The only people who I see defend free speech online are those who defend white supremacists.
In Germany we don't have that "I'll die to defend your right to call for the extermination of minorities" attitude to free speech that I hear from Americans so often.
@Gargron A huge problem with this is that Americans have forgotten what the first amendment actually means.
It protects you from being arrested by the government for what you say. It really doesn't mean we have to tolerate everything anyone says as a society.
Bad ideas grow stronger when in public, not when they are confined to secret underground societies. Secret societies don't have the exposure for their idea to catch on and they have trouble getting recruits.
Things like white supremacy aren't based on facts, but on feelings, so "defeating" them through debate accomplishes nothing, but lets those who feel the same find each other and grow stronger.
@Gargron @whatcraic @gekitsu @Miredly Even though these hateful ideas are not based on fact, there are many who believe they are and could change their mind once they listen to someone expose their ideas.
Here is one example of an individual subscribing to these hateful ideas that was de-radicalized after a watching a debate between Destiny and Lauren Southern: https://youtu.be/sfLa64_zLrU
I am an American who defends freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
Freedom of speech means you have a right to stand on your soapbox in the public square and give your views.
Freedom of speech also means that you do not have to provide a soapbox for someone else, nor that you have to share your soapbox with them.
The New York Times does not have to provide a platform for Fascists. Neither does Mastodon.social or the Fediverse at large.
@hhardy01 @geotechland @Gargron @gekitsu @Miredly the problem with this is where does denying people service based on their views (creed) stop? Social media? ISPs? Financing from banks? Police and fire department protection? Purchasing food and clothing? Health care? Housing? Gas stations? Public utilities (water, electricity, heat)? Public libraries? Roads? Voting?
There's big problems with your argument.
First, slippery slope. That's an informal logical fallacy and an invalid argument.
Second, straw man argument. You are making a false and misleading analogy between "service" and "insisting I use my free speech to promote your ideas which I find antidemocratic and fascist in nature."
We are talking about privately-owned publications and forums, not public services.
@hhardy01 @geotechland @Gargron @gekitsu @Miredly Slippery slopes aren't a logical fallacy when they're real. Consider cases where is happened before (e.g. the history of social security numbers. Initially it was only supposed to be used for social security and then slowly became a unique identifier universally for Americans). 1/2
@hhardy01 @geotechland @Gargron @gekitsu @Miredly second - these platform are banning people, not just ideas. If Facebook said "you can discuss anything here other than X, and if you do we'll delete the posts where you discuss X" and they just did that, you would have a point. As it stands they often capriously deny service entirely after violating a vague and lengthy EULA (which change very often without notification).
@hhardy01 @geotechland @Gargron @gekitsu @Miredly one more point - housing, gas, electricity (where I live), health care, food and clothing are all provided by private companies. Setting a precedent where they can say "if Facebook can deny service based on a stated opinion, why can't we?" is dangerous, and is not a "Slippery slope" it's not exactly how law, business and culture works.
@hhardy01 @geotechland @Gargron @gekitsu @Miredly ... and last point (after watching your YouTube link) begging large corporate monopolies to police speech for you is fascist. It's worshiping at the alter of power and begging for scraps. It's the opposite of democracy. liberty and personal autonomy.
You are once again trying to change the subject to things which are completely irrelevant to the free speech right of individual publishers to publish what they want, and not to publish what they don't want.
You can't force me to publish your views which I profoundly abhor and strongly deplore. That's freedom of speech at work.
Do you want government-imposed censorship to force publications and forums to carry pro-Nazi and pro-Fascist views?
@hhardy01 @geotechland @Gargron @gekitsu @Miredly in your initial reply it was generalized as "provide a soapbox" (I'll grant that you did mention the NYT and the fediverse specifically later) but the first claim was a general claim, and I was responding to that.
What I want is for the 2019 nightmare of left-wing authoritarians vs. right-wing authoritarians to end. It's like a glib two dimensional version of the war between Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia but they don't see it.
You were replying on a thread by @Gargron. He is the principle author of Mastodon and owner and administrator of Mastodon.social. You knew that, right?
It isn't authoritarian to have your own publication or website to promote your own views is it?
Then how is it "fascist" or "authoritarian" for Eugen to set a policy on his site that consistent with German law, no Nazis or Nazi posts are allowed on the site?
How are you defining 'fascism'?
There's no moral equivalence between fascists and anti-fascists.
Fascists attempted to take over the world by force, resulting in the deaths of more than 80 million people. Fascists endorsed a racist ideology and committed genocide. Fascists destroyed the integrity of the institutions of government, democracy, and rule of law.
Anti-fascists defeated the fascists and saved the world from tyranny and madness.
See the difference?
You said "Freedom of speech also means that you do not have to provide a soapbox for someone else, nor that you have to share your soapbox with them."
Two problems here: (1) How far down the "soapbox stack" do you go? App? ISP? Finance? etc. (2) do you ban people with the idea, or just the ideas?
Your responses have been caviling and equivocation.
@hhardy01 @geotechland @gekitsu @Miredly @Gargron Regarding the last cavils & equivocations a fair comparison would be 1933 fascists to 1933 anti-Fascists. You're comparing 2019 "anti-fascists" to 1933 fascists, which is irrelevant.
Where is the moral daylight between 2019 "fascists" & 2019 "anti-fascists?" Both use force, coercion & appeals to corporations to advance their goals then say "It's okay when we do it."
I like Gargon, but he's human just like us. All humans make mistakes.
I'm not making petty or unnecessary objections. I'm not going back and forth from one viewpoint to another.
Distinguish in your mind publishers, responsible for the content they publish, and common carriers, who aren't, and can't and should not censor the communications they carry.
Google and FB right now are having the best of both worlds, blocking material based on content, and asserting safe harbor under the Communications Decency Act.
Regarding your false claim of moral equivalence between modern fascists and anti-fascists, let's take a specific example: The fascist and anti-fascist demonstrators in Charlottesville, VA on and around August 11-12, 2017.
Was there a moral equivalence between the fascist and anti-fascist demonstrators at Charlottesville as President Trump asserted?
@hhardy01 @geotechland @gekitsu @Miredly @Gargron Re: anti-fascists, a spokesperson in VICE "Fear is a part of our tactics." Later in the video they advocate doxxing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy1eRCYS08w
I'm not a pacifist, but the use of these tactics here isn't just ineffective, it's escalating conflict & creating the 2019 nightmare world.
Look at what happened to most of the Weathermen. With hindsight, who did more good in the 60s and 70s? Bernstein & Woodward, or the entire Weather Underground?
@hhardy01 @geotechland @gekitsu @Miredly @Gargron I don't see direct answers to (1) or (2) from yesterday. If you were making an attempt to answer (1) by trying to distinguish between "publishers" (e.g. Facebook) & Internet "common carriers" under US law they're both "interactive computer services" & provided the same protection. https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
To be fair (1) and (2) are both important and difficult to answer, but I've lost interest in calling out the hand-waving here.
Do you really not recognize the relevance of a link to an article you yourself just linked to before I did?
Here, it's on the first page, but let me help: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"
Do you now understand there is an important legal distinction between publishers and internet service providers?
Once again, by trying to change the subject to Social Security, you are comparing the free speech rights of private publishers to publish their views, and not to publish views with which they disagree, with a government identifier used for social benefits.
That's completely irrelevant. Surely you see that.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!