Freedom of expression is at a ten-year low globally, study says
cjr.org
cjr.org
This is so obvious, it's disheartening to me that people are trying to give the US government power to do this.
Those seeking it would be advised to consider whether it's a power they really want Trump to have, or his successor, but there's a lot of people who seem to operate on the presumption that in the long term, their side is going to have complete control of the government indefinitely and the fact that some people they disagree with has some control at the moment is a momentary aberration. I would suggest history does not favor this viewpoint.
When you start trying to create laws or compel companies to shut down speech you disagree with or don't like, either through the guise of hate speech laws or "stopping disinformation", that is the scenario we are scared about that is rampant for abuse.
A) yes, he does. refer to the various people he has paid to stop talking about him through NDAs and catch & kill.
b) yes, he does. refer to the trump campaign's refusal to credential bloomberg most recently.
and various would-if-he-could:
c) refer to trump saying SNL is an attack on his safety, eg.
d) refer to trump referring to any non-fox media as 'the enemy of the people'
e) refer to trump recommending treason charges against NYT.
f) refer to trump recommending treason charges for people who refused to applaud at the state of the union
and on and on and on. there are endless examples of trump requesting legal action against various people "saying things" about him that he doesn't like. those people are only protected by the constitution. i have no interest in creating laws to compel companies to shut down speech i disagree with. i am a free speech absolutist. but a) he does stop people from saying things via civil legal action and b) he would stop people from saying things via criminal action if it were legal to do so.
I advise caution against spreading false information so blithely.
https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/white-house-press-passes...
I'd advise you to heed your own advice about spreading false information.
Do not make this a partisan issue.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/obama-whose-admin...
I'm guessing he said very little when Maxine Waters, among several other politicians made several direct and open statements such as, "you confront them restaurants, gas stations, shopping places, and even their homes".
Further, there is a huge push by news agencies to inhibit the flow and regain control of information. The recent Gayle King interview with Mark Zuckerburg is a great example of this. She was absolutely beside herself that Zuck wouldn't censor certain ads (unlike some other platforms), implying several times that people were just too stupid to evaluate and assess for themselves.. It was pretty ironic to hear Zuck say several times that people should be able to make up their own minds to a journo. But that's where we're at.
I think Trump is garbage, but the truth is that anyone spouting such nonsense as above about Trump really care little about truth, they are about agenda, which is fine if they were just honest about it. They associate Trump with this pie in the sky extreme view of some nefarious journalism censorship happenings. Yeh no.. They Got their credentials revoked, a privilege... Try that shit in a country with an actual dictator and you end up diced in pieces and taken out the back and put in a dumpster or they put you in jail and they let you out in 20 years or so.
It's really easy to end up in a "speech for me, not for thee" kind of scenario, especially when that reveling is generally more polemical than forensic.
... and who are willing to alter the rules to make sure that, once they get power, it will be easier for them to continue to have complete control indefinitely. And why? Because they are certain of the rightness of their ideas, and therefore if the people vote against them, it can only be because the people have been lead astray by lies and propaganda.
Such people deserve, at a minimum, our profound suspicion.
But then, he was probably joking. And fscking with his readers' perspectives.
I think you are confusing outcome for mechanism. The idea is that once their side wins, they'll clamp down so hard on wrong-think that the other side effective ceases to exist. It will be like elections under a dictator: sure there's another party, but if you vote for them you get a free trip to the re-education camp and get erased from all databases.
This is an interesting point, but I don't get how that follows from the rest of this post. More corporatism can often lead to worse quality of life as well.
By making the lack of rights explicit rather than implicit, the exercise of such rights is made even more difficult.
This seems like the kind of thinking from a lot of people in the PRC, and it's not working out very well for them, at least collectively.
If the USG were to order Twitter to take down X person's tweets because it hurt someone's feelers, that would be a clear violation of the first amendment.
Additionally we have a strong legal precedent of not permitting "compelled speech". Plainly put, they can't force you to label your own Facebook posts with your opponents claims as well.
I am totally on your side that these few companies are in far too much control. But they aren't the USG, or compelled to block/force-speech on their behalf.
