Why I Believe In Free Speech inc Nazis

[Lexicus]

Corporations censoring people to protect their bottom line is increasingly becoming a threat to democracy. It's one reason to remove the profit motive completely from the media, and imo it is also a reason to contain China like it's 1949.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The issue is more complicated though, I do have the moral authority to ignore what people say and to dis-associate (boycott) from them. If corporations are people too then YouTube can decide what speech is allowed on their platform.

I would actually agree with this if:

1. YouTube didn't misrepresent/outright lie about its rules, how it enforces them, and for whom they count
   
2. YouTube's parent company didn't actively suppress competition.
3. YouTube didn't routinely side with fraudulent claims done with the intention to suppress speech (or more commonly just to pilfer money) and place burden of proof on "defendant"

I hold that YouTube would not be nearly as popular if it were open with these practices. But sure, if it said "we will censor this because we feel like it and arbitrarily remove any message we happen not to like with no apparent standard" in its ToS, then its practices would be mostly fine.

So what happens if the Chinese use their consumer base as clout to pressure YouTube into removing criticism of China? I prefer allowing the offensive speech to letting people blunt criticism. And for those arguing this is not about censorship, what do you think happens when enough politicians clamor for 'regulation' of the communications industry? The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming! We cant allow their attack on our Democracy, we must lower the cone of silence onto the internet.

To be fair there's some legit basis for implicating antitrust.

Corporations censoring people to protect their bottom line is increasingly becoming a threat to democracy. It's one reason to remove the profit motive completely from the media, and imo it is also a reason to contain China like it's 1949.

I agree, but politically how could anybody remove profit motive from media at this point? Try that and the media will make Trump look like a saint by comparison with its coverage.

 

[MaryKB]

Facebook routinely censors people. Censorship in the most restricted sense means going through content before it is seen by the public to ensure it meets some standards of acceptability...and corporations certainly do this to some extent. The question is whether this activity by corporations poses a threat to free speech. I believe that the case can be made that in some cases, it does, depending on the ubiquity of the platform.

But it is certainly true that "censorship" on Twitter or whatever does not stop anyone from going to a streetcorner and saying what they want to say.

I disagree, facebook can block you from posting on their site, but they can't stop you from speaking.

 

[Akka]

You do not seem to have any grasp of the concepts of reality or logic. You seem to think dressing up your opinions with pseudo-intellectual double-speak makes you sound smart. It doesn't. Pretty much everything you post is nonsense trash.

You seem to think you get to decide those things. I think this comes from a lack of grip on reality. Your opinion is not truth, and your definitions are wrong.

I swear that every single time you open your mouth to talk down to someone, you describe yourself. It's pretty incredible, you take the whole hypocrisy thing to a whole new level.

Well the punchline of that post was "that's why I support socialist revolution and a literal purge of Nazis rather than just banning them from Twitter or whatever" but sure

The problem I see there is that your definition of what IS a "nazi" is very flexible and tend to include whoever disagree with you as "honorary nazis who are guilty of being nazis by not fighting the nazis". Which basically makes it a dressed up totalitarian wet dream.

Not that I would actually mind the actual result of Nazis disappearing somehow, but I certainly wouldn't like to live in a society where fanatics are given the totalitarian power to decide that whoever don't fit their moral compass should be killed.

I prefer to have actual laws which decide the limit of free speech based on actual observable content, and which are applied regardless of personal preferences.

 

[Lexicus]

I disagree, facebook can block you from posting on their site, but they can't stop you from speaking.

Yes, I too welcome the benevolent rule of our tech-billionaire overlords.

 

[MaryKB]

Yes, I too welcome the benevolent rule of our tech-billionaire overlords.

I don't even use facebook

I get you don't like them, I don't like them either, but facebook isn't able to stop you from sharing your thoughts.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

They're also not capable of consistently telling the truth under oath, protecting user data, or following their own standards but who's keeping track anyway? I know the current administration doesn't want to cast stones in that regard for obvious reasons, but it's still a problem even though these things impact speech moreso indirectly.

