|
BigRed0427 posted:I think part of the problem is that their are people who think the first amendment also protects them from criticism. Not censorship, criticism. Definitely, that's basically the issue with people who spout racist speech and then act indignant when everyone else calls them on it. A lot of the people who rambles about how sjws are destroying free speech are really asking for speech on the other side to be banned so they can freely voice their opinions without being criticized for it.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
natetimm posted:GG is very much an adoption of the same tactics call-out culture has been using for years. They mercilessly and continually poo poo on people who don't toe their ideological line via public forums. This isn't new or exciting, and the harassment native to that type of toxic activism has been ongoing on both sides of the political spectrum online for a long time. is it really necessary to point out that people are lovely to other people on the internet, or that it's real fuckin dumb to say "well they did it first/they do it too" when it comes to threatening to kill people because you disagree with their opinions about video games maybe it's just me but i don't see it as particularly noteworthy that people use the internet to be shits
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
"i don't see why it's so bad to threaten to rape someone because she said video game characters wear revealing clothing. hell, those same people have been threatning to beat up racists for literally at least five years now. tit for tat"
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Being Christian is not a minority status and being a raving lunatic in public is the same regardless of content. Threating others existential existance with torment may need to be reexamined as far as what can be construed as a threat from whining bigots who just want to turn hate speech into a game of rules lawyering with the government DMs however. I also dont advocate for pre-emptive law in anticipation of problems yet to being identified to exist so it doesnt really matter if im engaged in deeply nuanced political science because I'm not going for any sort of alteration to the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
ReagaNOMNOMicks posted:Bye bye any form of social progress. I'm a fan of quoting myself, but this time it's for the greater good: https://www.google.fr/search?q=demo...AIVR9oaCh1EeweZ Some of this demos are terrifying, some are real good. But yeah you're not gonna make in time for your 9 to 5.  me the largest river.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:is it really necessary to point out that people are lovely to other people on the internet, or that it's real fuckin dumb to say "well they did it first/they do it too" when it comes to threatening to kill people because you disagree with their opinions about video games You should see it as noteworthy because it's becoming the genesis for a new set of bad laws people are trying to push through. Online harassment and threats is quickly becoming the equivalent of terrorism for a new generation, with all the dumb and reactionary laws to protect people from it being proposed like before. It's going to become the new altar people demand their rights be sacrificed upon due to a culture of fear and panic being stirred up by the media and political agitators. You already have prominent sites eliminating discussion altogether and writers calling for stupidly strict enforcement and the stripping of immunity from online content providers in regards to what their users say.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
ReagaNOMNOMicks posted:Bye bye any form of social progress. You can protest without saying, "Go, get that fucker of there!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
natetimm posted:You should see it as noteworthy because it's becoming the genesis for a new set of bad laws people are trying to push through. Online harassment and threats is quickly becoming the equivalent of terrorism for a new generation, with all the dumb and reactionary laws to protect people from it being proposed like before. It's going to become the new altar people demand their rights be sacrificed upon due to a culture of fear and panic being stirred up by the media and political agitators. You already have prominent sites eliminating discussion altogether and writers calling for stupidly strict enforcement and the stripping of immunity from online content providers in regards to what their users say. The internet is ethereal and this is just one of many bouts of naval gazing that will be required before we get the soft science of collective awareness figured out. Remember we're talking about a medium still younger than the average poster on this forum, most definitely so if you deliniate based on how the interactions on it are possible ( pre and post youtube for example)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
natetimm posted:. You already have prominent sites eliminating discussion altogether and writers calling for stupidly strict enforcement and the stripping of immunity from online content providers in regards to what their users say. Oh no, not being able to leave comments on a site sounds awful, have any particularly egregious examples?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
