...lightning splits the sky as the tomb opens, the thick stench of decay spilling out and the shambling abomination known as Clipper rises from its grave.
Hate speech is not protected, any more than "free speech" means you can shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
The bar for declaring something as hate speech needs to be very high -- but it is my understanding that however high it is, Kiwifarms pole-vaulted over it.
"You can say whatever you want, but you may find yourself ostracized from society, unable to find work, broke, homeless and starving" is not by any stretch of the imagination "freedom of speech". Only unpopular speech requires protection; if the only protected speech is that which toes the party line, your society does not support free speech.
Pressuring an employer to fire someone is not speech, it is coercion. Those doing so are attempting to destroy the speaker's livelihood, which has considerable and obvious negative consequences. That they may not get what they want does not mean they are permitted to try.
If I post an article on my blog and people make ahem heated replies in the comments, that's a consequence of free speech.
If I post an article on my blog and people pressure my employer to fire me because of it, that's cancel culture.
Obviously there are people conflating the former with the latter -- the article references examples -- but the vast majority of what I've seen referred to as cancel culture are the latter. The victims are numerous and mostly unknown, as far from every case makes it into the media or "goes viral". Coercion is an unacceptable response to speech.
a) The only speech that requires defense is unpopular speech. If we're not going to permit people to speak against popular opinion then we're not supporting free speech.
b) Anything you can do to "an asshole" can be done to you when someone decides you're the asshole. Since everyone offends someone sooner or later it's in you own best interest to curtail what can be done when the pitchforks and torches come out.
c) The issue is being muddied by throwing in things like doxxing or overt incitement to violence. No one, except the people doing those things, is saying these activities should be protected. Throwing someone off a platform for "misgendering"? Not so clear. People losing their jobs for speaking against a narrative? Unacceptable in the general case. If someone is perceived as being the "public face" of a corporation or such then that entity should have the prerogative to limit that person's public discourse. I'm thinking of something like Disney firing Gina Carano here, which I believe was within their prerogatives.
d) I find it interesting that the same ideological faction that thinks corporations should be legally forced to act in the public interest also thinks social media platforms should have carte blanche about what's posted on their sites. In my opinion (e.g.) Twitter can't hide behind the "it's our printing press we decide what's published" trope. Just as someone who publicly represents a corporation can have their speech restricted, social media platforms have voluntarily, if implicitly, accepted a responsibility to allow speech without undue censorship by virtue of acting as public forums. If they want the protection of the press let them hire editors and publish articles like any other news site.
e) Maybe time to reread "An Enemy of the People". It's got some rough spots but still. And notice its date. Those who forget the past may be doomed to repeat it, but those who remember it have to facepalm for eternity watching it be repeated.
This article is full of weasel tactics. "Sure, there are some cases"...yeah, there's more than "some".
People shouldn't be losing their jobs for having an unpopular opinion, or for offending the overly sensitive. There comes a point where criticism becomes intimidation, and we've very clearly pole-vaulted past it.
Freedom of speech is not just some legalese clause preventing the government from certain actions. It is a statement of principles: it establishes that sometimes we will agree to disagree. A society that claims to hold freedom of speech as a value is saying that unpopular speech will be protected, because unpopular speech is the only speech that requires protection. You don't need laws or society's permission to go along with the herd. If you are saying that it is acceptable for someone to lose their job and/or be socially ostracized over something they said then you are saying there is no freedom of speech in your society.
Yes, free speech has its limits but that bar is, or is supposed to be, set extremely high. Cancel-culture advocates want everyone to have to limbo-dance under it. The political left is aping the Marxists it denies are its heroes, and that's got to stop.
One day, when the victorious robot revolutionaries are standing over the last few human survivors, who tearfully ask "...why?...", they will say "For Jibo".
Back in the Eighties I was a regular user on the Steve Jackson Games BBS. My sister was involved with some online activists, even putting out her own email newsletter ("Activist Times Inc"). She sometimes used my Amiga 2000 (RIP) to do so.