I used it years ago, but I've deleted my account. I only remember that I've done so when they're mentioned again.

 

[Lexicus]

I get you don't like them, I don't like them either, but facebook isn't able to stop you from sharing your thoughts.

I said exactly that in the part of my post you quoted: Twitter "censorship" doesn't stop you from walking out and saying whatever you want to say on the nearest streetcorner.

The real problem posed by social media corporations and the like to free speech is not censoring speech, but drowning public discourse under an avalanche of propaganda and misinformation, because the misinformation gets more engagement (thus more traffic and money for social media companies) than truthful information. I believe that presents free speech issues and whether we like it or not social media is becoming ubiquitous. I think Google and Amazon should be converted into public utilities. There have been some interesting ideas for democratizing/socializing Facebook and Twitter too but I am not sure exactly how to proceed with them.

 

[MaryKB]

Well I outright disagree with you on that public utilities part I believe internet service itself should be a utility, but that's totally a different case.

I completely agree with you that companies like facebook create problems, especially with how easy it is to spread garbage on there, there's no quality control, unlike real news. I however feel it's a totally separate issue from First Amendment complaints, and isn't related in any way to free speech. I would hardly even say it's ubiquitous, since there are so man options for getting your news, I can't agree it's a monopoly.

 

[Berzerker]

Where can I find this real news? The 1st Amendment limits government power wrt speech, but free speech can be and is attacked outside of government action. Antifa's a good example of that.

 

[Lexicus]

real news.

Real news presents other serious problems. Most newscasters are millionaires and incapable of objectively examining policy issues. Most news outlets reflect the views of their very rich controlling officers and owners.

Well I outright disagree with you on that public utilities part I believe internet service itself should be a utility, but that's totally a different case.

Amazon and Google both provide services that are natural monopolies. Search engine and online package-delivery system. People should not be forced to pay Jeff Bezos an economic rent in order to buy things online.

I mean, I'll admit this isn't as clear-cut a case as banking, where deposits in institutions that generate private profit are explicitly guaranteed by public money, but my view is that natural monopolies should never be allowed to run for profit.

 

[MaryKB]

When I order something from barnesandnoble.com, Jeff Bezos doesn't get a cent. You're exaggerating to hyperbole. There's no natural monopoly in either of these cases.

I get it, I know how much you hate capitalism, but you're not discussing things within the context of the real system we're using, and I feel that's a bit of bad faith.

You know I'd also love to just tear down our entire system and rebuild it, but that's not something we really have the power to do, and I don't feel it's constructive to this kind of conversation.

 

[Commodore]

You are equating my posts to the same **** that neo-nazis, homophobes, transphobes etc post and it's disengenuous as **** not to mention insulting, but you already know that don't you but yet here you are doing it, intentionally and to what end?

Well seeing as you have, on many occasions, advocated for violence against your political opponents, I see it as entirely fair to compare you to Nazis. If you don't want to be compared with terrible people, then stop being a terrible person.

I feel it's anti-free speech to tell YouTube they *have* to provide a platform to people they don't want to. If you're running a company, and someone wants to advertise with you but you think supporting them is going to hurt your business, then you have every right not to do business with them (exception of course being discrimination

So basically you support freedom of association until someone exercises that freedom in a way you disagree with?

Also, your point about YouTube is irrelevant. This thread wasn't about forcing sites like YouTube to host their content, it was about governments shutting down their own independent sites they set up.

 

[Lexicus]

When I order something from barnesandnoble.com, Jeff Bezos doesn't get a cent. You're exaggerating to hyperbole.

Jeff Bezos' explicit goal is to have Amazon get a cut of all online transactions of this kind. That is the idea behind all these "platform" companies, like Uber, whose business model is to continue sucking up venture capital so it can undercut all competitors (including public transit) on price, gradually corner its market, and then use its monopoly power to score massive profits.

