699
Witness the horrors of unmoderated social media
(startrek.website)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
699 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
5832 readers
1810 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Scary how many people in here are anti free speech. Yes, they're stupid, cancerous, lot of white supremacists, and all the scum and villany etc , but like, the point of free speech is that you're allowed to say that shit.
Make a threat? Absolutely, track IPs and investgate logs, lawful actions against unlawful acts. But to flat out ban every one you disagree with? Disgusting. And you should be ashamed of it.
Any kind of freedom ends were you are violating the freedom of someone else. Spitting hatred against women and minorities has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
As much as I dislike people spitting hatred at women, LGBTQIA+ folks, and POCs, this is still freedom of speech. You don't have to enjoy it, you don't have to listen to it, and you're certainly free to remove these people from your personally owned spaces. But it doesn't change the fact that people should be allowed to say whatever the fuck they want, otherwise we literally are punishing people for thought crimes and edgy jokes.
People should be judged for their actions, not their words. Words don't actually mean anything without action behind them.
I'm a gay man, and I've definitely given out the occasional f slur pass. Why? Because I honestly think it's funny as fuck when my best friend of 20 years calls me that. He doesn't hate me, he knows and loves my partner like a sibling, and he is my brother. It would be so fucked if he got in some kind of actual trouble for that...
The dangerous thing with speech is the ability to radicalize people. I mostly agree with your comment but it's a more complex topic than "until you don't do something bad you're fine".
So you get a bunch of radicalized people that say shit but don't do anything about it?
In order for that group of radicalized people to be dangerous, they would have to do something right? Maybe that means March around in Nazi regalia, maybe that means some sort of assault or altercation. But it's at that point that those people should be charged, not when they are online saying dumb shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g
It isn't JUST speech that radicalizes people. There are a plethora of underlying material conditions that contribute as well, but nobody here is talking about any of those. We can't just prevent people from saying bad things, we have to address things like education, poverty, inequality, housing, and journalistic integrity before we can just punish insulting sentiments.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6414414/
https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/radicalization-violence-pathway-approach-studying-extremism
you can ban people for saying bad things
So if someone says "let's kill all women, gays and jews" that's totally fine for you?
If they're just saying that, I certainly don't want to be around them but I don't think they should go to prison. If they act upon that, that's entirely different and should be treated as a hate crime.
Also, you just said it. Does context matter to you? What about intention?
I think their point is that you don't throw them in prison just for saying it. If they actually do it or influence others to do it then that's very different. I always try to think how a law could be twisted or abused, and once you make simply saying something illegal that opens the door to a lot of authoritarianism.
Something being illegal does not automatically mean prison. In most developed countries prison is a last resort
Why does your freedom of speech cover insulting me? It doesn't make any sense? Instead of me having to remove myself from public spaces to not get insulted, the people insulting in public spaces should be removed????
Because what is insulting enough to warrant removal is extremely subjective. Pretty much everyone agrees there's a line somewhere, where people draw that line is very different. I would never even consider trying to stop people from making bad edgy jokes, but I will tell them the joke isn't funny and they just seem like a bigot if that's what I think.
I also wouldn't consider 4chan a public place. Someone holding up a sign in a train station that says "gays are an abomination" I would agree should be removed as they are actively making a public space hostile to someone. But then I'd also put different standards on a non-spontaneous demonstration, as those have to be cleared beforehand and won't happen on a super frequent basis, and there needs to be some way to voice any opinion that doesn't outright call for violence.
Well you guys do realise though, that outside the US, in a damn big ass amount of countries, insulting people is illegal and not considered freedom of speech?
I am not in the US lol. Insulting people is in fact illegal here, that doesn't mean i necessarily agree with that in a general capacity. There was a famous case of a politician here a few years ago that sued and had someones house raided over them insulting them on twitter (with a very harmless insult too), which is absolutely ridiculous.
til am allowed to say personal information
That's fundamentally not the same thing, don't be obtuse for the sake of debate points.
Insults and general demeaning comments should not be punished in the court of law. Saying offensive things should not be punished in the court of law.
