So, in this worldview, if someone produces unacceptable speech, it would be entirely legitimate to: get him fired from his job, ensure that he never gets hired again, get him evicted from his apartment, not allow him to shop at your store, disallow his attendance at any private functions, etc. This xkcd perfectly summarizes this worldview, although I think it was produced earnestly and not as a demonstration of how terrible it is: https://xkcd.com/1357/

Note that "unacceptable speech" is entirely undefined - it's whatever the community (which could be any arbitrary subset of humans due to the global reach of the internet) deems to be unacceptable.

Because of that it's utterly terrifying to me when I see those notions here on HN - it seems like visitors on this site know very little about history of the 20th century and the reasoning for many ways how modern (supposedly) free states are set up.

Note that that's not to say that people cannot be criticized for their opinions - but there's a difference between criticism and attempting to destroy someones career and ability to join social circles. It's a blurry line, but still a line. It's the difference between politely shutting up your racist homophobic uncle on a gathering or demanding that his pension is revoked.

Most of them actually don't care a fig for the "free" part. That's why it's becoming increasingly popular for the anti-free speech crowd to explicitly describe themselves as anti-liberal. (This may also be why "liberal" is falling out of favor, with "progressive" taking up the slack.) There's absolutely no caution or skepticism about political power as such, only interest in directing it as forcefully as possible against anyone they consider beyond-the-pale.

HN has a rather brutal philosophy in flagging/downvoting items lacking substance and shadowbanning troll-ish folk; it seems to work ok and is usually not too sinister (and when it is, human intervention/moderation can often help). By contrast, large communities like states and national institutions can - with just a hint and a nod - inflict surprisingly chilling effects throughout communities of millions.

So where do we draw the line? I dunno. Whereever we draw it, it's got to be parametric with enough inputs to take into account at least the rough subtleties of the situation. Because the comic is right: I don't need to put up with an asshole's bullshit, but I also don't want to destroy them. Just, you know, tone it down a smidge and stop being a jerk.

I'm fairly passive. Normally I do that by ignoring them, changing the channel, or just avoiding the website. Rarely I'll actively flag or downvote (ugh, so hamfisted). And sometimes, I just go away if they take root. With high-signal web analytics, tracking, stats, and other social-buzz things, my avoidance may actually be logged and noted. Maybe I help starve out what I consider noise, thus boosting what I consider signal.

What if a lot of people in a community are just outraged? Or are very sensitive to easily become outraged? I think that's where things get underdamped fast, and where your worries come into play. My only thought is to starve it of energy 'till it settles down, but we've seen enough self-sustaining bullshit storms that I bet passive resistance doesn't work much anymore for that.

EDIT: speling

Definitely. But what about contacting all of the conference's sponsors, and insinuating that they're racist if they don't denounce the conference and pull their sponsorship? Or encouraging all of the previous speakers to denounce the organizers? Both of those happened.

Probably both allowed, but... wow, some real nasty behavior.

Here's one of the early objectors citing a presenter who has openly and thoughtfully struggled with attending LambdaConf: https://twitter.com/swannodette/status/714851217512513536

Here's an early Storify story of reactions to allowing Yarvin to speak - you will find that the most vocal objectors have continued to bash and badmouth anyone associated with LambdaConf: https://storify.com/adngyipa/lambdaconf-debate-in-tweets

https://twitter.com/fatneckbeardguy/status/71358678287339520...

"@47deg Hi, are you still going to sponsor LambdaConf if they give a platform to someone who thinks blacks are suited for slavery?" - https://twitter.com/ekrubnivek/status/713501535515226113

"@andrewfnewman @adrienneleigh So, the racist organizers of lambdaconf selected his talk knowing who they would get? Smart move, clearly!" - https://twitter.com/extempore2/status/714502151884505088

"If you've spoken at LambdaConf: have you repudiated its organizers for making the choice to include bigots and exclude marginalized people?" - https://twitter.com/fatneckbeardguy/status/71280436894525030...

https://mobile.twitter.com/antifuchs/status/7128837259948236...

https://mobile.twitter.com/antifuchs/status/7128835537977057...

It's a bit ironic, since I hadn't really known about the conference, and it sounds really cool. After all, I can just not go to that speaker - whoever he is (the controversy really doesn't interest me) - and see some of the other neat talks. I think as far as conference prices go, it's not too bad, but I wasn't planning on it (and there's always the ever-larger cost of travel/lodging), so I suspect I won't see it =/

Younger people are more used to some level of surveillance, whether through NSA, facebook, google, advertising cookies, etc. They're more comfortable with surveilling as a general concept, whether they're subjected to it, or they're the ones doing the surveilling. I remember when it was considered extremely rude to google someone before meeting them for the first time. And I'm not old, this was very recent history.

And with Twitter there is the whole callout culture. I used to be in favor of outing hypocrites, but not anymore when I witness the incredibly asymmetric response that public shaming can inspire. And how that response can then be defended as free speech.

So with all that mixed together, free speech is basically equated with mob mentality. When I think that there really should be a few principles inserted that distinguish between the two. Perhaps some personal responsibility in understanding what kind of public impact your free speech can have. Like, refusing to attend a conference is fine; attempting to organize a boycott on grounds like these, especially if successful, threatens the free exchange of ideas.

