For those who care about free speech, I would recommend moving over to #minds. Great platform in terms of functionality, and on top of that, your contributions provide you with Ethereum tokens, so you can basically get paid for participating in this growing social media site.
https://www.minds.com/register?referrer=SomeCanadian
https://www.minds.com/register?referrer=SomeCanadian
https://www.minds.com/register?referrer=SomeCanadian
https://www.minds.com/register?referrer=SomeCanadian
I like the idea of free speech, but the free speech that appears for the boosted posts are vitriolic and pretty much hate speech. I haven't been on a site yet where I've had to block so many posts and people.
ReplyDeleteBarring that, I guess it can offer some good feature, but the setup with being forced to see boosted posts even outside of your stated interests and needing to pay to be able to remove them from your stream is slowly making it a deal breaker for me.
I hesitate to recommend them to the communities I am part of because of that.
wara zashi Honestly, boosted posts aren't really a problem - they show up at the top of the page and you can just scroll past it to avoid them altogether.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for people pushing "hate speech", I just ignore them. But having Free Speech means that you need to accept controversial opinions. If controversial speech isn't protected, you don't have free speech...
when someone says "I have this problem", it rarely works to reply "honestly, it's not a problem" or "it's not a problem for me" ;-) Denying a problem never solves it.
ReplyDeleteDenis Wallez I'm not denying it - if you think boosted posts are a problem because rolling your mouse wheel for half a second is too hard for you, it's YOUR problem...
ReplyDeleteWhen "free speech" equates to "hate speech," that's a big NOPE for me. And unfortunately, it often does.
ReplyDelete(Old hippie nerd who marched on the streets for free speech in 1960s, and still holds to that ideal, but isn't crazy about how the definition has morphed in these times.)
"free speech means that you need to accept controversial opinions"
ReplyDeleteNo it doesn't. Free speech means you're free to state those opinions, but it doesn't mean I have to accept them. It also doesn't mean you shouldn't be punished for inciting racism or hate.
Michael Warburton As long as it's not in another's face on their property (i.e., boosted postings that can be full of hate speech, for example).
ReplyDeleteSome One Note to self: create pro-abortion posts and boost it. Not pro-choice.. but pro-abortion.. lets see how many conservatives think that is "free speech" and just scroll past it.
ReplyDeleteMatt Moore good analogy.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, Minds cryptos can only be used in Minds. Altho it may use Ethereum software, it does not use Ethereum coins.
ReplyDeleteIf I walk into a bar and hear racist attitudes I leave rather than ignoring the problem. I don't see why social media is different - especially one where, like the bar owner they are profiting from accepting that.
ReplyDeleteAlan Cox Expressing racist attitudes is Free Speech. As long as they don't break the law, they're entitle to express their opinions.
ReplyDeleteTrying to stifle the Free Speech of others is as bad as racism.
Shawn H Corey xkcd.com - xkcd: Free Speech
ReplyDeleteShawn H Corey I'm not stifling anyone's free speech. I am just declining to fund anyone who profits from racism. They can continue to have their racist conversations, the barman just isn't getting my money.
ReplyDeleteAnd btw - even the US defines free speech only for political speech, that's rather narrower than speech such as calling for the shooting of gay people.
Shawn H Corey Speech that incites violence, which there is quite a lot of on Minds.. is NOT covered under free speech.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention "Free Speech", as described in our Bill of Rights is supposed to be a "the government can't do it" kinda thing. Its not applicable to ANYONE ELSE.
Similar to the 2nd Amendment.. you have to read the entirety of the 1st Amendment, not just pick and choose which portion to hold up and which portion to ignore.
Trevor Schadt Free Speech is about what you can say in public. Yes, you are entitled to voice your opinion even when everyone disagrees with it.
ReplyDeleteAlan Cox Matt Moore For those who have read my comments, I said, "As long as they don't break the law, they're entitle to express their opinions."
Crypto bribe for churning out 'content' is the worst idea ever.
ReplyDeleteShawn H Corey And our point -- well, at least mine; I won't speak for the others -- is "yes, you're 'free' to express your opinion, where 'free' means nothing more than 'the government can't arrest you unless you're endangering the lives or well-being of others.' And we are free to not endorse you, not support you, shout at you that you're wrong, and otherwise go tell you what to do with yourself. That's our 'free speech.'"
