That's a problem with big companies. They need to please a mass of people that are very different with each others. Eventually they settle with the lowest common denominator, and eliminate more and more things that can offend.
Among them you will find:
- new ideas which you can't know if they are bad or
good yet and need assessment but will feel
inconfortable.
- old ideas becoming relevant in our new context
(or that we are evolved enough to accept now)
that have been put asides for long because
of habits.
- ideas that are important for a part of the
population and unsettling for another part.
- distrupting or creative things, arts, that just
need to exist for humanity to keep grow, even
if it's not always good.
- bad things that people need to know exist.
You can't exercice criticism if you don't have
the material to criticise. People need to be
able to read "Mein Kampf" so we can argument
against it.
These quips about PC culture miss the mark. The rise of social networks / platforms catering to people who express their distaste for certain speech stems from their desire to further their revenue streams. I haven't heard of anyone leaving a platform because there wasn't enough offensive content.
Expect this behavior from every site that harvests user data and relies on adclicks to pay their shareholders. The monetezation of self expression -- a concern that dates back to at least the Usenet era -- is the culprit, not the speech criticizers.
I have left both Twitter and Github recently, not because there "wasn't enough offensive content", but because I find thought-policing even more offensive than the allegedly "offensive" speech.
If it weren't for the fact that Facebook is used by many of my older relatives, I'd be out of there, too, and it won't take much more to get me to leave.
So... now you've heard of someone. I do not think I am unique.
When those that agree with you start affecting said companies' bottom line, we'll call it a movement. Until then you appear to be in the severe minority.
The Internet is not governed, it is bought and sold; if you have any intention of affecting change, you do better to acknowledge that, at least as a start.
Realize, too, that the ability to "leave" these services is something of a privilege. Every job I've ever applied to in the tech world asks for a LinkedIn and, I've observed for programming positions, at least a presence on GitHub. It's hard to explain your free speech objections on your intro letter.
The majority don't care about health and trade a healthy body for a cheeseburger everyday.
The majority don't care about ecology and trade pollution for saving a walk everyday.
Decision affecting the humanity cannot be based on the majority behavior. It should be based on the majority vote, because then you give people an occasion to step back and think. To discuss and argue. But don't base on status quo.
I've never seen any job that asked for a LinkedIn account, nor am I acquainted with anyone who ever got a job through a LinkedIn account. While there are undoubtedly exceptions, I don't personally know of any. In fact, that's why I left LinkedIn (long before I left Twitter and GitHub) -- way too much company spam, not enough actual usefulness.
"Realize, too, that the ability to "leave" these services is something of a privilege"
Is there anything that isn't a "privilege" nowadays?
"It's hard to explain your free speech objections on your intro letter."
There's no need to "explain" anything. Just refer them to your own public code repo, which any programmer worth his or her salt should be able to set up in a short time using an Amazon S3 bucket and one of the many utilities that exist for manipulating those buckets. Presumably the company you're applying to just wants to see some code samples. There's nothing magical about GitHub.
I don't get why people feel the need for Facebook or Twitter need to host those items on their own servers?
Do people not realize that these are private companies with editorial discretion?
Having said that, their right to exercise editorial controls on their platforms does not mean they are somehow above criticism when they elect to do so in stupid ways. As the original comment in this thread suggested their moves in regard to speech are short-sighted and detrimental to the overall health of society, especially given the pervasiveness of use of these platforms. Still, I can recognize their right, and call them out on their foolishness, at the same time. I only cross the line when I demand force to be used against them (meaning a law written to force their hands); then I would be in the wrong. They don't have a responsibility to further discourse and I don't have a responsibility to hold my tongue when they fail in this regard.
I would argue that anyone who takes it upon themselves to become the central hub for most discourse (or to organize the world's information) has an implied responsibility to act as a good steward of the empire they seek to control. We have no obligation as members of the public to accept whatever controls a land-grabbing (I use this term here non-judgmentally) empire builder wishes to impose; they sought to turn us into members of their empires, so we should at least have the right to demand they behave equitably, and perhaps even beneficently.
When we use a Facebook or a Twitter, we (the public) accept the product they offer. True enough, if we find out we don't like the deal we can threaten to walk away if there is no change. But these companies don't have a responsibility, implied or otherwise, to better us, cater to any of us, or fulfill someone's vision of social good. It would be nice if they delivered on these things (of course my vision of what that means) but it is not their responsibility to do so. If I don't like that with sufficient intensity, my one valid recourse is stop using their services.