We shouldn't regulate speech, but you should own the consequences of your actions -- speech included. If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids. It's certainly not as bad as pulling the trigger; you're one component of a much greater whole, and any restrictions or punishment should reflect that.
That is absolutely nuts if you believe that.
If A says to B, "don't vaccinate your kids", B complies, and then B's child dies of a disease it could have been vaccinated against, you would not say A had any culpability?
Anybody spreading anti-vaccination propaganda has been convinced of it themselves.
Can they then argue that a pro-vaccine person killed their kid? Can they sue their doctor?
If we allow this line of reasoning, where does it stop? If I tell people they should let their kids play in the dirt, can they sue me if their kid gets sick from a dirt born disease?
Everything has risk, and we can't make a law saying that anytime a risk event occurs you can sue someone who said to do the thing.
I don't disagree with being upset with antivaxxers and thinking they are causing real harm to our society.
However, I think the harm is outweighed by the benefit of allowing people to make whatever arguments they want in public (much like I think the risk of dying from a vaccine is worth it because of the reduced risk of dying from the disease the vaccine is preventing). The alternative is having to set some sort of 'risk threshold', where you aren't allowed to argue for something that increases risk more than x%..... but that gets really complicated, because most of the times you are advocating to increase risk IN RETURN FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
For example, driving a car is EXTREMELY risky (and kills way more people than die from not taking a vaccine). However, most people feel the benefit of auto transport is worth the risk. However, that is very subjective, and it would be difficult to logically and objectively argue against someone who says that risk is not worth it, and we should outlaw cars.... and anyone who advocates driving is responsible for every automobile death.
So... what are other options here? Cause it is definitely bad for the public if people stop vaccinating their kids. That’s not a risk, it’s a certainty. It is also fairly clear that a significant enough percentage of people will listen to anti-vaxxers no matter what, and they will move mountains to avoid vaccines.
So what do we do? What we are currently doing, really. We try to educate people about vaccines, we pass laws saying unvaccinated kids can't go to public schools without a medical reason (which yes, that loophole will be exploited, but it is an improvement), and we work to reduce the risk as much as we can. We are never going to 'solve' the problem of people making risky decisions that hurt society as a whole, so we just do our best to mitigate where we can, and accept the rest of the risk as just part of being a human in society.
> If you're spreading pro-vax propaganda, you're complicit in giving kids autism ... and any restrictions or punishment should reflect that.
Now I don't agree with the latter in the slightest. However, depending on who is in power and what political and social will exists at a particular time you can have two very different outcomes. This is the danger in opening up such a can of worms.
Now, it's harder to make those calls for indirect effects, and I definitely believe we should be more careful about it. You're totally correct about the danger. But that doesn't mean we don't have the discussions, as long as we're aware of the risks.
> When we're considering regulation, it's important to consider the activity we're regulating in context. Here's one extreme: it's legal to light a match. It's not legal to light a match and toss it into a gas pump.
As you allude to intent matters here. Let's assume they went to the gas pump specifically to light a match and throw it into the gas pump. That is very specific and obvious intent and culpability is clear.
Now assume this person was merely lighting a cigarette in front of the pump and an ember falls off and causes a fire. Well the intent was not to set the place ablaze, but they were still either negligent or reckless in their actions, so while they are still culpable, intent is lacking here.
As a third hypothetical let's say they had a matchbook in their pocket and one match is dislodged and rubs between the striker strip and the person's cell phone, thus creating a fire while they're in front of the pump. Their intent was never to light a fire, so what is their culpability here?
Limiting ourselves to matters of scientific inquiry as related to free speech for the moment, how would the idea of culpability and intent as mentioned above factor into this? Someone espousing anti-vax opinions clearly does not have the intent of killing kids, their intent as I understand it is to prevent children from becoming autistic regardless of whether science agrees with them or not. Perhaps they could be considered negligent given current scientific understanding, but how do you even begin to consider culpability?
What if this is an area where science does not have an answer yet, but there's enormous public pressure to outlaw speaking about X or punish those who do. How does intent and culpability factor into this? Is it just "the law says x, you intended to violate it and are going to be held accountable" without any sort of deeper explanation as to why your rights were restricted? What happens if the science settles in the opposite direction as the laws and speech was curtailed wrongly in this specific framework? Similarly what happens if the laws are based on the science of the time, but the science itself discovers it erred in some way thus flipping it from being in agreement with to disagreement with the law?
