I've kept pretty quiet, as this concept has been explained and re-explained to various communities as a whole. I have to say though, this argument as it's being used today is rather disappointing, and I think supports a fairly unenlightened view on speech.
Yes, it is technically and legally correct, that speech can be limited by corporations/forums/groups etc. That does not mean it should be. There are plenty of gross, disgusting, unappealing, ignorant sites/communities/sub-communities online and in the world. I could spend the next year creating a list of what I wouldn't really like to see. But so what? Who the fuck am I? I get it, it's gross, and grotesque a lot of times, but you know what, we're fucking adults, deal with it. Who is anyone to tell anyone else what can/should/should not be discussed. We don't need to bring the government into this, I mean in general, what kind of people do we want to be? I'm not afraid of ideas, I'm not afraid of words, or concepts, regardless of how offensive they are. What's troubling about this whole thing, is that this is just where it starts. When you begin limiting speech of really any kind, you really only accomplish a few things.
1) You inflame the speech you're trying to limit by saying it can't/shouldn't be discussed.
2) Most importantly, you set a terrible precident, that it is acceptable to ban/restrict/limit speech in general if it "offends" you or a group, or is found "damaging".
This is the new censorship, we should recognize it for what it is. We can either be a society of free speech, an enlightened society that allows speech of all kinds even if we disagree, or we can agree that censorship is alright, as long as it's something we view as "dangerous" or "offensive". It's a slippery slope, and mark my word, it won't be long before the new target and yourself have a lot in common.
I don't mean offense, but that argument is filled with more fallacy's and straw men then I could address in anything less than a couple of pages. I can sum it up though with 2 points.
1) No, no one is saying anyone is inherently wrong for pointing out racism/misogyny/sexism, in fact it's needed and encouraged.
2) No, you don't have a right not to be offended. Sorry, but no. You don't have a right to a "safe place". That is a child's argument. Being offended, does not make an individual right.
I assure you, if you demand a society with the same rules given to children, it will be short-coming before you're treated as one.
I just want to understand where you are coming from so please bare with me. Are you then saying, that you are not ok with say, people creating a site designed for discussing chess and then asking people to leave if everything they post on that site has nothing to do with chess what so ever?
This in my opinion is a similar situation because it's a site, choosing what they want to see discussed on that site, which can be described as choosing what they don't want discussed, and then telling people to leave for not following the rules set. Except in the above situation, I think to most, it would be absurd to say it is wrong to do that. Someone took the time to put together an environment to be used for a certain, harmless and legal purpose and then are told they are not allowed to use it for that purpose. If you feel my example does not model our situation please point out why. I'm wanting to decern at what point you feel we loose that say.
I see your point, and I don't necessarily disagree with a portion of your argument.
I'll reiterate, the site is within its rights to limit any speech it doesn't like or want to support. This could be anything from hate speech to Swedish clocks. It is not a question of ability, nor is it a question of legal standing, websites/admins have both. It is an issue of speech, not governmental, but the ethics of speech. We have never before been better enabled to communicate, we've also never before been better enabled to block communication and censor. We are free to do as we like with it. When we cross the line, into limiting speech, especially on sites like Snapzu, Reddit, Voat, etc. we're really setting a dangerous precedent. Reddit for example, when it first debuted and in its early years, championed itself as a harbor of free speech. There was plenty that the admins didn't like on the site, but they recognized an important principle, once they began to curate what was allowable, and what was not, they would have taken a very important and very large step towards censorship.
I see a meaningful difference between banning a user for continual abuse, and banning a topic entirely, assuming it’s not illegal content. I think we have an obligation to allow it, and I say that as someone who can’t stand it. The primary reason for this is because if we allow censorship of any kind, if we tolerate it, it will without question be abused. It never de-escalates, censorship never ends the issue, it only inflames it. Human nature and history have taught us what human beings do when they’re able to control discussion. We already have governments throughout the world who are doing this, we have technologies that are aimed at social engineering how we respond to issues. The last thing we need are websites taking a pro-censorship position. We need open communities where anything can be discussed, again, assuming it’s not illegal. We face too many obstacles for speech with our government, to sit by idly as websites adopt a pro-censorship “safe place” policy. It starts with the low hanging fruit, things we can all agree are “bad”, but mark my word, and look at history, this will not be the end of it, this is just how the door opens.
There's also no "public " place on the Internet. So really if mods on every site banned talking about a topic or banned a viewpoint, or an opinion, it's not going to be seen anywhere. I mean sure start your own forum, but no one reads it but you. In other words, you can protest 3 miles up the road, under an overpass and behind the dumpster. Aren't we benevolent gods?
I'm ok with rules, provided they're consistently enforced. I just think there needs to be a big free for all place to talk and protest things you think are wrong.
