Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0goel0 | Hacker News Reader

> One user wrote: "To confirm, you are calling for an investigation into big tech collusion while you are colluding with the FBI against your platform members?" Another user wrote: "This is NOT an example of a free speech platform. Parler is a fraud."

There it is. What these users want is not free speech, but rather no consequences.

View on HN

Your last sentence really clarifies much of the thinking I’ve been doing over the last few years. When people say they want free speech what they usually mean is that they want consequence-free speech.

edit: I am not talking about the strict legal definition of free speech. I agree it's important that the government cannot punish people for the things they say. What I'm saying is that people want to be free of all consequence for the things they say. They want to shout the n-word at a large black man and not get punched. They want to advocate for paedophilia on Twitter and not get fired from their job. They want to be a jerk and not be ostracized by friends and family.

That is literally what free speech is. The ability to express a political opinion without punishment or retaliation. Because punishment or retaliation is censorship. If you disagree with someone you prove them wrong in public instead of trying to get them fired or silenced. That's free speech.

Now, planning an act of violence is not expressing a political opinion. The people who think they don't go to jail for that are idiots. But that's the users, not the company, and if you want to shut down Parler for that then why is Facebook still there?

Yes, university tenure is also a demand for “consequence—free speech.”

I guess academic freedom was a bad idea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com