ReplyDeleteShawn H Corey racism is breaking the law
ReplyDeleteMatt Moore SCOTUS ruled that "free speech" does not apply to those screaming "FIRE!" in a theater. Rhetoric that incites violence is NOT Constitutionally protected speech. That's criminal conduct.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the 1st amendment is the right of CITIZENS OF THE USA (because the Constitution only addresses US citizens) to address grievances with GOVERNMENT in the "public square" (which is the internet these days). It isn't freedom to be a jerk on the internet, "just because". Private business can throw jerks out, as it has nothing to do with government throwing them out.
The protections ONLY exist to petition the government and to be free of harassment BY government for doing so.
If riots and other things that are illegal (i.e., arson/lynching/murder/hacking) occur government has the right for public safety to close down that protest, too. As that is a public safety issue (life/limb/property protection).
They need to teach Civics again, as a requirement to graduate high school. Too many don't even know the basics of our government and it's purpose even!
Shawn H Corey But then you go one to say that trying to stifle free speech is as bad as racism.
ReplyDelete1. No, its not.
2. We aren't stifling free speech. Hell Facebook isn't stifling free speech. They (and we) are just saying "not in our spaces". No one, and I mean no one, should be compelled to listen to it. Say whatever the heck you want, but allow me to opt out.
I don't have to listen it it, Facebook and Google does not have to host it and I sure as hell am not going to join a social network where its thrust upon me every time I log in.
3. As far as I am concerned, let the conservatives go to Minds. It just means I know where to avoid. If Minds had an effective block feature? Maybe where I could block entire groups and the people in them? It'd be a different story. But there isn't. So, pardon my language, but fuck listening to someone else's hate time and time and time and time again.
Kevyne Kicklighter I assume you are clarifying.. because we are in agreement. =)
ReplyDeleteMatt Moore Yep. Just so sick of seeing "free speech" being bandied about as a right to say anything anywhere and it's protected -- it's not. Everyone has to be responsible in what they say, because instigating violence and crimes is illegal and NOT protected.
ReplyDeleteWell, this thread blew up in a different direction. The bottom line for me and a meaningful recommendation from me is that I will not recommend Minds because of the hate speech I see on it.
ReplyDeleteSome One I'm glad the boosted posts and hate speech are not a problem for you, but they are a problem for me.
As a gatekeeper of a community, it would be inappropriate for me to recommend a platform where there is little control over what you see at the tier most of my members will be at (free, not paid enough to hide boosts).
And scrolling past them sounds like a pretty ridiculous compromise to allow myself to enjoy a platform.
Also, just to reiterate what others have already said: "But having Free Speech means that you need to accept controversial opinions." No, it doesn't. I just means you can say what you want, but I have no obligation to listen to it. Let alone accept controversial opinions, especially if they are vitriolic and intended to bring about harm.
Plus, it's a private platform, the free speech is not the one you're thinking of, it's merely just what the owners of MeWe decide should be allowed on the site.
It has nothing to do with Free Speech, the constitutional right.
Kevyne Kicklighter While I agree that Facebook and Twitter are privately-owned (well, publicly traded, but you get what I mean) and they can decide what gets on their platform or not, given the massive reach and power they have in today's society (Facebook posts can lead to changes in government, for instance), it becomes a rather touchy subject.
ReplyDeleteIf those two social networks choose to ban you, it almost amounts to you being "unpersoned" online. Not to mention that we've witnessed such collusion. Alex Jones was banned from pretty much any online platform even though he never actually violated their terms of service. He was banned because his political ideology isn't shared by the Silicon Valley tech companies.
At this moment, your ability to share your thoughts to the entire online world depends on the good will of a handful of people like Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey.
Shawn H Corey As for the tokens, you can send your tokens on the blockchain. There's a small fee, but they can be converted to actual cryptocurrency.
ReplyDeleteSome One Alex Jones was banned for repeatedly glorifying violence against minorities and using derogatory terms against race, gender, religion etc.
ReplyDeleteHe had the right to say those things, and everyone also had the right to ban him for being a racist xenophobic dick.
Craig Barratt Racism is not breaking the law. Hatred is.
ReplyDeleteSome One FB and Tw are privately owned but opened to the public. That means they cannot discriminate without cause.
Matt Moore Anti-Free-Speech is racism. Saying, "I'm not allowing (insert race here) on my site." is hatred. And it's against the law.
Kevyne Kicklighter Free Speech is not the right to say anything. It is the Inalienable Right to voice your opinion is public. And that includes places that are privately owned but open to the public.
It seems that a number of you do not know the difference between Free Speech and hatred. Hatred is targeting a distinguishable group of people to harass and threaten them.
