zlacker

>>pseudo+(OP)
Activists want to eat their cake and have it too.

On the one hand they say platforms may exercise “their” free speech by moderating posts or banning people and that’s okay because it’s a private co. and not obliged to be platform for everyone.

Then on the other hand a different company also exercises its free speech (under their own argument) by not moderating posts and now that’s bad because some speech should be moderated and they disagree with those voices.

So like basically they’re for corporate free speech when they agree with the controls but are against it when they disagree with the results.

Just say it. We only want to allow our approved views — we don’t want free speech.

And not only that but they protest free speech but totally don’t walk out when they unscrupulously slurp up data on everyone.

>>mc32+28
Do you not understand that these non-approved views, for the most part, come from actual nazis? Like, real life nazis. People that will kill you because of your skin colour.

I've read a lot of bootlicking comments on this website lately from people who want to talk in upper abstractions about free speech and discuss moral theory. You are all completely missing the point. That black people are needlessly DYING because real life white supremacists are having their voices promoted and platformed on the internet.

When it comes to activists eating their cake and having it too, yea, those are the privileged facebook employees taking a paid day off as a way of making a statement. What a joke.

You know who needs their voices heard? Who needs free speech? Black people. And our society silences them through gruesome MURDER. Murders with no justice. God forbid someone get their tweet "fact-checked".

>>metalg+mh
I think most of the people who push for free speech understand that sometimes people say things that almost everyone disagrees with. It's easy to sit back and call something "hate speech" or "inciting violence" or any other set of labels but in practice those who push free speech understand that while the examples brought up are usually fairly clear it can be complicated in general. I would suggest you assume a bit more good faith from the people you're arguing against.

>>saagar+Gj
I don't think gp assumes bad faith. The problem I see is that free speech absolutism is currently serving as a platform to protect those who are making death threats in social networks.

Sure sometimes is difficult to discern whether a post was an actual threat or just figurative language, but is it really that terrible to delete a post that was calling to shoot people even when maybe the intention was "just figurative"?

>>pera+Uo
I'm sorry, but calling a comment "bootlicking" does not imply good faith, nor does a claim that their viewpoint overlooks Nazis or murder.

But to your comment, which I think I can respond to: if I perform illegal activities on a platform, I don't think there's really a choice at that point as to whether the platform can take it down. Death threats, posting child pornography, infringing upon copyright…all of those are things you can go to jail for anyways, so it's not really a "free speech online" issue at that point.