Lastly how does this extend to matters where science may not provide a useful answer?
I just listened to the oral arguments given for Voisine v. United States and it's very analogous to this line of thinking. I'd highly recommend listening to it and reading the opinion.
I agree that such matters should be approached in the utmost of delicacy. But the science is resoundingly clear on the efficacy and safety of vaccines. Taking an evidence-based approach to when people are spreading known-and-shown false information to the known-and-shown harm of many would be prudent (like, for example, when 60 people die and 4000 are infected in a measles outbreak, ongoing this week). Just saying "oh well gosh people are going to bothsides this issue to death" is complacent support of harmful propaganda. As the adage goes, your right to swing your fist ends at my face.
Are you sure this applies to every vaccine used today? And for all vaccines that will be used in the future? I wouldn't be surprised if there has been vaccines which did more harm than good, and making it illegal to question them seems like a recipe for disaster.
What an absurd presumption. Erect a slippery slope and challenge me to defend it all the way to the bottom? No thank.
These things need intensive scientific studies to be proven safe. I assume that most will fail before they reach human trial. And policies surrounding vaccines should be done on a case by case basis.
That's not extreme. It's a perfect example of how when it comes to non-polarized issues we rationally criminalize bad actions (lighting a gas station on fire) instead of conduct that could, if used maliciously, result in bad things (lighting a match in general).
Even with moral, I'd argue that the consequences have to be reasonable. It's not reasonable to take advice about vaccinations from anybody except a medical professional. I eat junk food and I tell people it's delicious. If some of them hear me say it's delicious, eat some, get fat, and die, I don't feel morally responsible - take advice about your diet from professionals, not from me.
Also if you're spreading pro-abortion propaganda. And pro-war propaganda. And anti-war propaganda. /s
Obviously ridiculous. Repeat after me: speech is not violence! Only people actually doing violence are violent. Want to criminalize not vaccinating kids? Be my guest, but I'll now and forever support people to campaign against it, and that shouldn't be illegal.
You can't compel me to say so. And it's not so. Speech is a nuanced legal issue, and there are multiple well-justified limitations on that freedom. Libel is not protected speech. Incitement to violence is not protected speech. Fraud is not protected speech. You can do tangible harm with speech, ergo some utterances can and are seen as violence.
This is simply terrifying. Actions should be penalized, not speech.
> If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids.
People like you are what I fear the most. Using children to justify tyranny and oppression. Maybe you have good intentions but that's what the road to hell is paved with.
You do realize that your way of thinking opens up gay rights activists to prosecution for spreading HIV? What about vegan activists? Babies and even pets have been starved to death because some people followed vegan advice. Should all vegan activists be punished?
What about PR firms who create soda ads? Should we round up all of them and punish them? What about journalists? If a journalist writes a story that leads to war ( legal or illegal ) that results in the death of children, should they be prosecuted?
Should librarians be prosecuted because libraries carry offensive material that people might read to cause harm?
Also, you do realize that your system depends entirely on who is in charge rather than principles? What if anti-vaxxers are in charge. Your system allows them to mark all pro-vaxxers as criminals spreading propaganda. Do you really want to live in that kind of world?
You are the one who's making me afraid.
And yes, scientists say that kids die without vaccines, some people disagree, so you would actually punish them for disagreeing with scientists since otherwise you wouldn't be sure these people killed kids.
Speaking is an action.
> You do realize that your way of thinking opens up gay rights activists to prosecution for spreading HIV?
Are gay rights activists stating incorrect facts that risk the public health, including of heterosexual people?
> What about vegan activists? Babies and even pets have been starved to death because some people followed vegan advice. Should all vegan activists be punished?
No, of course not. Unless they claim that a given diet is harmless or beneficial to babies/pets even though it's known to be harmful.
> What about PR firms who create soda ads? Should we round up all of them and punish them?
Not necessarily, unless their ads contain lies or are intentionally misleading.
> If a journalist writes a story that leads to war ( legal or illegal ) that results in the death of children, should they be prosecuted?