Also I think there is a generational difference regarding compartmentalization. Like for me I've always had a personal mode, a work mode, a music mode - different modes. For people that are more used to sharing everything wherever, maybe it's ridiculous to them to see someone else try and hold up those boundaries. (This could drive some of the criticism against LambdaConf, in that they'd completely minimize the point about Yarvin attending and leaving Moldbug out of it.)

Finally, there's the conflated argument between being PC and being hostile to challenging ideas; feeling like your worldview is being attacked. They're not the same thing. Being PC is generally a good thing, I see it as a simile for "respectful". But when safe zones and trigger warnings are taken to their extremes, you basically have a community guilty of self-coddling and refusing to have their views challenged and expanded.

I find it troubling what people get upset about these days. But it seems entirely their right to be upset about whatever they feel like. And others' right to mock them for it.

It's disappointing that platforms like Facebook and Google don't seem neutral (the latter two taking steps to prevent gun sales). But until they're regulated it seems entirely OK for them to promote their own views.

http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/articles/no-trump-voters-allo...

> I find it troubling what people get upset about these days. But it seems entirely their right to be upset about whatever they feel like. And others' right to mock them for it.

The thing is, any individual actor doing these things is fine, and can look at their own actions and feel that they are acting ethically. But when that gets scaled up to the entire society, especially with outrage culture and mass coordination via instant worldwide communication it doesn't work. I don't know, it's like some weird variation on the prisoner's dilemma or something.

undesirables, in an ideal world, should die slowly of hunger in the gutter.

freedom!

These calls for consequence-free speech are fundamentally hypocritical, because they require the speech of others to be suppressed so that the offending party doesn't suffer (where "suffer" has a very broad definition).

Freedom of speech is freedom to criticize. You, of course, are free to criticize in return. But don't pretend that your calls for people's speech to be suppressed are some kind of noble act.

Why do you assume I'm proposing restricting people's speech? I'm pointing out a thing some people are doing which I think is bad, and suggesting that they should think about the kind of world they're creating when they do that. Nowhere did I suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

who is attempting to restrict speech in this situation?

If there's no problem with B's behavior, the takeaway is that no one can say anything that anyone would take offense to, because they'd be putting their employment at risk. No thanks.

There are ways besides government force to chill free speech.

Yes, that one was enough to make me stop reading xkcd.

And:

2. So what?

Just because you can say racist shit doesn't mean I have to listen to it, acknowledge your existence, participate in any event that decides to invite you to speak, or anything else.

You're entitled to your own actions, but you have no entitlement to the action of others in response.

The world doesn't owe you anything. Treat others as you'd like to be treated, etc, etc.

Good point—as someone who's helped organize a conference, I'd really like people to not try sabotaging my conference because they didn't like one of the speakers we chose. So, I guess that's where I stand. Is your comment indicative of how you would like us to treat you?

This is lost on those who take freedom of speech for granted.

Yes. And ironically, the one who convinced me of that point is Yarvin/Moldbug. (He actually argued, partly tongue-and-cheek, that Egypt should shut off its internet from the world. And while this sounds outrageous and terrible, remember that he was right about the revolutions in the Arab world, and virtually everyone in the tech world who cheered on the revolutions were wrong).

I think it is fine that some speech is considered beyond the pale. Some speech is in fact dangerous. Power comes from the barrel of the gun -- but speech is used to organize the gun holders. Speech tells the people with the guns who the bad guys are.

My problem is that the wrong people are controlling speech, and for the wrong reasons. De-platforming is being instigated via a heckler's veto -- the biggest cry-bullies try to dictate what is acceptable. I'd rather have speech controlled by an official council selected by a random lottery of citizens, than by self-appointed censors.

And also I don't agree with banning Yarvin/Moldbug in particular. I have found Yarvin/Moldbug to be an amazingly insightful and interesting blogger. The history and sources he has cited has greatly enhanced my understanding of the world. Sometimes he can be abrasive, hyperbolic or a troll, but overall I am better off for having read him. I hate it that I'm scared in real life to mention that I have read his material. I'd rather see him inside the Overton window of conversation.

But the worst aspect of the current attempt to deplatform, is that the line of what is acceptable is constantly changing. If I say "it's silly that someone with male equipment be allowed to use a women's bathroom", does that make me transphobic? Should I be banned from conferences? What about five years from now, when the line has moved? And what belief that is normal now, will be unacceptable in twenty years?

While it may be fine to believe that some speech is considered beyond the pale (and let's leave aside the forms of speech people already agree on, like yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater), the question remains, who is the arbiter, and what standards do they apply? The point is that there isn't a consistent answer to that question. And since an inconsistent answer would lead to abuse, and to the "wrong" people having their speech suppressed, the only alternative is instead to defend free speech even when objectionable, and thus argue that it shouldn't be controlled.

The whole crux is what you're saying about the "wrong" people controlling speech, and for the "wrong" reasons. There is no consistent definition for "wrong" here, not that cannot be turned around and used against you or the people you'd define as "right".

Which is why I essentially agree with your final paragraph, at least the sentiment about not being able to predict the moving lines of what is acceptable if we were to assign values of what kind of speech should and shouldn't be controlled. But since I don't agree with your first three paragraphs, I don't understand your point of view.