I've kept pretty quiet, as this concept has been explained and re-explained to various communities as a whole. I have to say though, this argument as it's being used today is rather disappointing, and I think supports a fairly unenlightened view on speech.
Yes, it is technically and legally correct, that speech can be limited by corporations/forums/groups etc. That does not mean it should be. There are plenty of gross, disgusting, unappealing, ignorant sites/communities/sub-communities online and in the world. I could spend the next year creating a list of what I wouldn't really like to see. But so what? Who the fuck am I? I get it, it's gross, and grotesque a lot of times, but you know what, we're fucking adults, deal with it. Who is anyone to tell anyone else what can/should/should not be discussed. We don't need to bring the government into this, I mean in general, what kind of people do we want to be? I'm not afraid of ideas, I'm not afraid of words, or concepts, regardless of how offensive they are. What's troubling about this whole thing, is that this is just where it starts. When you begin limiting speech of really any kind, you really only accomplish a few things.
1) You inflame the speech you're trying to limit by saying it can't/shouldn't be discussed. 2) Most importantly, you set a terrible precident, that it is acceptable to ban/restrict/limit speech in general if it "offends" you or a group, or is found "damaging".
This is the new censorship, we should recognize it for what it is. We can either be a society of free speech, an enlightened society that allows speech of all kinds even if we disagree, or we can agree that censorship is alright, as long as it's something we view as "dangerous" or "offensive". It's a slippery slope, and mark my word, it won't be long before the new target and yourself have a lot in common.
I think I have addressed some of this in my comment here. If not, feel free to respond to this comment and I'll be happy to take it from there. :)
I don't mean offense, but that argument is filled with more fallacy's and straw men then I could address in anything less than a couple of pages. I can sum it up though with 2 points.
1) No, no one is saying anyone is inherently wrong for pointing out racism/misogyny/sexism, in fact it's needed and encouraged.
2) No, you don't have a right not to be offended. Sorry, but no. You don't have a right to a "safe place". That is a child's argument. Being offended, does not make an individual right.
I assure you, if you demand a society with the same rules given to children, it will be short-coming before you're treated as one.
I just want to understand where you are coming from so please bare with me. Are you then saying, that you are not ok with say, people creating a site designed for discussing chess and then asking people to leave if everything they post on that site has nothing to do with chess what so ever?
This in my opinion is a similar situation because it's a site, choosing what they want to see discussed on that site, which can be described as choosing what they don't want discussed, and then telling people to leave for not following the rules set. Except in the above situation, I think to most, it would be absurd to say it is wrong to do that. Someone took the time to put together an environment to be used for a certain, harmless and legal purpose and then are told they are not allowed to use it for that purpose. If you feel my example does not model our situation please point out why. I'm wanting to decern at what point you feel we loose that say.
I see your point, and I don't necessarily disagree with a portion of your argument.
I'll reiterate, the site is within its rights to limit any speech it doesn't like or want to support. This could be anything from hate speech to Swedish clocks. It is not a question of ability, nor is it a question of legal standing, websites/admins have both. It is an issue of speech, not governmental, but the ethics of speech. We have never before been better enabled to communicate, we've also never before been better enabled to block communication and censor. We are free to do as we like with it. When we cross the line, into limiting speech, especially on sites like Snapzu, Reddit, Voat, etc. we're really setting a dangerous precedent. Reddit for example, when it first debuted and in its early years, championed itself as a harbor of free speech. There was plenty that the admins didn't like on the site, but they recognized an important principle, once they began to curate what was allowable, and what was not, they would have taken a very important and very large step towards censorship.
I see a meaningful difference between banning a user for continual abuse, and banning a topic entirely, assuming it’s not illegal content. I think we have an obligation to allow it, and I say that as someone who can’t stand it. The primary reason for this is because if we allow censorship of any kind, if we tolerate it, it will without question be abused. It never de-escalates, censorship never ends the issue, it only inflames it. Human nature and history have taught us what human beings do when they’re able to control discussion. We already have governments throughout the world who are doing this, we have technologies that are aimed at social engineering how we respond to issues. The last thing we need are websites taking a pro-censorship position. We need open communities where anything can be discussed, again, assuming it’s not illegal. We face too many obstacles for speech with our government, to sit by idly as websites adopt a pro-censorship “safe place” policy. It starts with the low hanging fruit, things we can all agree are “bad”, but mark my word, and look at history, this will not be the end of it, this is just how the door opens.
There's also no "public " place on the Internet. So really if mods on every site banned talking about a topic or banned a viewpoint, or an opinion, it's not going to be seen anywhere. I mean sure start your own forum, but no one reads it but you. In other words, you can protest 3 miles up the road, under an overpass and behind the dumpster. Aren't we benevolent gods?
I'm ok with rules, provided they're consistently enforced. I just think there needs to be a big free for all place to talk and protest things you think are wrong.