Did they lie?
> Should librarians be prosecuted because libraries carry offensive material that people might read to cause harm?
That obviously depends on the material in question.
> Also, you do realize that your system depends entirely on who is in charge rather than principles?
No, it depends on things like a working democracy, rule of law, and freedom of science.
Anyone who has only been deplatformed and is complaining that the world is becoming authoritarian needs to realize that this has always been the way of the world. Forever. There has never been a time in history when someone could voice an unpopular view or be seen as an unpopular identity and not receive public ridicule, shame, or retribution of some kind, and where companies censored no content whatsoever.
What America, and other nations who value freedom, have is a protection against government interference. Let's keep it that way and accept that people are jerks to each other and not everyone wants to hear what you have to say.
That's exactly the sort of common sense observation that's been missing from public debate on this issue. Why is it so difficult for people to accept that, really very simple, reality?
Everyone has freedoms. That includes the freedom to ignore you or me. Or, indeed, the freedom to speak ill of you or me.
Why do people want to shut that down? Just seems weird, like they're saying, "In the name of Freedom of Speech, we have to take away your Freedom of Speech. Because you talked bad about me and told people to ignore me. When I had done nothing more than exercise my freedom of speech by talking bad about someone else."
In what bizzarro world does that make sense to people?
Ultimately I think the answer is to have tools to make it easier and faster to identify and validate misinformation. Self-appointed "fact checking" organizations seems like an old-fashioned solution.
I generally agree that historically we haven't had totally free speech; however, we've been on an upward trend, and some of us are sad to see organizations at the helm of huge channels of speech using their power to prop up certain worldviews, especially somewhat extreme, fringe worldviews with questionable moral credentials (to put it charitably). We should keep the trend going; not reverse it to regress back to "the way things always have been".
> There has never been a time in history when someone could voice an unpopular view or be seen as an unpopular identity and not receive public ridicule, shame, or retribution of some kind, and where companies censored no content whatsoever.
No serious person is asking for the ability to express views without criticism, and regarding corporate censorship, utilities aren't allowed to censor speech--I support regulating social media companies as utilities. This doesn't mean social media has to be a dumb channel either; those companies could curate content so long as it's not on an explicitly ideological basis. For example, it would be fine for Twitter to promote content that is popular, so long as "popular" is determined purely by their users and not dependent upon Twitter's ideology.
> What America, and other nations who value freedom, have is a protection against government interference. Let's keep it that way and accept that people are jerks to each other and not everyone wants to hear what you have to say.
I think social media in its current state is represents a kind of threat to free speech that formerly could only be mustered by governments. Notably, there is a significant concern on both sides of the aisle that social media companies can be used to steer governments, including as an attack vector by foreign governments. These companies have unprecedented control over speech at this volume that it must be dealt with, in my humble opinion.
This argument is super common, but also not correct.
Yes, the first amendment is about protecting speech from government censorship.
But freedom of speech is much broader, and predates the US Constitution by two millennia. If you look at the full history of the concept, it's not just about protection from government, but also protection from undue reprisal.
For example, in the larger view of the ideal of freedom of speech, it is indeed a violation to be fired from your job for holding an unrelated, unpopular political view.
All of these issues are rooted in the same principle, namely: allowing people to freely express themselves in the face of authority is a net good for human society.
I think a more correct sentiment would be that even when there are governments that don't want to limit freedom of expression, multinational corporations will still oblige those governments and influential citizens that do.
But when the government says you can't talk about a thing, they can make you take it down everywhere. Only this is protected, and this line needs to not be crossed.
I little sympathy for people getting upset at being deplatformed - they can go elsewhere, and their cries of freedom of expression cry wolf to the constitutional issue of those in power doing actual oppression.
You only have the right to inconvenience yourself in support of your rights. Just like me or any other person. I don't have the right to put all of my coworkers at risk so that I can call some black guy the N word for instance. That's kind of the way rights work. You have rights, but everyone else does as well.
Anyway, how’s your comment even relevant to what I replied to?
GP: (implying) Twitter mobs can silence or even destroy people just like government silencing;
P: Just find another Twitter;
Me: When your career’s destroyed finding another Twitter is probably not the highest priority;
You: You deserve to have your career destroyed, because otherwise Twitter mobs will be angry with your employer and colleagues.