As I said before, the action/intent is the part that should be punished. Providing private information about someone who you disagree with or want to incur harm upon is an action with malicious intent.
As a leftist, I fail to understand why we always jump to tone policing and purity politics? We can identify the material conditions that cause radicalization and general bigotry and act upon these things, but we always just jump to punishing people for being radical bigots, which only further galvanizes those positions.
We're not making these spaces smaller, we're making them more volatile by doing this. They see these conversations and think "this is why we have to remove leftism, because they will punish us for crimes we have yet to do" and that's precisely what this argument is.
was joke ._.
Well I'm holding you in contempt in court for making a joke that I didn't agree with. I hope you're ready to pay a huge fine, because this is an open and shut case.
because private company is same as government
._.
Saying hateful, dumbass shit doesn't violate anyone's freedom. Denying them their right to congregate, get equal service in business, have bodily autonomy, etc. does. However, speech alone is not enough to equate to action, in most cases.
That depends entirely on your definition of freedom.
If someone were to punch me, it would violate my freedom from being punched/ bodily harm.
This is illegal in the US.
If someone were to insult me, it would violate my freedom from being insulted (maybe psychological harm).
This is legal in the US but illegal elsewhere.
Speech is not something that happens to you, it's something you actively do. It is always an action.
If someone comes after my hatred of Nazis... I stg
No, it isn't
11 days later but
"Nu uh" wow you sure showed me
You're standing up for hateful assholes so great job
This is the internet - please desist from being reasonable and choose a side. Many thanks.
Hey guys, he said the secret phrase, All other opinions are invalidated. everyone please clap. 👏👏👏
how is
reasonable
Because otherwise you run the risk of being bigoted about bigots. Ironic. Keep them in the open, learn what they think, be prepared to shut them down at every available opportunity - show them the error of their beliefs again and again and again. History suggests that banning things doesn’t make the problem go away. It just drives it underground, out of sight, where they can mutate and coalesce without anybody from the outside knowing or realising… then we all be fucked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g?feature=shared&t=2288
banning them is shutting them down
how do you use logic to get someone out of belief they didn't arrive at with logic
I’m passingly familiar with Popper’s work and it probably goes some way to explaining why I advocate for public intolerance, rather than tolerance, of these sad, lost and potentially dangerous individuals. The second video was age locked - I’m sure it is full of good points - but I can’t comment on it directly. I meant a more vernacular meaning to “shut them down” - I.e. telling them firmly that they are mistaken and offering them a different insight. As for logic I’m not sure it’s much use as most extremism tends to come from the heart rather than the head, so to speak. All I hope is that I can plant a seed of doubt… whether it grows or not is beyond my control. People generally have a bit of a herd mentality - hence the growth of echo chambers online and in popular legacy media. If you spend all your time surrounded by only your own views you’ll never expand your outlook and will, in all probability, become even more entrenched. I’d hate to think what kind of a c*** I could be now if 35 years ago some people hadn’t called me out and made me reassess myself and my views towards certain sections of humanity.
Freedom of speech works out when everyone's speech is equal. But in the real world, it isn't. if it were, the minority wouldn't have to fight for their rights and the laws would apply the same to the majority.
"free speech" is clickbait for the racists, created by racists to drown out the opposing voices of minority while calling it equality.
Your "freedom of speech" was added in the constitution on December 15, 1791. It took almost 200 years for the cilvil rights movement in 1950s for the black people to have equal rights.
Don't flaunt it like it has any shred of importance beyond what the majority of the US population uses it for. And it's to be racist bigots.
Keep concern trolling though
Didn't freedom of speech protect the civil rights movement more than if it weren't in the constitution? Just because bad people make use of this right, doesn't make it inherently bad. It's not concern trolling because we think you're overcorrecting, and any attempt to censor 4chan will lead to either "angering the wasps" or censorship of benign ideas.
Just know that I am arguing in good faith because I know that the people who decide what to censor will overcorrect, and I think that causes more harm than good.
This 100% well said.
Only thing I feel like responding to:. This might be hard for you to understand but people can have differing opinions than you and not be trolling. It's not healthy to have that belief.
is you
https://thenib.com/centrist-history-1-e98-1/