I removed my earlier post regarding my question of free speech because there was some devolution in the conversation.
I removed my earlier post regarding my question of free speech because there was some devolution in the conversation. My apologies. I do hope that we can all find good platforms that let us feel safe and don't have hateful speech. The same time, I hope we don't label everyone who disagrees with us.
William Johnston My brief response to your initial question is as follows. I was writing in response to your deleted post so I don't know what went on there.
ReplyDeleteI have joined pluspora. In no way did I do an exhaustive examination of alternatives. However, after being treated in a such an abrupt and apparently discourteous way by Google, I thought a federated solution had much to recommend it.
It was only after joining that I happily recognised the fact that they have a "free speech" policy. Now, I concede that I am still in a "honeymoon" with pluspora but so far I feel there a sense of liberation and openness that I did not find here in G+.
Roy Gardiner There's no ideal place. My question was how important it was, but things devolved into "how do you define free speech" and long winded posts where people said other people "might have said" this or that. It felt like people were taking a philosophical question personally, and I started to as well. That's not what this community is about. It's about finding one's way after G+ ends. The post didn't help that, so I removed that.
ReplyDeleteFree speech is one of those hard to achieve things. The old saying is that the remedy to evil speech is more speech... but in practice that devolves into two sides trolling each other.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how a social network can avoid evil speech. And there is such a thing as evil speech. We are watching the fruits of that play out over the last week in at least two different cases. I honestly do not know how a social platform can police itself well enough to keep that under control. Probably the only way to do it would be to have literally millions of people reading posts all day long and deleting examples of evil speech. That'd be massively financially bad... But barring some sort of step froward in AI, that's the only thing I can think of right now...
I thought the previous conversation was worthwhile, so I'm disappointed it's deleted. Gotta say, it comes across as questionable when you delete the whole conversation but then make it a point to bring up your don't label people thing, like you're getting the last word.
ReplyDeleteLol. I just blocked a man on MeWe for posting a meme calling Mexicans 'crap' - this same man is a BIG advocate for 'free speech' but just for a privileged few, evidently. So I blocked his selfish ass.Chris S Free speech is not for everyone - just the elite
ReplyDeleteNo on e said anything hateful in that thread. I thought it was a very civilized discussion on the whole, given the hot potato topic.
ReplyDeleteThat brings up the whole issue of deletion and persistence. I couldn't tell you how many times I wrote comments that I was really proud of on Facebook, only to have them disappear when a thread was deleted. Recovering those comments was sometimes impossible. Frustrating!
ReplyDeleteI managed a Cable Public Access TV channel in Seattle for a number of years. It was a "free speech" channel which eventually died because a few (3 or 4) local producers out of hundreds chose to air offensive but "legal" speech (mostly pornography).
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to "free speech," it's difficult to know how to strike the right balance, and impossible if just a few people choose to participate in bad faith.
The best remedy I've seen is when there's a strong, supportive community. That tends to keep things enough in check so a few bad actors don't spoil it all for the rest of us.
Peter Maranci You know that is a question that's been bouncing in my head lately - who "owns" these things?
ReplyDeleteThe person starting the thread certainly is the originator and it will appear on their account. But lots of times people contribute to a thread... Do they have partial "Ownership" of the thread? Does the originator truly have unilateral power to delete it, thereby wiping out others work?
What I cannot get my head around and is the reason for these difficulties, no doubt, is that 'free speechers' value free speech above all else for themselves but do not allow others the same privilege. The same economic developments that have created the privileged societies that have free speech have given rise to huge numbers of migrants and refugees from Mexico to Syria, and our free speechers do not want to allow them the same rights and privileges. They treat them like scum. That is appauling and very very mean.
ReplyDeleteSince everyone seems to think Free Speech is hate speech, then no, you can't find a good platform without it. Why don't you try Facebook or Twitter? I heard they're good at censorship.
ReplyDeleteShawn H Corey you talking to me?
ReplyDeletefree speech should be for everyone not just a privileged few who call other people 'scum' and 'crap' - what sort of free speech is that?
Shawn H Corey That's not a fair way to interpret people's comments.
ReplyDeleteyoutube.com - Picard's civil rights speech
ReplyDeleteWilliam Johnston oh that old chestnut - he goes on about freedom. Whose freedom? Freedom for all? Well, no, just the privileged few.
ReplyDeleteChris S The conversation had gotten so far from the topic, and I didn't think it was a good thing for the community. I bring it up because I still believe that. Martha Magenta people were starting to insinuate things other people were saying. Peter Maranci I agree, but this is what censuring free speech turns into when we begin. Scott Scowcroft your best remedy is the exact remedy I want to cultivate. Timothy Collins no one can own speech.
ReplyDeleteWe should bring back the laws against blasphemy, because that's an integral part of hate speech.
ReplyDeleteI don't mind "Free Speech" its main goal is to think about new ideas, new possibilities.
ReplyDeleteBut, when it is used to attack people, you should be able to justify it in court!
Pizzagate, Birth certificate, clandestine financing of political operations, whether caravans or political ads, all accusations should be defended in court, and defamation be punished!
Christian Nalletamby Nope, criticism, attack, dismantling, disparagement, and condemnation are all "main goals" of freedom of speech. Actually, the main goal of freedom of speech is the freedom of belief - and the thought police can go to hell.
ReplyDeleteSteve Greene I'm kind of expecting that, actually.
ReplyDeleteSteve Greene Well, to me, that sounds more like "Hate Speech", and I don't see the productivity in it.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the Freedom is to suggest the weirdest ideas, from warp speed to neutrinos to quarks, even flat earth, as a concept.
Throwing Alex Jones style arguments and ad Hominems, ending with the recurring "I won!", "No, I won!".
I've seen too many online, for my taste.
But, whatever makes you happy! :)
Christian Nalletamby That is indeed exactly my point. The fact of the matter is that freedom of speech is freedom of speech is freedom of speech, and the second anyone starts talking about censoring "hate speech" is the second I know that they're against freedom of speech no matter what they say. Criticism, disparagement, what have you, is an integral aspect of freedom of speech. Without it, we don't have freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteI'll give you a perfect example, by the way, of the hypocritical nature of the calls for censoring "negative" speech...
Like when a creationist tries to call me out for being against freedom of speech when I call him out for his false claims and fallacious arguments: I'm not in fact opposing his freedom of speech in any way - he's the one employing the concept of freedom of speech in a contradictory manner by using the false premise that criticism and ridicule (ridicule of scientific ignorance and condemnation of a close-minded attitude) is somehow contrary to freedom of speech, when in fact freedom of speech certainly entails the freedom to speak up and challenge snake oil salesmen and criticize them for being frauds. Racists have the right to freedom of speech to speak their minds and say what they believe - and the rest of us have the freedom of speech to criticize their nefarious notions and to call them out for their vile attitudes.
Steve Greene After KristallNacht, there was no more "Freedom of Speech".
ReplyDeleteJournalists have already been murdered, or attacked, not only by hillbillies HatRed, but even members of congress.
I don't have your optimism.
Plus, in my communities, when we chat about science, we can disagree.
But a creationist insulting troll does not stay, sorry.
Not a "debate" community, of course.
One of the great travisties of modern journalism, imho, is the requirement in the name of objectivity to assign "moral equivalency" between opposing sides. Sometimes one side is just plain right.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1960's, it was the health hazards of smoking. Today, it's global warming.
I think what Steve Grove is getting at is, "the free marketplace of ideas" where both sides are permitted a public airing, but then the wisdom of the majority sorts things out.
I believe that, by the way, is the definition of democracy.