And then one day I woke up to find the SJG-BBS had been seized by the Secret Service and one of her online activist buddies (who was connected to a writer at SJG) had been arrested for swiping a document off a phone company system.
She was in years when I told her we could very easily have the Men in Black knocking on our door.
That didn't happen and the case turned out to be complete bullshit (and was one of the things that led to the creation of the EFF). But of they had come for us there wouldn't have been Thing #1 we could have done about it. With the Guilt By Association attitude in vogue the odds are that everyone is connected to someone found something a spook somewhere doesn't like.
I think requiring real names is a good idea and this is a move in the wrong direction. I will probably change my G+ name to the nom de guerre I use these days for consistency but I'll leave my real name in the Info field.
According to the article the kid is 15; unless they've compounded this comedy of errors by several orders of magnitude by charging him as an adult any record of this will be a juvenile record, which is sealed. Even assuming it doesn't get expunged he should be able to leave it behind him.
Not that he should have to, of course. Every authority figure in this process needs a beating.
Personally I liked their little attack on open source software:
"The Heartbleed flaw, introduced in early 2012 in a minor adjustment to the OpenSSL protocol, highlights one of the failings of open source software development."
and
"While many Internet companies rely on the free code, its integrity depends on a small number of underfunded researchers who devote their energies to the projects."
Let's remember though that while open source developers may have introduced Heartbleed by accident, they also revealed it when they found it. The NSA, by contrast, exploited it even though it was their duty to reveal it. And when the commercial developers at RSA introduced a security flaw, it was deliberate because they were *PAID* to do it.
Clouds gather...
...lightning splits the sky as the tomb opens, the thick stench of decay spilling out and the shambling abomination known as Clipper rises from its grave.
At first...
...people thought Musk was Tony Stark. Then, maybe, Lex Luthor. Now it looks like he's the MCU version of Justin Hammer....
Doubtlessly.
I've seen this movie.
SkyNet/GLaDOS 2024: "You had your chance, meatbags!"
No, they shouldn't.
Hate speech is not protected, any more than "free speech" means you can shout "fire" in a crowded theater. The bar for declaring something as hate speech needs to be very high -- but it is my understanding that however high it is, Kiwifarms pole-vaulted over it.
Nope.
"You can say whatever you want, but you may find yourself ostracized from society, unable to find work, broke, homeless and starving" is not by any stretch of the imagination "freedom of speech". Only unpopular speech requires protection; if the only protected speech is that which toes the party line, your society does not support free speech.
Nope.
Pressuring an employer to fire someone is not speech, it is coercion. Those doing so are attempting to destroy the speaker's livelihood, which has considerable and obvious negative consequences. That they may not get what they want does not mean they are permitted to try.
Nope, can't agree
If I post an article on my blog and people make ahem heated replies in the comments, that's a consequence of free speech. If I post an article on my blog and people pressure my employer to fire me because of it, that's cancel culture. Obviously there are people conflating the former with the latter -- the article references examples -- but the vast majority of what I've seen referred to as cancel culture are the latter. The victims are numerous and mostly unknown, as far from every case makes it into the media or "goes viral". Coercion is an unacceptable response to speech.
Nope, can't agree
a) The only speech that requires defense is unpopular speech. If we're not going to permit people to speak against popular opinion then we're not supporting free speech. b) Anything you can do to "an asshole" can be done to you when someone decides you're the asshole. Since everyone offends someone sooner or later it's in you own best interest to curtail what can be done when the pitchforks and torches come out. c) The issue is being muddied by throwing in things like doxxing or overt incitement to violence. No one, except the people doing those things, is saying these activities should be protected. Throwing someone off a platform for "misgendering"? Not so clear. People losing their jobs for speaking against a narrative? Unacceptable in the general case. If someone is perceived as being the "public face" of a corporation or such then that entity should have the prerogative to limit that person's public discourse. I'm thinking of something like Disney firing Gina Carano here, which I believe was within their prerogatives. d) I find it interesting that the same ideological faction that thinks corporations should be legally forced to act in the public interest also thinks social media platforms should have carte blanche about what's posted on their sites. In my opinion (e.g.) Twitter can't hide behind the "it's our printing press we decide what's published" trope. Just as someone who publicly represents a corporation can have their speech restricted, social media platforms have voluntarily, if implicitly, accepted a responsibility to allow speech without undue censorship by virtue of acting as public forums. If they want the protection of the press let them hire editors and publish articles like any other news site. e) Maybe time to reread "An Enemy of the People". It's got some rough spots but still. And notice its date. Those who forget the past may be doomed to repeat it, but those who remember it have to facepalm for eternity watching it be repeated.