For example, saying "My sports team is the best," or "My country is the best," is not considered to be hatred. Saying, "These people should only ride at the back of the bus," is.
Shawn H Corey Anti-free speech is racism? WHAT?
ReplyDeleteAnd no one, anywhere that we are talking about, is restricting a person being on that platform based on race.
You are speaking nonsense.
I mean no disrespect, I really don't, but I am starting to get the feeling that you are not coming from a place of prejudice, but a place of ignorance. Maybe a mental impairment (again, no judgement) or maybe you're just a kid?
I don't know whats going on, but your argument just went off the rails big time.
FYI, for clarification, Facebook and other businesses are NOT beholden to the 1st Amendment, literally ANY quick Google search would have told you that. The text of the 1st Amendment goes like this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
--
See? Nothing about individuals or companies protecting or even hosting someone when they are speaking.
Matt Moore If a stores states, "We don't allow Blacks in here," that's hatred. If a website states, "We don't allow assholes in here," why it is acceptable? Yes, anti-Free-Speech is racism.
ReplyDeleteShawn H Corey Its not just assholes, its asshole who are advocating the subjugation and even eradication (aka killing) of people of a different race.
ReplyDeleteThat's what we are talking about here. Hatred of people purely based on things they have no control over.
Even if it were just "block assholes" (which its not), being an asshole is something you can control. Your race is not.
And somehow you don't know that "RACE" is an integral part of racism.
Again, to clarify..
"
Racism
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
"a program to combat racism"
synonyms: racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, casteism
"Aborigines are the main victims of racism in Australia"
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
--
Do you see anything about withholding someones freedom of speech?
Shawn H Corey I'm going to start holding you to backing up your assertions with case-law. You can choose your jurisdiction. But please ensure your claims are in fact supported by your cites.
ReplyDeleteYour views are clear. Your foundations, less so.
Thanks.
Alan Cox Free speech and expression in the US extends well beyond politics, and includes religious and other expression, as examples
ReplyDeleteThere are some limitations on commercial speech, though many of those derive from other bases, such as fraud or misrepresentation.
Kevyne Kicklighter "Fire in a crowded theatre" is not in fact operative SCOTUS caselaw, but was a non-binding comparison used in Schenck v. United States, by O.W. Holmes, writing for the majority (1919). The result of the decision itself was to restrict rights to free speech, here, the distribution of leaflets protesting US draft in WWI.
ReplyDeleteen.wikipedia.org - Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia
Michael Warburton A reasonable interpretation of Some One's argument would be that you have to accept the expression of controversial opinions. You might prefer to argue the merits of that than the narrower and weaker position that one must accept the opinions themselves. I don't believe that's the point being made, rendering your counter a straw man.
ReplyDeleteCraig Barratt Racism is breaking the law
ReplyDeleteCitation requested.
Is not liking someone against the law?
(I believe the case that certain actions based on racism violate law would be more defensible.)
Edward Morbius racism as in the act of doing/saying something racist. We are obviously not talking about peoples internal dialogue here.
ReplyDeleteCraig Barratt If I were to call someone the N word, that is racism.
ReplyDeleteThat is neither internal dialogue nor illegal.
As Edward said, there are certain actions associated with racism that are illegal.. but racism in of itself is not.
Kevyne Kicklighter Noncitizen rights are and may be protected by the U.S. constitution:
ReplyDeletelaw2.umkc.edu - Alienage Classifications and the Equal Protection Clause
I'm going to hold you to providing cites as well, thank you.
There's a world between ranting and informed and factual discussion.
Shawn H Corey "FB and Tw are privately owned but opened to the public. That means they cannot discriminate without cause."
ReplyDeleteCite requested.
Craig Barratt That is not in fact a citation.
ReplyDeleteGeneral question: What is the purpose and intent of free speech?
ReplyDeleteOn what do you base that argument?
Edward Morbius I'd argue the purpose of free speech is to allow citizens to express their opinions without fear of legal reprisal. The court of public opinion should decide whether or not that speech is acceptable, not the justice system.
ReplyDeleteOf course there may be social consequences to your statements, but as long as you aren't inciting violence or slandering/libeling anyone, anything you say should be legally allowed.
Edward Morbius I know, never intended on it being one.
ReplyDeleteCraig Barratt One was requested. Please provide.
ReplyDeleteSome One Is there a difference or line between expressing an opinion and promoting a specific belief or worldview?