So you’re refuting what? If there’s freedom of expression no one’s job would be at risk. Don’t bring up “freedom from consequences”, murdered journalists also had freedom of expression, they only faced certain consequences.
NO. Your company is under no obligation to maintain your employment. Why? Because the owner of your company has rights too. You're not the only person who has rights. That's the whole point here. The First is for everyone. And they can do what they like with their rights. And you can do what you like with your rights.
We don't take away rights from Paul, because Peter finds Paul's rights inconvenient. That's not how the Constitution works.
And again, in the cases I was alluding to, people were only terminated because of supposed “public outcry”. Without “public outcry” the companies wouldn’t have done anything. You think they actually enjoy disassociating with employees because they made some remarks on Twitter that are completely irrelevant to what they’re hired for? Think again.
So, Twitter mobs have no obligation to listen to or associate with the individuals I was talking about. Exactly. It would have been great if they disengage and left well enough alone. But nope, they’re out for blood.
- You have a successful GitHub project.
- One of your key contributors voted for Trump
- PC police come and demand you kick said contributor off of your project for violating CoC because they went digging through his Twitter history and found a tweet with him wearing a MAGA hat
- You disagree and say it's his right to vote for whoever he wants
- PC police do everything they can do destroy you and your project because you have run afoul of their wishes
> PC police do everything they can do destroy you and your project because you have run afoul of their wishes
No one was trying to destroy the Linux Foundation, Linux itself, or the KubeCon conference.
I've seen people say they'll stop working with a project if someone else they don't like is working on it, but I've never seen anyone actually attempt to destroy the project.
Right, because they acquiesced to the demands of the PC police. Had LF stood their ground and pushed back against the PC police, there may have been protests, etc. that caused KubeCon to be cancelled. Never underestimate the power of PC police whipping up a righteous maelstrom on twitter.
Even if it did, I don't see the problem. People have the right to protest and say what they want about the Linux Foundation.
That's what living in a nation with the First means. People can protest you, even for frivolous reasons. I could go organize an online protest against Mattel because I want a Malibu Barbie with stripper heels and poles.
The Constitution doesn't dictate how I use my rights, it only says that the government can't interfere with them. That's the line that can't be crossed.
Now if Twitter finds my request for Malibu Barbie Stripper Heels and Poles ridiculous and wants to get rid of me, that's their right.
Why? Because Freedom of Association is implicit in the First. And Twitter may decide that my request for Malibu Barbie Stripper Heels and Poles crosses a line that it isn't comfortable with.
Finally, I fully realize that Malibu Barbie Stripper Heels and Poles is obviously a ludicrous and trivial idea that Twitter would not even bother banning me for, but you get the idea. Some social justice warrior might come along and be offended by it and go on a crusade etc etc etc. But that's their right is the point.
Guy, try to be reasonable.
Opposition to a political opinion, is itself, a political opinion.
What you're asking is that your political opinion be the only one that gets Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Speech etc. Because you are explicitly asking that people with opposing political opinions not be given rights of Freedom of Expression and Association.
You should lose your livelihood for having this political opinion is another valid political opinion, however distasteful.
However, there’s a big problem if you’re guaranteed to lose your livelihood when a handful of vocal individuals who otherwise have no associations with you whatsoever hold the aforementioned opinion.
Let’s just hope you’re never on the receiving end of it.
Too late. I joined up with the ACLU decades ago, long before there ever was a Twitter. So I've been a pariah for a long while and it doesn't bother me. The important thing is to maintain the civil liberties of each and every person in the United States.
I get the argument if it's their platform with their money curating the content their way, but many of these large platform companies, like Google, have received massive infusion in funds through the government, tax breaks, or subsidies, and nearly monopolized large segments of information exchange (search, video, etc.)
When you have so much material support going into these companies from federal and state governments, and then they behave a certain way towards our rights, you begin to enter a very realistic scenario where a proxy intrusion of your rights starts becoming a real thing, especially if that platform is one of the only few realistically available to use.
