Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Zaid Jilani: Facebook CENSORS Jacobin After Liberals Cheer On Big Tech" video.

@myrhev And there is also actionable speech -- like defamation, or intentional infliction of emotional distress (jeering at a person who trusts you and you know to be vulnerable, and telling them they should commit suicide, for example). These are not necessarily criminal but the target can always sue. The problem is, no one can force Facebook, etc., to take down speech proven in court to be defamation. THEY have the choice to take it down, or not. Section 230 immunity has morphed into a monster.
7
@otomicans6580 The DNC is now an elitist, corporatist neoliberal party. It does a lot of window dressing, but never stands against Wall Street deregulation, an ever-growing surveillance state, a huge military presence all over the world, or any system of health care or higher education that Wall Street cannot draw advantage from in some way (health insurance schemes designed in the interests of capital formation, student debt that cannot be discharged, etc.) Gay rights, marijuana legalization, etc., are now good for business and can also be used as wedge issues and distractions. Whether unfettered immigration drives down wages and causes dislocation, and whether NAFTA harmed some parts of Mexico so much that the people are driven to go north for work, is almost never discussed. If you try to broach the subject, you'll be accused of racism immediately, when the people who set up this system clearly had no concern for the immigrants. Worse yet, so many immigrants are refugees WE created. Now, we refuse them shelter and a fair hearing. How far right is that?
7
Tremendous post. I don't agree completely with every word of Nadine Strossen's new book on hate speech, but she is so smart and her arguments are so compelling, there is no point in talking about hate speech regulation without first reading her book. Her father survived the Holocaust, so she grew up knowing about the power of words to spread evil. Your post reminded me of her.
4
@JD-gk7eh When you say "leftist groups," who are you thinking of? The current DNC isn't. But it used to care about free speech, a long time ago . . .
4
@timayjust Overton Window is a view of what is acceptable political policy. When it shifts right, all "acceptable" political discourse (the mainstream of the two major parties, here) is necessarily more right leaning, and "left" only means more moderately right (the left edge of a right wing window). By "acceptable," I don't mean in the entire population. I basically mean, regarded as "electable" by the entrenched leadership of the two major parties, under the system as it stands. You are probably right about where the population is going. If we look at those under 30, it sure looks like they are moving left, and fast.
3
@jayvdb Thank you. Serious encroachments on our FOURTH Amendment rights are happening while we sit mesmerized by social media meming. The latter is just more potent advertising. That, we can resist.
3
Russians might talk to us, and pretend they're not Russians!!!!
1
@EnclaveAgent First Amendment protected speech does not have consequences that any branch or level of government can impose on you -- well, in principle anyway. :/
1
@joefilter2923 I didn't even catch what that meant, it's so idiotic.
1
@michaelneufeld4515 Exactly.
1
@JD-gk7eh Oh, all right. Most of that (not quite all) has been idiotic. Not generating a compelling counter-discourse is also lazy. The fundamental principle is that you meet speech you find odious with more speech, not censorship. So you write up and produce leaflets, you hold alternative teach-ins, or you even question the administration about how student activity fees are allocated, to make sure your group gets its share. You start your own YouTube channel or podcast. But all of those take WORK.
1
@myrhev Trust me, I AGREE!
1
@varsityathlete9927 Well, that's true, but . . . Discussing some sort of parental alert, comparable to the system for rating films, and having a small label on various media (music, video games) does not strike me as a prioir censorship. It can devolve into that, true. But if done correctly, it can also just be information. Look what happened in film: the R rating broadened far beyond what anyone would have predicted. No movie that is not totally porn is ever rated X. I agree with that, by the way. But back in 1950, did anyone think Midnight Cowboy and Boogie Nights would be R? Good that they aren't X, but . . . It's kind of funny.
1
@schubajo But when they keep swallowing their rivals, it becomes an issue. They cannot monopolize all discourse on the Internet, hide behind Section 230 immunity as if they perform no editorial function, AND then say, "we're just a private company, we aren't the government. We're not responsible for upholding First Amendment rights. We can just deploy our proprietary algorithms."
1