Social Media and the state

[Innula Zenovka]

It depends on context. When e.g. trying to wipe mosquitoes out of existence in malaria plagued countries and giving a speech about that, this definitely means harm to the animals but most likely not many people will protest.

Most people, other than (notoriously) genocidaires and, perhaps, PETA, would distinguish between causing harm to disease-bearing insects and to people, I think.

 

[Casey Pelous]

Everyone? I just wanted to say, even though we're in a crowded theater right now, and I know you're all enjoying what's on the screen and the show seems so wonderful and what have you, but...

FIRE!!!

Is it okay to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater if there is a fire?

How big a fire?

Okay to yell "Theater" at a crowded fire?

What if there is a trolley headed for the theater? Can one yell "Trolley!"?

 

[Innula Zenovka]

George Peretz KC (@georgeperetzkc.bsky.social)

I think this is an important point: having some moderation (for abuse/threats/blatant lying) is not a left/right issue. Such rules are the commonplace of any public meeting or debating society. Tory, liberal, or social democrat, you wouldn’t go to a meeting where threats and abuse were...

bsky.app

 

[Free]

Is it okay to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater if there is a fire?

How big a fire?

Okay to yell "Theater" at a crowded fire?

What if there is a trolley headed for the theater? Can one yell "Trolley!"?

I've tried yelling "Theater!" and even "FIRE!" on a crowded trolley. I just got weird looks and eventually we rolled over several people tied to the tracks.

 

[Casey Pelous]

*walls-o-text*

Look, I'm pretty sure your argument imploded with this crowd when you decided a couple of pages back to just blow off Innula's perfectly reasonable questions about, basically, your standing in the matter.

More fundamentally, I know of nothing in the concept of free speech that dictates unfettered access for all to any and all media or that cedes control of any and all media to all comers.

Wanna free speak? Get yourself a soap box and head for the park. Just keep in mind there's also nothing in the concept of free speech that guarantees freedom from consequences.

 

[Jopsy Pendragon]

These are great examples of sordid behavior that are both illegal and not tolerated by any society at large.

Have you been watching elections? That kind of sordid behavior is ignored and tolerated by society at large... because people love scandal more than integrity.

Also, 'lower 48' rules out Alaska, which is as bad as any of the other red states if not worse.

While I'm generally for free speech, there are points at which 'protected speech' becomes abusive. Harassment. I recall when I was in college the 'Campus Crusade for Christ' idiots would position themselves in high traffic areas will loud speakers prosylitizing and criticising everyone that passed. Fraud? Lies? Defamation? You can't call what they were doing that without judging the merits of their religion/faith/belief, and the constitution doesn't allow that.

But it was clearly meant to intimidate, especially the Navajo/Hopi students, many of whom identified as Christian anyway, but were treated as if they weren't as a means to try to bully them into committing to their particular toxic brand of faith.

What about a professor or students in a classroom that, despite the objections of Women, LGBTQ+, black/hispanic or Jewish students in the room, insist on having a 'reasonable debate' about the superiority of the 'white race'. It's easy to be objective about something that isn't part of your identity... and pretending like others can do the same about something that is a core/fundamental/defining part of who they are, is an attack meant to undermine, threaten and disempower people to their face.

Do universities need to tolerate that kind of 'free speech' and if not, upon what basis -exactly- do they draw the line. "Intent" is whatever the speaker claims to be. "Motives" may be attributed, but likewise are hard to prove. Quantifyible harm is all but impossible to measure in any kind of dollar/opportunity metric. You're basically left with "I'll know it when I see it", which is subject to the whims of whatever person happens to be in charge at the moment.

 

[WeFlossDaily]

Look, I'm pretty sure your argument imploded

I'm pretty sure her argument imploded when she attempted to circumvent my response to her example.

 

[Noodles]

Is it okay to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater if there is a fire?

How big a fire?

Okay to yell "Theater" at a crowded fire?

What if there is a trolley headed for the theater? Can one yell "Trolley!"?

There is a trolly headed towards a theater.

You can yell Trolly and some of the theater patrons will get out of the way safely.

If you flip the switch, the trolly will instead hit a fire, which will tip over and incinerate the theater. You can't hell FIRE! until there is actually anfire, some of the movie patrons may also die in this scenario.

 

[WeFlossDaily]

Have you been watching elections?

Yes, I watch a scattering of them. I'm very much disappointed with much of what is happening in Europe right now. The American situation is more wait and see. Ukraine is my primary concern.

That kind of sordid behavior is ignored and tolerated by society at large... because people love scandal more than integrity.

You may be right about this and probably are.

Also, 'lower 48' rules out Alaska, which is as bad as any of the other red states if not worse.

I resent this remark very much and will ask in response: Have you ever been to Alaska? If not, slow your roll. It's very much a different place altogether from the lower 48.

While I'm generally for free speech, there are points at which 'protected speech' becomes abusive.