Except when those dissenting voices make credible threats to your person, family, and livelihood or libel and slander you at a volume that is infeasible to litigate.
> I little sympathy for people getting upset at being deplatformed - they can go elsewhere
Where can they go when all of the major social media companies share the same general ideology? This idea that social media networks are plug-and-play beggars belief. Or perhaps you simply meant that people who don't adhere to this ideology simply don't deserve to participate in social media; that it's a privilege and not a right?
> their cries of freedom of expression cry wolf to the constitutional issue of those in power doing actual oppression.
What does this even mean?
That you should have freedom of expression, but the twitter users should not have freedom of expression?
I feel like that's what's being lost in this discussion. The acceptance of the fact that everyone has rights. Not just you. Or just me. Or just the politicians. Or what have you.
But everyone.
Theres a huge difference between expressing disagreement with an idea and trying to ruin someone's life.
People are free to be jerks. That's Freedom of Expression.
If people physically attack you, that's one thing. That's crime.
If people tell your company they aren't going to purchase your company's products because you work there, that's another thing entirely. That's just Americans exercising their freedom to associate with whomever or whatever they please. That's them exercising their freedom of expression and speech. There's nothing in those actions contrary to constitutional principles.
That's what's important, that absolutely no one's constitutional freedoms be restricted.
Other Americans have their particular opinions. Which they are free to have.
My primary concern, or my opinion, is that all Americans are able to exercise lawful rights in support of their opinions without governmental interference. I am as supportive of the Nazi as I am of the Feminist in this regard. And the good news, is that the Constitution is equally inclusive. It ensures that everyone gets the right to express themselves, or boycott, or associate with, or ignore, whatever or whomever they please.
You may not think so right now, but this is actually a good thing. It really does protect you.
Say that you come across some guy on Twitter who said that Quake was a bad game. You click around and find out that he works as Big Company Inc and is probably the only one there with this personal opinion. You decide that Big Company Inc should suffer for hiring this guy, so you decide to boycott them. Now, you take your business to Huge Group Co. However, Huge Group Co has a whole floor of people who believe that Quake was never a good game, and they believe it strongly. But they never announce it. You should not be comfortable handing money to them unless your actual goal is to punish people for expressing themselves in places where you might happen to see it.
That point is orthogonal to may primary objective. Which is only to keep the rights to boycott quake, or like quake, or dislike quake, or feel indifferent about quake, open to all Americans. I don't care how they use their rights. I don't even care if they use their rights. I only care that their rights never be infringed by the government.
You're talking about strategies for civil disobedience. Which is great. It's just that strategies for use are a layer on top of your rights. In a very real way, the only reason you can talk about strategies, is because you have the rights necessary to freely engage in civil disobedience.
This, more fundamental, issue is my primary concern. That the right to any sort of civil disobedience be freely available. I don't care how people use those rights. I mean, obviously right. I mean, not to sound crass, but I don't even care if Nazis hide behind those rights. So why would I care if anyone else uses them? I just care that no one be constrained from using them.
This is a really sad state of affairs. Because of whatever reasons (monetary, fear of dissent and terrorism, etc.) we've seen governments implement more and more laws and policies that take away the "freedom" that we're supposed to have in a democracy.
People seem to forget that democracies are supposed to be for the people. Not for corporations. Not for those in power. Not for the wealthy.
I notice this tends to get forgotten quite a bit. When you listen to a lot of public discussion you get the impression that only a few people and organizations really count and the rest of people have to adapt to them.
That's what we are told. But if you look at actual history of democracy and how it came about ( ancient greek or american democracy ), you know that simply isn't true.
The ancient greek democracy was created by the slave owning master class to protect and preserve their property and rights. In the US, our democracy was created by the wealthy white landowners to protect their property and rights.
The two quintessential democracies in the world were created by the wealthy for the wealthy, not by the people for the people. But it's great advertising.
Sure, but this has nothing to do with hate speech and is in fact completely orthogonal. There is hate speech that doesn't (immediately and directly) incite violence, and there is non-hate speech that does.
Trump's comment, for example, was inciting violence, I agree. And I agree that it shouldn't be allowed. But it wasn't hate speech. So why are you bringing it up in response to a comment about hate speech?
