Thanks for sharing. I had heard of Handshake before but forgot about it. After the events of the past few days by so-called "big tech", I will be looking into this more seriously.
Someone actually got censored, and took "well, if you don't like how the DNS does things, you can just make your own!" as a literal challenge.
Wonder if this will eventually lead to further fragmentation. Hopefully encryption will keep it out of the lowest levels of infrastructure, I'd hate to see separate fiber lines put down to share controversial communications.
Now, you may or may not agree with his position (I certainly don't agree with some key aspects of it) but Randall is explaining what free speech is, not arguing for censorship.
The alt text is pretty thought provoking, too.
I was merely correcting the misconception that Randall Munroe from xkcd doesn't advocate for free speech. I didn't say I agreed 100% with the comic itself, though I do find parts of it thought-provoking.
I'm not Randall Munroe, how am I confusing anything by simply explaining he doesn't claim to be against free speech but rather is clarifying what he thinks free speech is?
I'm ok if you disagree with him, but please don't make claims about what I think, when I didn't say what I think.
I was replying to a comment arguing that xkcd doesn't support free speech because the author is leftist. I showed the author does support what he believes is free speech. That's all.
The idea of free speech is the ideas should succed or fail based on their ability to convince private actors tomhold and relay them.
Compelling actors to relay speech they disapprove of, unless those actors are the State or agents thereof, generally violates that principal.
Free speech is not an entitlement to third-party magnification of your speech, it is indeed the opposite: the idea that such magnification must be earned by convincing the party whose magnification is sought.
“People who disagree with me aren't relaying my speech or speech I like” isn't a violation of free speech.
Also, I never made a “guilt by association” argument, you inferred it. You just committed the fallacy fallacy. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
[citation needed]
"I'm sure the CCP thinks the same" is the laziest, weakest form of objection. You're not off the hook, you must still prove the idea being criticized is wrong regardless of what the CCP thinks about it.
(Like I pointed out in another comment, I think you've misread the alt-text, because it certainly doesn't support censorship).
"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences!" is one of the most infuriating lines I've ever had the displeasure to hear parroted. What else could it possibly be, but the general idea of not being punished for saying things? The only thing that matters to the principle of freedom of speech is those consequences.
Who cares whether it's a government that decides that when you express a certain opinion, you lose your job- or twitter?
Funny, but not surprising, how even self-proclaimed leftists will side with capital when it's treading on the right people.
You might say "but you can't force people to platform/associate with those they find odious!", to which I reply 'of course you can'- there's laws against unlimited free association, with the argument that bulk group dynamics end up diminishing individual freedom on net.
You might say opinions are a different category from e.g. ethnicity, as they can be changed, while race can't.
In that case, in the future when we can change our bodies in a day, will it be alright if 'race', no longer existing as such, becomes as acceptably targetable as speech?
I actually agree with you. I think the narrow definition that "only the government has the ability to censor speech" isn't useful, especially in an age where some businesses, platforms and corporations have so much power.
I was just correcting the perception that xkcd had a comic "against" free speech (and because "he is a leftist"). It's not against free speech. The author clarifies what he thinks free speech is.
Some people apparently thought because I linked to a comic to correct someone's claim about that comic, that said comic represents my opinion. Puzzling.
I think the issue is complex, but probably related to its sister concept of tolerance and with "the paradox of tolerance" [1]:
> "The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."
It's perfectly reasonable to believe Randall Munroe supports free speech and at the same time believes someone spewing hateful vitriol can be kicked out of whatever private venue by the owners/administrators of said venue. In order for you to believe this, you simply must accept that Randall is using a different, possibly more legalistic version of "free speech" than you. Again, you cannot claim he is against free speech because he thinks corporate censorship is ok -- first, he doesn't exactly defend corporate censorship in his comic, and second, you're begging the question! You are claiming "corporate censorship" is against free speech, which is not a foregone conclusion and is exactly what is being debated.
Finally, the whole "this is because Randall Munroe is a leftie and, like all lefties, is against free speech" angle only serves to inflame the debate with name calling. Anyone going for this "like all lefties" is not interested in honest debate at all.
I feel weird having to point all this out because I, in fact, think corporate censorship is against free speech -- my concept, not what whatever amendment says -- and in this day and age, it's even worse than state censorship.
Sure, and it's perfectly reasonable to believe someone supports, say, not destroying [something that they call "forests"] and at the same time believes rainforests can be cut down to make more room for farmland. In order for you to believe this, you simply must accept that they are using a definition of "forests" that does not include rainforests.
Nonetheless, that person is against not destroying forests-the-actual-thing, regardless of what definition they use for "forests"-the-english-word.
> The whole "this is because Randall Munroe is a leftie and, like all lefties, is against free speech" only serves to turn the debate into an absurd flamewar. Anyone going for this "like all lefties" is not interested in honest debate at all.
Who are you responding to? Because if I had said something like that, it would have been "Randall Munroe is either a leftie or a rightie and, like all lefties and righties, is against free speech".