natetimm posted:You should see it as noteworthy because it's becoming the genesis for a new set of bad laws people are trying to push through. Online harassment and threats is quickly becoming the equivalent of terrorism for a new generation, with all the dumb and reactionary laws to protect people from it being proposed like before. It's going to become the new altar people demand their rights be sacrificed upon due to a culture of fear and panic being stirred up by the media and political agitators. You already have prominent sites eliminating discussion altogether and writers calling for stupidly strict enforcement and the stripping of immunity from online content providers in regards to what their users say. hm yes speech censorship wasn't a thing until tumblr activists started shaming racists, good point and what about my first amendment rights to call obama a race traitor murdering rapist on the local news comment section. i demand action *pounds fist on table*
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
I should have guessed this thread would have tumbled into gamergate bullshit within 3 pages. Congrats, apparently the greatest threat to free speech in modern times is being brewed in the bowels of twitter, tumblr, and 4chan. Also speech is limited in the US, I don't know why Americans believe otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Most of the underlying assumptions regarding absolutist free speech are faulty. Yelling at someone is not intended to be a reasoned attempt to convince them of their wrongness, the vast majority of the time. The explicit goal of groups like antiabortion protestors is to abuse freedom of speech to create a hostile environment that must be traversed in order to execute another right. The explicit goal of fascist marches are to cow and terrorize people. Insisting that these are perfectly acceptable and no different from any other kind of speech degrades political speech, renders a polite discussion identical to Operation Rescue vomit, renders a heated argument identical to a Nazi rally in a Jewish neighborhood. Eventually, this spills out into the corruption of nonpolitical speech. Thus, the consequence of this absolutist attitude is the slow death of any societal values. When racism and antiracism are officially identical, racism is eternally enshrined as good. The central argument against this argument, in turn, has been to say that racism might be bad now, sure, but in the future, it may be good.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:I should have guessed this thread would have tumbled into gamergate bullshit within 3 pages. Congrats, apparently the greatest threat to free speech in modern times is hosted in the bowels of twitter, tumblr, and 4chan. well when you ask the average internet addict what the greatest threat to free speech is in the world today, academically they want to say journalists in non-democratic countries, but before they can form the words some sharp and painful memories about the time @PaisleyPlumper42 called them a limp dicked racist pop up and divert thought
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:Gamergate? No thankyou. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
ReagaNOMNOMicks posted:I'm a fan of quoting myself, but this time it's for the greater good: I'm ok with this kind of stuff. I'm not ok with groups of protestors singling out targets to verbally and physically harass.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Oh no, not being able to leave comments on a site sounds awful, have any particularly egregious examples? Google being held liable for info its search engine returns: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-links-to.shtml Prominent left-wing journalist demanding an end to legal shielding of companies for the actions of their users: http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/29/mr-obama-tear-down-this-liability-shield/ Popehat deconstructs his dumb argument better than I can: https://popehat.com/2015/09/29/arthur-chu-would-like-to-make-lawyers-richer-and-you-quieter-and-poorer/ The UN publishing a hilariously bad Cyber-Violence report equating words on the internet with actual violence: http://time.com/4049106/un-cyber-violence-physical-violence/ Popehat again explaining what bullshit and agenda-pushing nonsense it is: https://popehat.com/2015/09/28/revisiting-the-un-broadband-commissions-cyberviolence-report/
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:03
|
|
natetimm posted:Google being held liable for info its search engine returns: Remember that time you freaked out from words on the internet? Get the beam out from thy own eye, thou hypocrite!
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:well when you ask the average internet addict what the greatest threat to free speech is in the world today, academically they want to say journalists in non-democratic countries, but before they can form the words some sharp and painful memories about the time @PaisleyPlumper42 called them a limp dicked racist pop up and divert thought poo poo, when you put it that way, maybe we do need to ruthlessly destroy SJW gamergate activists so we can make progress in other areas of the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Google being held liable for info its search engine returns: None of those links are about "prominent sites eliminating discussion altogether."
