@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
@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?
@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.
@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 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.
@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.
CDA gives publishers the same protection as common carriers. Meaning there's less of a legal distinction between them.
Since your back to humorless pettifogging, I see Antifascists have been around since 1919. If in 2019 we still have fascism, how many more centuries until your strategies work? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fascism
Because what I think you are saying is that if the majority thinks the minority is wrong, the minority can be silenced to prevent 'bad' ideas? Isn't that like what the Nazis in power, the USSR, the People's Republic, and Jim Crow propenents all believe(d) in?
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!