If we’re talking about the president’s post, look, there are people on the other side who also post things more incendiary are those reprehensible too? Or is it because we disagree with the poster?
I don’t see how you square FB having that right but simultaneously disagreeing with what happens when they exercise that right.
I don't think people should wear socks with sandals, and I will not hesitate to tell them that should I see it. I'll still be the first protesting if the government starts making them take off their socks.
They are part of the org. They want a say in what that org does. Is this controversial? People want the world to be a certain way and don't want it to be other ways. This is hypocritical?
> I also understand they’d welcome government regulation so long as it would further their cause... they just don’t say that.
Ok, so you're admitting to setting up a literal strawman but we should trust your ability to read the thoughts of hundreds of people.
You're clearly having a normal one.
of course its contraversial. its not free speech if they only say what you want them to, is it?
good thing no one on this thread has said anything like that, then.
Should there be one? Should there be a subset of speech that this might apply to? What should that subset be?
i dont
> Assume the pronouns refer to the protesting workers instead of the organization and see what happens.
facebooks not trying to force its employees to change a decision they made regarding free speech, so how does that make sense?
Lets cut to the chase. Just because we cannot decide right now what is acceptable or not for all possibilities in all contexts doesn't mean we cannot make guidelines and use our discretion in context. All rules, all laws, all prescriptions and otherwise are limited, imperfect judgments that we can adapt to a complex world.
Indeed, it will very much be possible, like with every other rule, law or prescription to misapply guidelines about speech, harmful or otherwise. Mistakes can be made and they should be righted when they are recognized. Given the absolute transformation of speech in the past 30 years in our world we are very much going to make a lot of new mistakes that in retrospect will be seen as foolish. That's ok, we have to figure things out somehow.
Most people would agree that this is a reasonable state of affairs for all the many ways we deliberate and compromise about how society should be run. But when we talk about speech in praticular, its effects, when and where it's appropriate, when it can and should be limited, a certain kind of person who will obstinately and resolutely refuse any such nuance comes swarming out. For example, the kind of person who thinks that it can only be called free speech if it's completely unbridled. As if every right has to be absolutely limitless in order for it to be considered a right.
You're probably not that kind of person. What would you like to discuss?
I am not, but personally I think planning to commit a crime should not be a crime until you act on it and it becomes "attempted".
> For example, the kind of person who thinks that it can only be called free speech if it's completely unbridled. As if every right has to be absolutely limitless in order for it to be considered a right.
Yes, I think that would be counterproductive. I think the discussion should try to find where this line is, and in this specific case, if platforms have any additional duties aside from dealing with what would be actually illegal. On this front, I think the problem is less about what additional kinds of speech should be regulated, but more towards the ability on social networks to basically force yourself in front of other people who don't want to interact with you, something which I don't consider a right at all.