse you want. Twitter and the like are simply not obligated to tolerate you or anyone else being a prick, just like a private message board is not obligated to tolerate the same thing.
So, yeah, I can tell you that. It's not an arguement, facts rarely are. Thems the breaks.
The two rulings are at odds with each other. The first ruling, a US supreme court case, says what you're saying. The second, which is specifically a state of California ruling, says 'individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers' and 'states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights'.
It seems this issue could wind up being decided on a state by state basis.
[0]: https://infogalactic.com/info/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner [1]: https://infogalactic.com/info/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...