Skip Navigation
320 comments

  • If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. —Noam Chomsky

    • I mean, sure, but does that mean people get to express themselves everywhere all the time?

      I go to work and there’s always a couple fuckers who bring up their hateful opinions in a “I’m not racist but,” way.

      It affects my productivity when I have to hear that bullshit all day while trying to get them to stop in a diplomatic way.

      I can’t say it so directly, but it’s not censorship to say “shut up and let me work”

      • If they’re disturbing you from working, that’s an issue independent from the message they’re expressing, so freedom of expression does not apply.

    • Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

  • Who decides what is hateful and worthy of removal? How is it not censorship? This is such a dumb article lol

    You don’t have to be a free speech advocate. It’s fine if you want censorship, just quit changing definitions to make yourself sound less authoritarian.

    • There's a fundamental Americanized understanding of censorship as de facto BAD. So in order to justify doing what is very obviously a form of censorship, we don't establish a justifiable and transparent process for censoring content. We just redefine the thing we're doing as "Not Censorship".

      At the same time, with so much of social media in the hands of a tiny minority of mega-advertisers, the debate is pointless. We don't get to decide what is or is not censured. The advertisers do. Smears against ethnic groups or religious movements or people of a particular gender or persuasion are only prohibited when they interfere with the distribution of marketing materials.

      Now that advertisers have sufficiently A/B tested their marketing material, there's no reason to explicitly prohibit bigoted content because you can simply cloister particular communities into atomized walled gardens of advertising media.

      I can sell Bud Light Fuck The Trans cans to the evangelical chuds, I can sell Bud Light Israel Did Nothing Wrong to Zionists, and I can sell Bud Light Communism Will Win to the Tankies. Everyone can have their own boutique Bud Light experience and sales of piss beer can keep going up forever.

  • I think the difference is between protecting wealth and power vs protecting basic human rights.

    It's censorship one way or the other. The paradox of tolerance comes into play. We can't ignore hate, it needs to be visible so people can be on guard, but we also can't let it take over by letting it run roughshod and unchecked. Those in charge of media and social media are in the first camp - protecting wealth and power, letting hate run rampant. It drives profits and engagement, the extremes of politics they support give them control.

    • individuals create echo chambers: if someone spouts intolerant garbage, and the people who fight that garbage block the speech, there’s nobody to oppose it and without voices speaking out against it, it becomes mainstream

      if society doesn’t enforce rules around hate speech, it places a burden on minorities to defend themselves from hate, otherwise hate becomes the mainstream viewpoint

320 comments