"Hate speech that incites violence" is not "hate speech". I don't know why you are trying to force the connection between hate speech and violent threatening speech.
Hate speech, is protected speech.
If the government has, in any manner, infringed on your Freedom of Expression, Speech, and/or Association, get in touch with your local ACLU affiliate.
https://www.aclu.org/about/affiliates?redirect=affiliates
There are people there who can help you not only with "next steps", but throughout the entire process.
But please realize, they can't help you get your twitter account back, because Twitter has rights too.
I find this extremely hard to believe.
"White people" are the only group it is socially acceptable to be racist towards.
Clarification: one of the journalists
I wonder whether freedom of expression by the average citizen is decreasing or increasing. They certainly have more opportunity to express their views.
And to be fair, China isn't North Korea by any means. so in some ways, it seems like the most likely to start demeaning more freedom.
News to me. Can anyone comment on this?
- https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/13/17823488/h...
- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/25/world/europe/hungary-demo...
- https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/hungary/2019-08-15/h...
- https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/08/29/how-viktor-orb...
People are angry. Everyone that steps out of line is now a target for that anger. It's a sad and scary state of affairs.
Conformist social pressure has always been intense. Previously, it was just very local and not visible outside the social context in which it happened. People didn't notice it (or if they did, would tend to approve of it) unless it was focused on them.
> You can't be fired for religion
Therein lies the problem. Therein lies the problem. We've politicized religious speak. Who's the arbiter of what constitutes a religion and what religious views are tolerable in the workplace?
Some people want to take the rights of others to impose their preferred world view.
That was kind of the point. Thanks the the internet, we're all famous now. Just ask "star wars kid".
Even people which have been 'cancelled' for things that aren't assault still end up going on to have their career mostly unaffected unless they did something really henious.
Just because you're angry and not able to understand the consequences of your action does not excuse you from them. I find it more disturbing that we're defending literal assault because somehow it's the result of PC culture gone mad and not the result of laws meant to discourage violence.
If you're trying to connect this to people saying something silly on Twitter and having that follow them, you chose a really poor initial example of someone committing an actual crime.
So I think that the "digital permanent record" removes the anonymity of the big city, and returns us to small town rules.
So small town rules, yes, but practically speaking there's only one town left. Whether it's a good thing or not is a matter of opinion - and depends on the specific context as far as I'm concerned - but overall I feel like something of value has been lost in the transition. It might have been possible to make amends and/or show that whatever you did was a temporary lapse in judgement before, but doing that one the scale of the whole internet audience we have nowadays doesn't feel practical, or even possible really. =/
Actually I have friends who have slapped other friends while drunk and nothing at all came of it. They didn't get excluded. They also didn't do it again.
At least nothing near the scale of what was going on in prior times, nothing to important to say.
We're living so comfortably, so safely, we're so industrialized and digitalized, we get bored. We turn focus to the small trivial things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_difference...
If you're focused on mere syntax of how someone says a word, or has an opinion, maybe it's time to reflect and show gratitude that's your schtick. Not that you're starving, looking for a safe place to live, stability, but merely some stranger with zero connection to you broadcasts an idea.
I love 2019 and thank God for it. I'm grateful we're discussing mere information etiquette on social media rather than being in a world war, a famine, a global disease pandemic, an asteroid hitting us.
This article discusses annoyances mostly about internet speech, then it goes:
> In 2018, 99 journalists were killed—21 more than in 2017. At the end of 2018, more than 250 journalists were in prison (also up from the year before) and more than 10 percent of those were being held on “false news” charges.
That's a huge leap. I don't think it's helpful to lump them together! Wow! Very dramatic though. Caught my attention!
Has anyone here ever tried meditation? I've been pondering mindfulness. Thinking deeply of what I'm grateful for.
We should close our eyes and breath. Think of how far we've come as a society. We're better than we've ever been. We should be celebrating and having parades and deeply introspecting ourselves for can we can cooperate better with each other.
Maybe we just need to give each other a big hug!
Maybe we're just one step away from peace on Earth, forever? The proof is in the pudding - we're focused on squabbles over social media. We're comfortable, organized, educated, and highly developed - just bored. I look forward to us building a space elevator.