I can agree with you on that, although we may disagree on the when, where, and why.

Harassment. I recall when I was in college the 'Campus Crusade for Christ' idiots would position themselves in high traffic areas will loud speakers prosylitizing and criticising everyone that passed. Fraud? Lies? Defamation? You can't call what they were doing that without judging the merits of their religion/faith/belief, and the constitution doesn't allow that.

I'm an atheist. I don't hold with the Christian bigots. The best way to deal with them is to beat them over the head with their own bible, figuratively speaking. Nobody wants a lecture on religious tolerance from an atheist that can quote their scripture against them. College campus are generally full of stupid people in my opinion, though. It's an interesting example of should this be allowed or not. I don't know.

I remember an incident where a church was picketing the funerals of soldiers who had died in a war. Not okej in my book. The police however did not get involved I don't believe. But a local motorcycle group did, and took it upon themselves to drown out the protesters with music and keep the protesters away from the families. Basically, religious ppl being assholes and normal ppl doing the right thing. I don't know if free speech should permit this or not, though. Even though I disliked what the church did immensely.

But it was clearly meant to intimidate, especially the Navajo/Hopi students, many of whom identified as Christian anyway, but were treated as if they weren't as a means to try to bully them into committing to their particular toxic brand of faith.

So they're particular brand of Christianity came across as racist, I presume. Blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jesus with washboard abs doesn't fly with me, either.

What about a professor or students in a classroom that, despite the objections of Women, LGBTQ+, black/hispanic or Jewish students in the room, insist on having a 'reasonable debate' about the superiority of the 'white race'.

If you going to phrase it that way, I presume the question you are asking is what it two over-privileged white boy incels decided to have a conversation that is racist as fuck and try to be intellectual about it. Walk in their jaw. I'm being serious. That's what would happen in the real world. Go into a bar in Finland and start talking about how Swedish women look better then Finnish woman and the Finns are going to get pissed.

It's easy to be objective about something that isn't part of your identity...

I don't play identity politics. Or to put it simply: I don't allow politicians to tell me who I am.

and pretending like others can do the same about something that is a core/fundamental/defining part of who they are, is an attack meant to undermine, threaten and disempower people to their face.

Feel free to expand on this part if you want to. I think I understand what you mean. But I'm not 100% on it. Like I really think I get it, but identity is a hard topic for me, as sometimes I don't understand it. Like, I might just be like a deer in head lights on this one.

Do universities need to tolerate that kind of 'free speech' and if not, upon what basis -exactly- do they draw the line.

I never attended a university and think most people who do are taught what to think instead of how to think. Where to draw the line is a good question, though. And who gets to draw it is another good question. I'm concerned with why is there a line being drawn and if it being drawn for the reasons that people are claiming it needs to be drawn for or if it is being drawn for all the wrong reasons.

"Intent" is whatever the speaker claims to be.

I don't define words as part of arguments debates.

"Motives" may be attributed, but likewise are hard to prove. Quantifyible harm is all but impossible to measure in any kind of dollar/opportunity metric. You're basically left with "I'll know it when I see it", which is subject to the whims of whatever person happens to be in charge at the moment.

I think it's better to have more freedom of speech and then clean up the bad actors then to overextend censorship in a way that potentially crushes the opposition of any idea, whether by design for not.

It's not that I disagree that any of your examples of people behaving badly should be permitted. I'm concerned that these kind of examples will be used to justify much more censorship than is needed, and in a highly political manner that could be harmful to free speech overall throughout the world.

I appreciate the way make you argument/debate nicely and fairly, though. Sorry if my reply feels sort of scatterbrained and/or long-winded.

 

[WeFlossDaily]

Ah, I'll probably be put through trial by water or burned at the stake for this post, but I feel like this article encompasses my viewpoint on this issue pretty well.

U.K. politicians target social media to deflect from riots and civil unrest

British politicians want social media companies to ban user accounts accused of inciting violence.

reason.com

I'll be honest, though. I've never heard of this site before, so I don't know what it's political alignment is. I was just googling around, looking for the reason why anybody who questions these laws is immediately labeled here in these forums as a persona non grata. But I was curious about something that isn't being mentioned by anybody here: There are riots going on in Britain right now?

Surely, this article is bullshit . . .

Wikipedia has an article on these riots, though . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_riots

So the politicians in Britain are trying to blame social media for current bouts of civil unrest . . . ?

Could that be what is actually happening?