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Also, when the UN Puts out some kind of report the USA IMMEDIATELY Has to do what it says.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
i don't really have any good examples of what i'm talking about so i'm just going to quote the popehat gamergate guy to make my arguments for me. what were we talking about again?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i don't really have any good examples of what i'm talking about so i'm just going to quote the popehat gamergate guy to make my arguments for me. what were we talking about again? Something about Hippos? Or the pope's hat? Serious Post: Are you talking about sites like the daily dot not having comment sections? Because god forbit a site DOESN'T let you tell the world about thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
So, let's say I put together a posse of people to leave deliberately misleading comments designed to alter people's views of the blog or social media or whatever, such as by associating Frito-Lay with pedophilia or whatever. Should it be acceptable to take action to suppress our free speech, and should both corporations and private individuals be allowed to delete our comments or whatever?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:None of those links are about "prominent sites eliminating discussion altogether." There's an entire movement going on right now to gut commets sections and lots of sites are on board with it. Vox turned off their commets, for example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
natetimm posted:There's an entire movement going on right now to gut commets sections and lots of sites are on board with it. Vox turned off their commets, for example. maybe this is because comments are usually worthless and a waste of resources and not because of some chilling feminist conspiracy to destroy gamer culture in the future we can only defend the first amendment if every news organization provides a space for randos to call each other retards and bitches. these are the sacrifices we must make to protect our ideals. i long to see a day where the niggerstomper58 post is regarded as highly as the gettysburg address
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Most of the underlying assumptions regarding absolutist free speech are faulty. Yelling at someone is not intended to be a reasoned attempt to convince them of their wrongness, the vast majority of the time. The explicit goal of groups like antiabortion protestors is to abuse freedom of speech to create a hostile environment that must be traversed in order to execute another right. The explicit goal of fascist marches are to cow and terrorize people. The problem is that you can't trust the government to tell what's a good speech and what's a bad speech, hence why in the US at least there's very wide latitude for expressing speech of a political nature. quote:Thus, the consequence of this absolutist attitude is the slow death of any societal values. When racism and antiracism are officially identical, racism is eternally enshrined as good. The central argument against this argument, in turn, has been to say that racism might be bad now, sure, but in the future, it may be good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
natetimm posted:There's an entire movement going on right now to gut commets sections and lots of sites are on board with it. Vox turned off their commets, for example. You do realize that most sites replaced comment sections with share links for Twitter and Facebook right? So that the site itself doesn't doesn't have to maintain it? Your arguing that news sites no longer having comment sections is an attack on free speech... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:So, let's say I put together a posse of people to leave deliberately misleading comments designed to alter people's views of the blog or social media or whatever, such as by associating Frito-Lay with pedophilia or whatever. Should it be acceptable to take action to suppress our free speech, and should both corporations and private individuals be allowed to delete our comments or whatever? Sure they should, and there's really no reason to have comments sections other than trying to drive traffic if you think that's a good strategy. I'm saying that encouraging laws that hold sites legally responsible for the comments of their users is bad, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
natetimm posted:There's an entire movement going on right now to gut commets sections and lots of sites are on board with it. Vox turned off their commets, for example. Oh, you mean like featured in the breitbart.com expose The Left's War on Comment Sections? Who cares? And what does that have to do with free speech? natetimm posted:I'm saying that encouraging laws that hold sites legally responsible for the comments of their users is bad, though. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Sure they should, and there's really no reason to have comments sections other than trying to drive traffic if you think that's a good strategy. I'm saying that encouraging laws that hold sites legally responsible for the comments of their users is bad, though. Counterpoint: Reddit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:19
|
|
