7 ms·

Huh? We have more free speech than ever online at this moment. The last regime colluded with the major social media companies to censor people they didn't like

by jazz9k 3mo ago

Huh? We have more free speech than ever online at this moment. The last regime colluded with the major social media companies to censor people they didn't like and it's also recently come to light that they attempted to get the Joe Rogan/Spotify deal nuked, all based on censoring speech they don't like. The liberal government of the UK is moving toward complete online censorship with their bill to prevent children from going on social media sites. The reality is that they will now be able to identify and will arrest people for posting opinions they don't like. This has already been happening for the last couple of years and will now be even easier. This is exactly how it works in China. If Democrats come into power again in the US, this will soon be coming to a computer near you. This should be the #1 story on HN, but the tech community has been strangely silent on the subject.... I just wish the people claiming to be champions of free speech and rights will just admit that this all goes out the window when it applies to speech and people you don't like. It would make everything much easier.

platevoltage 3mo ago
I'll give you that Liberals are also antagonistic towards online free speech, but pretending that we have more free speech online right now than ever before is the most insane thing I've ever heard. Just because you can post nazi shit on Twitter now does not mean we have more online freedom.
- nxm 3mo ago
  Please provide evidence that online speech in the USA is restricted in any way, unlike in Europe where you get fined and/or arrested for mean memes
  - SpicyLemonZest 3mo ago
    It’s the official position of the US government that posting the number 8647 is a crime. I know this sounds like a crazy thing I made up, but they posted a detailed explainer (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-grand-jury-indicts-former-fbi-director-james-comey-threats-harm-president-trump https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-grand-jury-indicts-fo...): any reasonable person, they argue, would know that this number is a threat to kill the President. It's also true, I should acknowledge, that the US has a strong system of checks and balances against stupid proclamations like this and a generally oppositional culture around speech restrictions. It's unlikely I'll be arrested for posting 8647, or indeed for pointing you to other illegal numbers like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Flag, and if I were I'd wear it as a badge of honor. But just because Americans are successfully fighting it doesn't mean there's no issue.
  - infinite_spin 3mo ago
    This was pretty easy to find examples of. https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/when-complaining-about-a-public-official-can-land-you-in-jail https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/when-complaining-about... https://ij.org/press-release/supreme-court-rejects-appeal-of-man-arrested-for-facebook-police-parody/ https://ij.org/press-release/supreme-court-rejects-appeal-of... https://www.rcfp.org/supreme-court-throws-out-1876-criminal-libel-statute/ https://www.rcfp.org/supreme-court-throws-out-1876-criminal-... https://www.fire.org/cases/larry-bushart-v-perry-county https://www.fire.org/cases/larry-bushart-v-perry-county There's a lot more.
    - amanaplanacanal 3mo ago
      Well sure. The police can arrest you whenever they want, we rely on the courts to sort it out. Qualified immunity is terrible law, but that doesn't have anything to do with free speech.
      - deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
  - platevoltage 3mo ago
    Do I need to list the people who have been threatened with deportation for pro-palestine speech or can you find those yourself?
  - foco_tubi 3mo ago
    Larry Bushart was arrested and jailed for more than a month for posting a Charlie Kirk meme. Douglass Mackey was arrested and convicted for posting satirical Clinton election ads, though this was later overturned after he spent months in prison.
  - TFNA 3mo ago
    When OP said we have more free speech than ever, and some here quibble with that, it's not necessarily about coercion under legislation. The early web saw a hell of a lot of racist or angry flamer posts on any site where any reader could comment. A classic example are GNAA posts in nearly every comment thread on Slashdot, HN's forebear. Today's internet has, for the masses, contracted into a limited number of commercial platforms that have strict moderation for brand-protection reasons. Many platforms have outright removed fondly remembered discussion fora (e.g. IMDB, or Lonely Planet's Thorn Tree) just so they don't have to bear the expense of moderating and ensuring no posts threaten their brand image. I imagine that most people here will deem the decline in highly toxic troll posts a good thing, but any veteran of the old internet will still notice that the range of speech met in daily net surfing is less than it once was.
jmull 3mo ago
You are kidding yourself if you think this is a liberal vs conservative issue. The current FCC chairman threatens the broadcast license and to block deals of networks who air shows the president doesn’t like. These threats appear to have lead directly to the cancellation of shows — a clear violation of the first amendment, though there have been no consequences so far. If you really care about this issue, get out of your information bubble. Whichever party is in power, Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, have tried to suppress speech they don’t like when they get in power. If we pretend this is a partisan issue we can’t stop them.
- plagiarist 3mo ago
  The level of doublethink from the right is completely insane. Additionally, when I fact check what they're whining about, it is often like, "the White House requested Twitter ban medical misinformation about coronavirus, without threat of consequences, and they did."
jrflowers 3mo ago
https://www.newsweek.com/pro-palestinian-protest-states-colleges-illegal-bds-1895292 https://www.newsweek.com/pro-palestinian-protest-states-coll...
foco_tubi 3mo ago
Collusion is the wrong word. Coercion is more appropriate. > I just wish the people claiming to be champions of free speech and rights will just admit that this all goes out the window when it applies to speech and people you don't like Try using the word "cis-gender" on Twitter and let us know how that goes.
- irishcoffee 3mo ago
  Considering Twitter the bastion of _anything_ is as stupid now as it was 15 years ago.