The source of the implied responsibility of beneficence is the fact that without assuming such a responsibility the acts of a corporate empire are likely to be destructive to the long term interests of the society. By (for example) controlling the social network, they leave members of the society with limited choice not to participate, and thus the implied responsibility of beneficence in exchange for that removal of choice.
The difference is that nobody is asking for these companies to be banned or to cease operations. They are free to do what they want and we are free to ask what we want.
So, in order to prevent that situation, we allow one company a monopoly on the market. In exchange, that company is forced to follow common carrier rules, such as not interfering with speech.
We all agree to use the same company for infrastructure, just like we all agree to use the same couple of companies for social media. It's just when the social media companies do things that are bad people pop up and say "they are private companies in a free market they can do whatever they want" because these companies are new and cable companies are old.
The issue is that its hard to get the message out with a few brands dominating the internets. How will one get the message out about a website if she or he couldn't blog about it on a platform like Twitter or Facebook?
p.s. I might be reading you wrong here
Consider that certain people's freedom of speech is already stifled.
What should we do about that?
Want to trade places with them?
Are you claiming that safe-space movements that stifle free speech are justified, because someone else's free speech was stifled?
Please give us an example with details of what exactly you are talking about.
Safe spaces do not stifle free speech. Just as your ability to limit who enters your home (if you have one) does not stifle free speech, safe spaces do not stifle free speech.
I would argue that they actually increase freedom of speech, because they give certain individuals freedom to express themselves without fear of retribution. Something that can be rather difficult achieve for some people.
Of course, there are problems with the safe space movement. For example, they often highlight racial/ethnic/gender differences between people. In my analysis, it seems that marginalized people have realized the world is not going to change any time soon, and that they will continue to be marginalized – which is the motivation for creating a safe place.
Should Facebook/Twitter be a "safe space"? Probably not – but Facebook has been very succcesful at creating such safe spaces with their Groups platform, which seem to be gaining more and more traction.
But first, since you're defending the concept, how would you define a safe space... and how is the space kept "safe"?
The definition of a "safe space" is one where free speech is not allowed. We have had safe spaces for centuries, they are called homes. At home, you are free to shield yourself from whatever speech, ideas, or behavior you find offensive. The whole crux of a free society is the freedom to be boorish, crude, or otherwise offensive. That's what freedom means. It means there is no authority that decides what forms of speech or expression are not allowed. We already have laws against assault and harassment, and those are enough.
Yes they do. If you would like I can provide countless references and videos that showcase just how much they stifle free speech.
Yes, they do, by definition.
A space where you can't say certain things doesn't stifle free speech.
Care to explain?
The parent poster said he was for defending free speech, why would he want to switch places to somewhere where it's restricted?
What is your objection even? That because free speech is restricted in e.g. North Korea we should start restricting it elsewhere?
Or are you implying that oppressed demographics(e.g. homosexuals, black people, etc.) are having their freedom of speech stifled and therefore restrictions in free speech as a result of the 'safe space' movement are justified?
That's the only reasonably understandable(albeit flawed in my personal opinion) interpretation of your comment I can really make.
Care to clarify?
It's funny to see people get bent out of shape at the idea that they might have to watch what they say when the consequences of saying something offensive are just that a platform might not let them publish everything they want to while there are large groups of people who already have to watch what they say because the consequences of saying something that another group disagrees with are rape threats, death threats, and harassment campaigns.
I strongly believe in free speech and I will absolutely be 'bent out of shape' when people or groups try to stifle it.
>there are large groups of people who already have to watch what they say because the consequences of saying something that another group disagrees with are rape threats, death threats, and harassment campaigns.
Please provide me a modern day example of this in the US.(where these companies are located)
If tons of people are self-censoring or avoiding speaking at all for fear of being doxxed and getting death or rape threats, do we really have free speech?
There's a cottage industry of throwing rhetorical bombs and trolling 4chan in order to get threats. The people complaining the loudest about threats are reluctant to actually get the police involved, and they never stop trolling because they realize the threats aren't real.
tldr: Internet threats are no reason to even consider curtailing free speech.
"You will be judged by the company you keep" is starting to bite these platforms, and they're trying to do something about it.
Yes we do. If you self-censor because you are afraid of the consequences of your speech, that makes you a coward. Far better for cowards to cower in fear silently then for everyone to be forcibly silenced to placate cowardice.
Because banning death threats is forcibly silencing people?
Please tell me I'll reading that wrong.
You answered your own question. Its already a crime to make death threats. If you are afraid to speak your mind or otherwise do what you think is right because you are afraid of the consequences, whether they be crimes or not, you are a coward.