On the off-chance that I had stumbled across an article that too neatly conformed to my own viewpoint, I decided to keep looking

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/10/uk/uk-far-right-riots-tension-intl-gbr/index.html

This is insane. Why is none of this being discussed. Like what the fuck, this was all anybody had to explain. I was half way right to think this topic stunk to high hell, but really I'm like what in the actual fuck. Twitter isn't even close to being the problem. The problem is that Britain is slam full of racist white people who hate immigrants. What a shit-hole fucking country full of horrible fucking people. No wonder you guys reacted in such a hostile manner to my line of reasoning, although gosh nobody bothered to explain about the riots or the systemic racism raging throughout Britain. I didn't realize this what what y'all thought I was advocating for. Fuck me to hell, lol. Fuck, I think it's Twitter and the rest of the internet that needs to block Britain until they solve their internal racial hatred problems. Nah, y'all don't get to blame the fictitious far side of shit. There's no far this or that. Absolutely nobody anywhere I have ever lived has ever advocated for this kind of racism scum-minded thinking on either side of any divide.

Dear Britain, there is something seriously wrong with your fucking white people. And don't you dare point your dirty tea-stained fingers at anyplace I've ever lived and try to deflect the failures of your society onto mine. Fuck no and fuck you. I have always lived in a tolerant society with diverse mixtures of people from all over the place and it is wonderful and great, although it'd be nice if we could all make more money. People who are intolerant are not tolerated. But, you. You are a fucking island. Your problems lie in your homeland, not mine, and not in anybody else's.

I'm changing my opinion on this from 'we should not permit Britain to censor the internet', to 'the rest of the internet should straight up block Britain for being a country full of immigrant-hating racist white people.'

 

[Jopsy Pendragon]

re: debating proselytizers: If they have a mob and an amplifier, you lose. They aren't there to be reasonable, they're promoting a for-profit cult.

re: alaska gave us Sarah Palin. Need I say more?

re: identity: My point was that universities do not need to tolerate 'free speech' that questions whether students who ARE enrolled and in good standing should have the right to be enrolls or the freedom to identify the way they do. "Should Bigot U. continue to allow women, students of color or LGBTQ+ to take classes here? Do they deserve equal financial aid as straight white male students? Wouldn't we all be better off if they went to 'different but 'equal'' education somewhere else where we don't have to share our professors/resources/facilities with them?" -- these kinds of arguments are in bad faith. They are attacks on the students themselves. Their enrollment is not up for debate among other students, their equal treatment by professors is not some 'thought experiment' professors can weigh the pros and cons of. Anyone not on board with the idea that education is there for anyone qualified to seek it... doesn't deserve the benefit of employment or an education at such institutions.

So, if universities want to ban that kind of speech, they should be allowed to.

Conservative politicians, however, feel that such civility is impinging on their right to be elitist, entitled, privileged, pricks, free to 'put their lessors in their place' without repercussions, so they're attacking decorum/civility and calling it 'free speech'.

It's an extension of the backlash against 'political correctness' that reared up a decade ago. All they're doing is trying to protect their -exclusive- right to be assholes to everyone else.

 

[WeFlossDaily]

re: alaska gave us Sarah Palin. Need I say more?

Nope. Your prejudice against Alaska has been duly noted.

 

[WeFlossDaily]

One more thing . . .

So, if universities want to ban that kind of speech, they should be allowed to.

Absolutely. I agree.

Conservative politicians

are just as fucking bad as liberal politicians. Here's an example of what's wrong with the polarized politics of the lower 48, in which both sides are acting like compete fucking morons:

 

[Monica Dream]

I've tried yelling "Theater!" and even "FIRE!" on a crowded trolley. I just got weird looks and eventually we rolled over several people tied to the tracks.

The people, the people -always the people.
No one ever considers the trolley

 

[WeFlossDaily]

Jesse Singal: Bluesky Has a Death Threat Problem

It was supposed to be a gentler, left-wing alternative to X. My grim experience proves that just isn’t the case.

www.thefp.com

It probably doesn't matter, though. Since most of you either can't read, can't think for yourselves, or are just downright awful people with an axe to grind against anybody who doesn't share your narrow-minded world view 100%. Yes, I'm starting to get a bit shitty about this thread.

 

[WeFlossDaily]

Lots of eye-rolls and rolling laughter, feels like I'm communicating with brain-dead hive mind.

 

[Free]

Alert the press, hive mind has been activated. Viper squadron, to your ships!

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Y O U H A V E N O C H A N C E T O S U R V I V E

 

[Myradyl Muse]

False equivalencies abound. IMHO, free speech is not equivalent to hate speech. Whereas many societies have laws against harassing, harming, threatening, hate speech, and so on, such conduct still seems to proliferate on many social media spots. Many folks do not self regulate, self correct or self modulate unless social regulations are enforced. Without such guidelines and corrections in civilized society, anarchy seems to ensue. Those intent on harming, bugging, threatening, or even immature relentless harassing are unlikely to stop these behaviours unless stopped. It is a needed ethical respectful code of conduct within civilized societies, not heinous oppressive censorship.

 

[Spirits Rising]

Oh how utterly predictable... Find out that not everyone thinks the way you do or won't simply sit back and let you run your mouth off and the accusations concerning apathy, hive think and just about any other excuse come out of the wood work.

Sit the fuck down and grow the fuck up.