by jazz9k 3mo ago

platevoltage 3mo ago

I'll give you that Liberals are also antagonistic towards online free speech, but pretending that we have more free speech online right now than ever before is the most insane thing I've ever heard. Just because you can post nazi shit on Twitter now does not mean we have more online freedom.

nxm 3mo ago
Please provide evidence that online speech in the USA is restricted in any way, unlike in Europe where you get fined and/or arrested for mean memes
- SpicyLemonZest 3mo ago
  It’s the official position of the US government that posting the number 8647 is a crime. I know this sounds like a crazy thing I made up, but they posted a detailed explainer (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-grand-jury-indicts-former-fbi-director-james-comey-threats-harm-president-trump https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-grand-jury-indicts-fo...): any reasonable person, they argue, would know that this number is a threat to kill the President. It's also true, I should acknowledge, that the US has a strong system of checks and balances against stupid proclamations like this and a generally oppositional culture around speech restrictions. It's unlikely I'll be arrested for posting 8647, or indeed for pointing you to other illegal numbers like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Flag, and if I were I'd wear it as a badge of honor. But just because Americans are successfully fighting it doesn't mean there's no issue.
- infinite_spin 3mo ago
  This was pretty easy to find examples of. https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/when-complaining-about-a-public-official-can-land-you-in-jail https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/when-complaining-about... https://ij.org/press-release/supreme-court-rejects-appeal-of-man-arrested-for-facebook-police-parody/ https://ij.org/press-release/supreme-court-rejects-appeal-of... https://www.rcfp.org/supreme-court-throws-out-1876-criminal-libel-statute/ https://www.rcfp.org/supreme-court-throws-out-1876-criminal-... https://www.fire.org/cases/larry-bushart-v-perry-county https://www.fire.org/cases/larry-bushart-v-perry-county There's a lot more.
  - amanaplanacanal 3mo ago
    Well sure. The police can arrest you whenever they want, we rely on the courts to sort it out. Qualified immunity is terrible law, but that doesn't have anything to do with free speech.
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
- platevoltage 3mo ago
  Do I need to list the people who have been threatened with deportation for pro-palestine speech or can you find those yourself?
- foco_tubi 3mo ago
  Larry Bushart was arrested and jailed for more than a month for posting a Charlie Kirk meme. Douglass Mackey was arrested and convicted for posting satirical Clinton election ads, though this was later overturned after he spent months in prison.
- TFNA 3mo ago
  When OP said we have more free speech than ever, and some here quibble with that, it's not necessarily about coercion under legislation. The early web saw a hell of a lot of racist or angry flamer posts on any site where any reader could comment. A classic example are GNAA posts in nearly every comment thread on Slashdot, HN's forebear. Today's internet has, for the masses, contracted into a limited number of commercial platforms that have strict moderation for brand-protection reasons. Many platforms have outright removed fondly remembered discussion fora (e.g. IMDB, or Lonely Planet's Thorn Tree) just so they don't have to bear the expense of moderating and ensuring no posts threaten their brand image. I imagine that most people here will deem the decline in highly toxic troll posts a good thing, but any veteran of the old internet will still notice that the range of speech met in daily net surfing is less than it once was.

jmull 3mo ago

You are kidding yourself if you think this is a liberal vs conservative issue. The current FCC chairman threatens the broadcast license and to block deals of networks who air shows the president doesn’t like. These threats appear to have lead directly to the cancellation of shows — a clear violation of the first amendment, though there have been no consequences so far. If you really care about this issue, get out of your information bubble. Whichever party is in power, Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, have tried to suppress speech they don’t like when they get in power. If we pretend this is a partisan issue we can’t stop them.

plagiarist 3mo ago
The level of doublethink from the right is completely insane. Additionally, when I fact check what they're whining about, it is often like, "the White House requested Twitter ban medical misinformation about coronavirus, without threat of consequences, and they did."

jrflowers 3mo ago

https://www.newsweek.com/pro-palestinian-protest-states-colleges-illegal-bds-1895292 https://www.newsweek.com/pro-palestinian-protest-states-coll...

foco_tubi 3mo ago

Collusion is the wrong word. Coercion is more appropriate. > I just wish the people claiming to be champions of free speech and rights will just admit that this all goes out the window when it applies to speech and people you don't like Try using the word "cis-gender" on Twitter and let us know how that goes.

irishcoffee 3mo ago
Considering Twitter the bastion of _anything_ is as stupid now as it was 15 years ago.