There's no natural monopoly in either of these cases.

Package delivery, maybe not. Maybe Amazon's near-monopoly is the result of unlimited access to venture capital that has nothing to do with market forces per se.

But it makes no sense to have a bunch of competing search engines, because the point of a search engine is comprehensiveness. It is the same reason calls to "break up" Facebook make no sense. The point of a social media network is that everyone you know is on it. That purpose is not served by "breaking it up" into multiple competing social media networks.

Anyway, IIRC Amazon runs its package thing at a loss and makes most of its money from Amazon Web Services. That folds back into what you were saying about making the internet a public utility.

 

[Zardnaar]

Why would neo-Nazis deny the holocaust?

White washing the crimes of the Nazi regime and make Neo Nazism acceptable to modern audiences.

IMHO.

 

[Zardnaar]

Are you for real? Neo-Nazis and other bigots want me and people like me dead, Of course i goddamn don't want them to gain any foothold in society!

But you can't even fathom such a concept because you've got your security and that's all you care about.

You literally already played the "b-b-b-but neonazis are minorities too!" card and i hope everyone takes a note of that, because it is very, very revealing.

They're gonna want you dead regardless of what the law says.

The article said though what they can see on the underground sitescis more violent and extreme than what you used to see on traditional Neo Nazi sites who had moderators, rules and the owners were public figures or associated with open far righters (David Duke and Co).

So you have a heap of idiots venting on public forums.

No you have them stewing in underground encrypted bstutf and from what they can tell if they create a fake account or whatever is a lot worse.

You're not gonna see the bullet coming. You don't know who's doing it.

The shooter in my country came from Australia no one saw it coming he didn't associate with the local neo nazis.

Literal neo Nazis and KKK are extreme minorities but they'll get a few casual weebos or whatever who love Panther tanks and V2 rockets or whatever that support them.

 

[Lexicus]

White washing the crimes of the Nazi regime and make Neo Nazism acceptable to modern audiences.

IMHO.

It's the same dynamic you see with tankies and the crimes of the USSR. "that didn't happen but the victims had it coming"

 

[Kaitzilla]

Hate tends to breed more hate.
Both from the targets and from the perpetrators.

I can see why laws that violate free speech were passed.
But where should the line be drawn?
https://www.out.com/transgender/2019/9/02/uk-mom-charged-trolling-trans-activist-online

Transphobia comes with a price, as many are beginning to find. A UK woman who was arrested after she deadnamed and misgendered a trans activist on Twitter, has now been charged.

Kate Scottow was arrested at her home in December, in front of her children. The arrest came after complaints about transphobic comments she made toward Stephanie Hayden, a trans campaigner, online. At the time, she was reportedly detained for seven hours and for at least two months, police held her cellphone and laptop as a part of the investigation.

According to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) , Scottow has now been charged for the ‘persistent’ messages which were intended to cause ‘annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety’ to another person, over a number of months Essentially, she was taken to court for being a troll...

 

[Zardnaar]

It's the same dynamic you see with tankies and the crimes of the USSR. "that didn't happen but the victims had it coming"

Tankies?

But yeah people tend to give the USSR a pass. Nazism is worse but yeah this is why I look sideways at people advocating political violence or free speech.

It's basic authoritarian rule 101. Imagine how much damage Trump could do with no constitution and if he was a bit more capable.

 

[Zardnaar]

Hate tends to breed more hate.
Both from the targets and from the perpetrators.

I can see why laws that violate free speech were passed.
But where should the line be drawn?
https://www.out.com/transgender/2019/9/02/uk-mom-charged-trolling-trans-activist-online

UK law is different to US.

Libel laws for example are a lot stricter in the UK.

NZ doesn't have a constitutional right to free speech. It's a social more but not legally guranteed.

Some people watch to much American TV.