• 10A@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 年前

    You’re conflating the principle of free speech with the US 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment is predicated on the principle of free speech. The 1st Amendment is completely inapplicable here. The principle of free speech is 100% applicable here, as it is foundational to western civilization.

    • czech@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 年前

      You’re talking about a “free speech” that only exists in /r/conservative echo chambers. You are free to say what you want but you are not free from the consequences. We do not have to listen. And it’s not a “disgrace” that nobody cares to hear what you have to say.

      • 10A@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 年前

        Up until a few years ago, it was widely held by people of all political persuasions to be one of the foundations of western civilization. As the far left has moved progressively further leftward, they abandoned it. The only reason you think of it as conservative is because it’s old-fashioned.

        • czech@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 年前

          Up until a few years ago, it was widely held by people of all political persuasions

          . You can’t just make shit up.This is only exists in your echo chambers.

          • 10A@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 年前

            Wait, do you actually disagree with that? I thought that was common knowledge. If you don’t mind my asking, which age-group are you in? (If you decline to state for anonymity, I understand. I just find this baffling. It’s indisputably true in my personal, anecdotal, life experience.)

            • czech@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 年前

              So you made it up? You can’t state things as fact based on your personal observations from your echo chamber.

              It’s indisputably true in my personal, anecdotal, life experience

              I could have guessed that. Your perspective seems very insular.

              • 10A@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 年前

                I could probably go out and search for a million random people who’ve experienced it too (like everyone older than 30), and some articles about it. But I said what I know to be true based not on having read it anywhere, but rather on what I’ve personally experienced over quite a few decades of life in America.

                • czech@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 年前

                  Right, no sources, just your personal experience. The hallmark of the “American conservative”. Facts be damned.

                  • 10A@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 年前

                    What are you, a librarian? Do you not go out into the world and experience anything in your life? Most of what we learn about the world does not come from citeable sources, but from actual real-world experience.

    • danhakimi@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 年前

      the principles of free speech do not guarantee you a platform upon which to spread hatred. They do not give you the right to force others to serve your positions over the internet.

      there might be something to be said about “platform neutrality,” but it’s still a competition of rights that doesn’t really justify forcing a platform—especially a small platform like kbin—to host content it views as extremist, or especially likely to result in violence. Maybe you can argue that we should have higher scrutiny in the case of a monopoly or similar large social network due to the power of strong network effects, but… I don’t know how much scrutiny would you need to apply to say “aha, this company is banning terfs for insidious reasons!” no, they’re obviously banning terfs because their bigotry is dangerous and hurtful and giving them a platform just feels incredibly shitty.

      A while back, I thought—well, I still do think—that platform neutrality should be used to frame the issue of large social media sites that ban talk about their competitors, like when Twitter deprioritized Substack (facebook messenger has banned competitors as well). I’d also argue this principle could be used to ban, for example, Facebook from manipulating its algorithm overtly (expliciltly, specifically) to favor a particular political party or an advertiser (outside of the ad itself—that one is already illegal, ads need to be disclosed as ads). But applying such a rule to general political standards and where you think the norm or neutral position should be is dangerous and stupid.