You pretty much ignored my reply, did a silly search & replace (ignoring HN's guidelines of assuming good faith and replying to the best possible interpretation) and decided to feel clever about it. Thanks, but no thanks.
> Who are you responding to?
Not you in that particular sentence, but user bonoboTP and others in this thread.
It conflates the principle free speech with a narrow legal reading of the first amendment. Whether on purpose, or accident, I cannot say. The alt-text is also only illuminating in the sense that the CCP might heartily agree with it as well, as they see their crusade against free speech as nothing more than maintaining the public order and peace. In publishing the comic and leaving it up, Munroe has done more to damage the principle of free speech in the West than any opinion article I can think of, because it chains together several fallacies in a clever and funny way.
A comic response to xkcd - https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/in...
A legal rebuttal to anybody thinking AWS’s actions were legal (they were not, and hopefully a judge will agree soon) - https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/SGS7Z4Y/137165184/Par...
Of course _philosophically_, yeah, the people who included (a) in the constitution were interested in (b). Everyone's on board with free speech as a concept here. But at some point if someone is yelling Nazi stuff, I'm gonna punch them for it. It's not a legal question at all; my actions aren't governed by laws, just what I feel is right to do. That is the same point xkcd was making. I don't know enough to say whether AWS or whoever has the same right because they are operating in a legal system. But as a _person_, yeah, I can do whatever I want to you, including 'show you the door', if you're awful.
No they aren’t, including you. I don’t trust your judgement of who is a Nazi, and even if I did, I especially don’t trust everyone who hears you say that. However, despite your endorsement of political violence (terrorism) I don’t believe that it would be right for you to be deplatformed, especially if it’s breach of contract (like what AWS is doing). Nor would I want HN taken offline despite them not moderating terrorist comments such as yours.
Edit: you’re confusing my clinical label of terrorism with name calling. I am not calling names, except insofar as I’m making a point about how easily it is to make content seem unacceptable when we strip away context, which is why due process is so necessary. We are all terrorists to some group, however disfavored... if child molestation was somehow legalized, anyone who attempted it would face severe extra-legal consequences for example.
The point is that while free speech might be protected as a legal concept, it's not protected as a personal concept. I espouse free speech, until someone really screws up and gets super evil, and then I don't want them to talk anymore (especially not to rally people to their evil causes). I'm not a government. And that's completely consistent with wanting a government/overall society which defends free speech.
(also, you're not doing your argument any favors by for some reason calling me a terrorist. it's not even clear why you're doing that)
to be clear: if someone shouts nazi stuff around me and I'm driven to anger enough to punch them (which, to be clear, has never happened, but hypothetically), I obviously accept the legal consequences of that. the whole point here is that legal rules abut what you should do are not ethical ones. Ethically, don't shout nazi stuff, and also ethically if you do shout nazi stuff you might get punched and you deserve it.
Don't play coy. Punching someone is not the same thing as "showing them the door".
> I'm gonna punch them for it.
Which alt-text did you read? It cannot possibly be this one:
> "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
This is saying "that your idea cannot be censored is not good enough in order to convince people that it's good". This cannot be used to censor anything -- in fact, it claims the position is legal -- neither by the CCP or anyone else. It's a judgment on the quality of the idea.
It seems to me you're trying to invoke the CCP boogeyman regardless of whether it actually fits this argument.
Yes but the implication is that if you’re censored and asking the government for redress, your speech is abhorrent. In the context of the comic it’s clearly meant to be interpreted that way.
Your literal description of it is a red herring, a typical clever Monroe construction to avoid criticism, as if anyone claims they’re correct because what they’re saying isn’t illegal. Nobody makes that argument.
That's your reading. Mine is that if the best you can say about a position is "it's not illegal" then you're on shaky ground. I.e. it's legal, but unconvincing. It doesn't mean you should be censored, it just means your position probably lacks merit if you can't mention anything else that's good about it.
> Your literal description of it is a red herring, a typical clever Monroe construction to avoid criticism
At this point I have to ask: you are aware I'm not the author of xkcd, aren't you?
That's just not true. The claim is that if you're censored and your only defense of your position is that you should be allowed to say it, you position is flimsy. Nobody would agree with the claim that "_in general_ if you're censored your speech is abhorrent", that's laughable.
Now, yeah, agreed, it's debatable whether this actually happens. But it sure feels like it happens.
Note, there is some potentially upsetting language in this document where Amazon gives examples of the type of content on Parler they deemed to be in violation of the contract. Consider yourself warned, if that sort of thing bothers you.
[0] https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/SGS7Z4Y/137165184/Par...
some ISPs also wanted to sell "internet lite" packages that are cheaper and only allow you to connect to a fixed set of websites. presumably they would also take money off the back end from those websites that want to be in the list.
In the U.S.? I thought this was only in India with Facebook's non-internet Internet.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16691506/portugal-meo-in...
E.g. in winter times booting out renters or cutting heating/electricity is forbidden. Applying the same for internet isn’t far fetched anymore IMO.