Most of the internet we choose to use is a collection of walled gardens. People can kick you out of their garden, that's how it works.
We're discussing a normative conclusion that even though "people can kick you out of their garden, that's now it works", perhaps people shouldn't choose to kick others out of their "garden" because of disagreements and free speech issues (though they're always welcome to do so).
Godwin-evoking private forum moderators exercising their right to police their turf aside, I always find self-moderating upvote/karma systems on forums interesting. Ostensibly the point is to allow users to control the tone of the site, and promote interesting, relevant content. In practice it is used to bury unpopular opinions and register distain.
Some comments are justifiably downvoted for being of spectacularly low quality, whilst many others are hit for not reflecting prevailing opinion - essentially we (internet commentators in general, not specifically HN, although it's hardly exempt) actively squash Free Speech on a daily basis.
And remember, most of the stuff we're talking about here are twitter eggs saying they're going to rape someone's family to death because a video game was delayed. No reasonable person would consider that protected speech.
The question at hand is: do we want to be permitted to hear hate speech? Twitter and Facebook (and the law in some jurisdictions) are saying: "no, you may not encounter these subjects where we have the power to stop you, because it may inspire bad things within you -- either personal pain, or worse yet, radicalization."
Your second point is that none of this content is any good, anyway -- that we're better off getting rid of it.
FB and Twitter can do what they like, and there is something to be said for removing low quality content in order to achieve a better product. But "hate speech" seems much broader than that.
In Chaplinsky (a terrible SCOTUS decision that has been abandoned in practice), a WWI-era court decided that an anti-war protester couldn't disseminate anti-war rhetoric to his fellow immigrants (in Yiddish, btw). This was "like shouting fire in a crowded theater." Some things are just too dangerous to say out loud.
Are we so certain of our current taboos that we really don't want to hear from the fringe? Are we really OK with giving up our right to hear controversial viewpoints and decide their merits for ourselves? Because that's what these rules/laws do -- they don't force you to hear anything. You are always free to block, ignore, etc. They prevent you from encountering the content in the first place -- someone gets to decide for you what is and isn't "safe," because they're afraid you'll be influenced by it.
For me, I don't want to be kept ignorant of something because someone decides I'm better off not hearing. Even if that speech is violent, racist, conspiratorial, or just plain nutty. I can decide when divert my attention. It's part of being an adult -- learning that words can't hurt you.
Where did I even indicate or hint to that???
Having freedom of speech is not the same thing as forcing someone to listen to you.
I agree that there are ways around that, but there will always be ways around it. Pretending that filtering speech will make the harassment go away is pretty naive.
EDIT: I see what you mean. I think there's a huge difference between temporarily choosing to not engage in public discussions, and being shut out of said discussion.
This comic sums up that situation pretty well: http://imgur.com/aF8eTQf
-RFK, "Value of Dissent" (21 March 1968)
The problem is that of blindness and group think. Every major advancement of human rights has been against the "terms of service" and were extremely uncomfortable ideas for the majority of people.
Getting your feelings hurt every now and again can be used as a catalyst for personal and moral growth just like exercising causes pain but increases health.
Do they:
Block all the nasty tweets?
Set their account to private?
Ignore it?
Nothing wrong, except those tools don't exist today.
This policy about removing hate comments didn't exist yesterday and is still not in place. By your logic it isn't a solution either and can't be discussed because it's not yet in place.
>When you draw really clear lines in the sand at a site like Reddit, “there will always be some a—–,” Huffman said, “looking for loopholes.” He eventually came to the conclusion that virtually every other major social site has come to: that content guidelines for online communities work best when they’re “specifically vague,” giving the contours of clarity on what sort of content is forbidden, while affording those in charge of enforcing the rules some leeway with when, precisely, the rules apply.[1]
That's the CEO of reddit saying that selective enforcement should be the default, and that users should not lean on the actual, written rules to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable.
[1] Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/05...
When enabled, the 'Notifications' link/page disappears from the UI and the user no longer receives messages from anyone who they haven't messaged before.
Not hard to do at all.
The more I talk about this the more it sounds like a score file[1]. Obviously it would need to be made more user-friendly to be really effective.
Ideally, people wouldn't send death threats/hate speech. This seems practically unenforceable from Twitter's side.
So what if Twitter had a special feature where it could detect if you are receiving an unusual spike in notifications (and possibly even use sentiment analysis). Then it would present you with a nice, warm message:
"We noticed you're receiving an unusually high number of notifications. These messages may be abusive, hateful, or triggering."
