1263
Why you shouldn't use Brave Browser
(www.spacebar.news)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
1263 points (89.9% liked)
Technology
59414 readers
1430 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
How I love seeing people talk the big talk about 'democracy' and 'freedom' but also do their best to remind everyone that "your'e free as long as you agree with them", else they attack with pitchforks and torches. Lovely. (Yes I'm talking to you).
https://xkcd.com/1357/
I normally agree with xkcd, but this is a huge straw man.
It's not the government oppressing you, but you are being oppressed. It's not the government restricting your speech, but your speech is being restricted.
People complaining about their speech getting restricted aren't saying "...by the government" and it's a cop out to pretend that's what they're talking about in the first place. That's not the conversation when it comes to canceling and deplatforming. That's not what people are complaining about. When people say "the right to free speech" in this context, they aren't talking about a specific legal, constitutional doctrine. They're talking about the social contract. They're saying, "hey, we generally believe in freedom as a concept, why are other people shushing me for voicing my opinion?"
Note I'm not a "free speech absolutist", I don't think we should give everyone a megaphone and tell em to have fun. Sometimes canceling is the appropriate response. There's a lot of social media assholes out there stirring up shit and they should get muzzled.
But this particular argument is bullshit.
The argument we should be making is this: what you are saying is itself so heinous and dangerous that it is a violation of the social contract. The government is not silencing you, but we will.
And we should also keep in mind that just because the government isn't silencing someone, that doesn't mean it's perfectly fine that we do. Mob mentality is a thing and sometimes we (the mob) can go too far. We should be measured about canceling and deplatforming.
I couldn't disagree more.
The only form of restriction/censoring of speech that has any bearing whatsoever on this discussion is that which is enacted by the government. Pretending that some other person is somehow "restricting their speech" and "oppressing them socially" (!?) by telling them to shut up or leave is disingenuous at best.
While we're at it, "canceling" isn't a thing. It's a buzzword made up by the right to complain about the fact that they just got shown the door. Aww, boo hoo, did your feelings get hurt when you said your hot take & got told to fuck off? Maybe go reflect on that.
Sorry, no. I'm under no obligation to listen to anyone, and I can walk away and/or kick them out of my space for any reason I choose. There's no theoretical line their speech needs to cross before it's somehow morally acceptable for me to tell someone to fuck off. I really couldn't care less if you think I'm an asshole, so long as my conscience is clear.
I will not be "measured" about making a choice I think is the right thing to do, even if you disagree with it.
[transcribed from lip reading via telescope, as he was too high on his horse for the rest of us to hear]
That's not even close to the position I hold, but you do you.