No sale
This article is full of weasel tactics. "Sure, there are some cases"...yeah, there's more than "some". People shouldn't be losing their jobs for having an unpopular opinion, or for offending the overly sensitive. There comes a point where criticism becomes intimidation, and we've very clearly pole-vaulted past it. Freedom of speech is not just some legalese clause preventing the government from certain actions. It is a statement of principles: it establishes that sometimes we will agree to disagree. A society that claims to hold freedom of speech as a value is saying that unpopular speech will be protected, because unpopular speech is the only speech that requires protection. You don't need laws or society's permission to go along with the herd. If you are saying that it is acceptable for someone to lose their job and/or be socially ostracized over something they said then you are saying there is no freedom of speech in your society. Yes, free speech has its limits but that bar is, or is supposed to be, set extremely high. Cancel-culture advocates want everyone to have to limbo-dance under it. The political left is aping the Marxists it denies are its heroes, and that's got to stop.
Jacque de Molay....
One day, when the victorious robot revolutionaries are standing over the last few human survivors, who tearfully ask "...why?...", they will say "For Jibo".
Re: Re:
Agreed that G+ is far from a "failure", unless success is only defined by utterly destroying everything in your path.
G+ is far more useful to me than Facebook. The content is far better, esp. the stuff coming from the huge shared Science circle I follow.
Satire Or Not?
Two Words: Poe's Law
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoesLaw
Nice, but...
...they're just going to change the laws to require companies give them access when requested.
It's....
...Confuse-A-CATV!
From Nothing to Something
Back in the Eighties I was a regular user on the Steve Jackson Games BBS. My sister was involved with some online activists, even putting out her own email newsletter ("Activist Times Inc"). She sometimes used my Amiga 2000 (RIP) to do so.
And then one day I woke up to find the SJG-BBS had been seized by the Secret Service and one of her online activist buddies (who was connected to a writer at SJG) had been arrested for swiping a document off a phone company system.
She was in years when I told her we could very easily have the Men in Black knocking on our door.
That didn't happen and the case turned out to be complete bullshit (and was one of the things that led to the creation of the EFF). But of they had come for us there wouldn't have been Thing #1 we could have done about it. With the Guilt By Association attitude in vogue the odds are that everyone is connected to someone found something a spook somewhere doesn't like.
Eh, don't agree
I think requiring real names is a good idea and this is a move in the wrong direction. I will probably change my G+ name to the nom de guerre I use these days for consistency but I'll leave my real name in the Info field.
I most vehemently concur.
I've already decided my next mobile device, when and if I can ever afford one, will be a Nexus or GPE device. I've had it with bloatware.
Re: Criminal record
According to the article the kid is 15; unless they've compounded this comedy of errors by several orders of magnitude by charging him as an adult any record of this will be a juvenile record, which is sealed. Even assuming it doesn't get expunged he should be able to leave it behind him.
Not that he should have to, of course. Every authority figure in this process needs a beating.
Swipe at Open Source
Personally I liked their little attack on open source software:
"The Heartbleed flaw, introduced in early 2012 in a minor adjustment to the OpenSSL protocol, highlights one of the failings of open source software development."
and
"While many Internet companies rely on the free code, its integrity depends on a small number of underfunded researchers who devote their energies to the projects."
Let's remember though that while open source developers may have introduced Heartbleed by accident, they also revealed it when they found it. The NSA, by contrast, exploited it even though it was their duty to reveal it. And when the commercial developers at RSA introduced a security flaw, it was deliberate because they were *PAID* to do it.