Typo posted:The problem is that you can't trust the government to tell what's a good speech and what's a bad speech, hence why in the US at least there's very wide latitude for expressing speech of a political nature. This is more about how people think about this kind of speech, since the forces of evil, sexists, racists, etc. are often able to convince people of liberal inclinations that their beliefs must be respected through this kind of argument.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Oh, you mean like featured in the breitbart.com expose The Left's War on Comment Sections? It further cements the means of communication into the hands of billion-dollar media outlets and limits the amount of pushback they receive. The entire point of the internet is to facilitate the communication of ideas between people, if you let a select few organizations lock down the traffic and the discussion, it just goes back to being similar to TV and the samey news culture that surrounded it. It's both sides of the aisle shrugging as their options are more and more limited because someone is convincing them it's screwing over someone they don't like. It's not in anyone's best interests, really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:21
|
|
natetimm posted:Sure they should, and there's really no reason to have comments sections other than trying to drive traffic if you think that's a good strategy. I'm saying that encouraging laws that hold sites legally responsible for the comments of their users is bad, though. No you're not, you're engaging in a fog of links and vagueness to allow you to talk about the Horror Of The Disappeared Comments Section without actually defending that statement. You're pathologically dishonest and vile.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Free speech has nothing to do with private entities hosting speech unless you're breitbart and have no sense of historical irony in trying to suggest there should be an internet website fairness docrtine. The theroy of the Democratic power of the internet is that there is unlimited venue for communication if you are reasonably competent at it. Corporate websites fealizing that letting people be rude to each other at the companies expense is not government oppreesion of free speech or losing anything of value to society. One could make a not totally insane arguement that intenet commenting as it has existed is why were in this ridiculous echo chamber mess of a political system right now RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This is more about how people think about this kind of speech, since the forces of evil, sexists, racists, etc. are often able to convince people of liberal inclinations that their beliefs must be respected through this kind of argument. I think there's a big difference between "respected" and "allowed" I don't respect a lot of arguments made by the right concerning free market fundamentalism for instance, but I don't think the Cato Institute should be banned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
natetimm posted:It further cements the means of communication into the hands of billion-dollar media outlets and limits the amount of pushback they receive. The entire point of the internet is to facilitate the communication of ideas between people, if you let a select few organizations lock down the traffic and the discussion, it just goes back to being similar to TV and the samey news culture that surrounded it. It's both sides of the aisle shrugging as their options are more and more limited because someone is convincing them it's screwing over someone they don't like. It's not in anyone's best interests, really. Do you agree with breitbart.com that it's a cabal of feminists and anti-racists that are behind this dastardly plot to not provide a space for people to call each other retards at the end of articles? And newspapers not being forced to print every letter someone sends them: is that a similar threat to free speech?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
natetimm posted:It further cements the means of communication into the hands of billion-dollar media outlets and limits the amount of pushback they receive. The entire point of the internet is to facilitate the communication of ideas between people, if you let a select few organizations lock down the traffic and the discussion, it just goes back to being similar to TV and the samey news culture that surrounded it. It's both sides of the aisle shrugging as their options are more and more limited because someone is convincing them it's screwing over someone they don't like. It's not in anyone's best interests, really. it's true, we had no way of discussing issues with each other before comment sections were invented
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:
I'm saying comments , not the uploading of things like child porn. You don't see how things like holding google responsible for things they link to that could be potentially defamatory is bad? How much talking do you think SA would permit if it were forced to be held legally responsible for the statements of its posters. How many times has noted forums drama queen Effectronica threatened to kill someone over politics on this site? How long would management let controversial topics continue if they had law enforcement or lawyers beating down their door every time he did it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
someone should really invent a way for people to share ideas on the internet that doesn't rely on comment sections. maybe something like the old roman forums, or some board for discussion, or even a place where people can just collect in one room and chat idly. i bet if someone came up with that they'd make a million smackers
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
natetimm posted:I'm saying comments , not the uploading of things like child porn. You don't see how things like holding google responsible for things they link to that could be potentially defamatory is bad? How much talking do you think SA would permit if it were forced to be held legally responsible for the statements of its posters. How many times has noted forums drama queen Effectronica threatened to kill someone over politics on this site? How long would management let controversial topics continue if they had law enforcement or lawyers beating down their door every time he did it? so you're saying we should bring back LF
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:29
|
|