Then provide options for turning your profile private, or a special new setting that completely hides @-notifications from people you don't follow.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/31/former-miss-turke...
Identity politics is normally associated with the nominally "left," but really it's the right and especially the religious right who have been experts in the weaponized use of identity politics in the last few decades. The entire Reagan and Bush eras were built on the use of identity politics to mobilize the "base" and keep critics on the defensive.
Liberals invent identity politics plays, but conservatives take it to production at scale.
I expect to see right-wingers totally co-opt this bandwagon real soon now.
The Larry Flynt principle still stands: the measure of freedom of speech is the freedom afforded the most offensive or idiotic speakers. I don't support haters, but I support their right to spew it. Unfriend and block exist for a reason.
My inclination is this is still a good thing to do. Facebook doesn't need to provide a public forum for hate mongers.
They are not in the business of providing a platform for free speech. Just look at reddit for an example. The quality of their product has suffered because they allowed (and continue to allow) racist and misogynistic subreddits to proliferate. Thus, these segments of their user base also proliferate. At various points, they decided to take action. Whether those actions improved their product or not is debateable.
Social media platform users have no right to free speech on the site. They do have a right to start a competing website that allows free speech, though.
And then the new website becomes popular, and then authoritarians start demanding that the new website ban speech they don't like, and then people who want free speech say that we don't want that and you come back to tell us that they're a private company that can do what they want.
They're also a private company that can do what we want.
> Why is this bad? Because hate speech is not clearly defined.
Legality by which jurisdiction?
If someone posted the 1-line perl script for DeCSS, would that be blocked? In Turkey, I believe posting anything defamatory regarding AtaTurk is illegal. What about posting Nazi Propaganda in Germany?
Do you advocate this approach for Hacker News too? If not, why not?
"I hate you, you stupid [insert bad word] and I am going to come to your house and attack/kill/rape you" - get out the ban hammer.
And are you really sure the sure the line will not be moved after ? Because this is such an opportunity for politics. But also just for any entities with a moral or economic agenda.
And will the censorship be done by humans ? Or will machine will stop a quotation from a book or a movie containing it ?
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm
... so "the line" is basically whatever European Union says is "illegal hate speech" as per this announcement. (The announcement makes it seem that it is largely targeted at terrorism and racism, at least for now).
I agree with you, though, in that personally I'm not the biggest fan of "hate speech" laws. They seem like a ripe target for political abuse.
What? It is already is in several places around the world.
> Or do you think the threat is less credible if given online?
Do you not?
If it's a "box," then frankly, that box was opened long ago, long before the internet or computers.
The network effect works the way it does because we have granted super-restrictive monopoly rights that prevent competition.
There was once a company that tried to allow you to export your data from Facebook. It was called Power Ventures. They were sued and shut down by Facebook. The corporate veil was pierced and the founder was found personally liable for $3 million in supposed damages.
The technology exists, but we've made laws for companies like Facebook to make sure that their monopolies are not threatened.
Networks exist because not everyone is an admin and web developer and wants to build their own website, and unless you own the pipe to the servers, the servers themselves, the software running on the server, and so on you have exactly whatever rights your provider of choice says you have and not one iota more.
>Networks exist because not everyone is an admin and web developer and wants to build their own website, and unless you own the pipe to the servers, the servers themselves, the software running on the server, and so on you have exactly whatever rights your provider of choice says you have and not one iota more.
That's not technically correct, but we'll accept it for purposes of argument because it's not super far off for some access modes. I'm saying that it doesn't have to be that way. A lot of people hear about these things, acknowledge the injustice and weirdness in them, and then just move on with their day, seemingly believing that it's something that can't be altered. We can alter it. We don't have to grant Facebook an arbitrary monopoly. We don't have to allow them to restrict us from gathering the data that we rightfully own just because we've shared it on their platform. Let's change it.
It's difficult to change and difficult to make people aware of this situation because, obviously, incumbent interests want to keep their monopolies, so they spend and lobby and produce and proclaim to try and keep them, and to make people think that there's nothing that can be done about it. It's not that way in real life.
Why is this bad? Because hate speech is not clearly defined. What may be fine today may qualify as hate speech tomorrow. Eventually posting anything not super positive or encouraging could be considered "hateful" or "triggering" and get you in trouble.
One of my favorite quotes on people being mean on the internet, courtesy of Tyler the Creator: https://twitter.com/fucktyler/status/285670822264307712?lang...