ReplyDeleteIs free speech limited to didactic discussion only? Or is it allowed in other modes of speech: rhetoric, phatic, condign / coercive, imperative, poetic? All? Some?
Edward Morbius no thanks, I don't believe it's needed.
ReplyDeleteCraig Barratt Kindly refrain from further comments to this thread. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius gladly
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius I don't think there is - unless this belief incites violence or maliciously attempts to destroy someone's reputation. Saying "Islam is cancer" may be controversial and many would disagree, but it remains a valid opinion. Saying "Islam is cancer and it's your civic duty to kill Muslims" (other than in this particular context) is a different matter...
ReplyDeleteSeems like someone is restricting free speech themselves here. How quaint.
ReplyDeleteMichael Warburton in what way, and to what ends?
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius Guessing he refers to you telling Craig Barratt to stop commenting...
ReplyDeleteSome One Perhaps the goal is to have a substantial and fact-based discussion, which creates an interest in holding to facts, or at least, substantiated or referenceable opinions (law is famously a case of differences). And that some modicum of rules might in fact advance the overall discussion?
ReplyDeleteIs this a violation or enhancement of free speech? What interests does it serve? Who is disadvantaged?
Edward Morbius For the record, I'm not saying that I agreed with Michael's statement
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius "General question: What is the purpose and intent of free speech?"
ReplyDeleteWhat is the purpose and intent of Inalienable Rights? Does the Sun have a purpose? The Moon? The stars? Or do they simply exist?
Shawn H Corey So there is no purpose and intent?
ReplyDeleteOr are you unable to answer the question, and/or unfamiliar with the history and evolution of the concept?
Red Blooded Woman What happens when the hijackers utilise free speech (or claim it as their justification) to discourage or disrupt information sharing or change agendas?
ReplyDeleteRed Blooded Woman And that right to speak is only mutable when it infringes upon someone else's rights.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically speaking, their inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
THOSE INALIENABLE RIGHTS are specifically what many of these racists are trying to take away from minorities.
Red Blooded Woman It's nice to see that somebody gets that point.
ReplyDeleteHow does one resolve that conflict?
And does this point to something deeper within your answer. Does free speech serve democracy or democracy free speech?
(Perhaps a bit of both?)
Has anyone actually read Mill, by chance? Or his antecedents?
Matt Moore Define "inalienable".
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius
ReplyDeletein·al·ien·a·ble
/inˈālēənəb(ə)l/Submit
adjective
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
"freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights"
synonyms: inviolable, absolute, sacrosanct; More
==
For more information, refer to the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence.
Matt Moore Merrriam-Webster gives: "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred".
ReplyDeleteCrucial distinction, spot it?
merriam-webster.com - Definition of INALIENABLE
D.o.I. is a fine piece of script. It's not, however, governing law.
Now you have me wondering, is the Minds community focused on activist and political stuff. It's not a general community? I mean, the people who have joined?
ReplyDeleteSome One Google and Facebook are social networks and much like the press as defined in the 1st amendment (as they are news networks, too).
ReplyDeleteBUT, if people are instigating violence, businesses can ban them, as their "speech" can kill/maim/destroy property.
It's all about protection of life/limb/property. If it violates that, it's justification to stop it, as then it's illegal.
Social networks are like real life communities. Bad neighbors aren't welcome, especially if they bring crime with them, and are just jerks to be jerks.
Matt Moore The so called "unalienable rights" aren't truly unalienable in many circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI'll paraphrase Robert Heinlein's novel "Starship Troopers" here to explain...
Does a drowning man have a right to life? If two men are starving on an island and cannibalism is the only option for one to hope for rescue, which one has the right to live and which is forced to die? And is it "right"?
Liberty is not unalienable either. If you are caught committing criminal acts, your liberty will definitely be curtailed.
The only truly unalienable right is the pursuit of happiness. You can be stuck in a cell 24/7 with no contact with the outside and still try to "pursue happiness" in one way or another.
Some One Alienable rights, or property, can be transferred to another.
ReplyDeleteInalienable rights, or property, are nontransferable.
It's largely as simple as that, with a great deal of woo generated from misinderstanding and confusion on that point.
Real and chattel property (land and goods), usefruct rights, even affections of family and friends, are alienable. They can be taken from you and given to somebody else. Corneas, kidneys, livers, lungs, and hearts were inalienable in 1776 (so far as full functional benefit is concerned), but are now alienable, with appropriate medical technology.