Elon Musk and the Tech Bro Obsession with 'Free Speech'
time.com
time.com
I think whether one is for or against Musk buying Twitter, we should agree that a journalist that can't distinguish between the First Amendment and the broader principle of freedom of speech (which is what inspired the 1st A.) is unlikely to have written anything worth reading. And if that is insufficiently persuasive, the author later on denigrates people who are technically educated (particularly ironic given the above).
"Tech titans often have a different understanding of speech than the rest of the world because most trained as engineers, not as writers or readers, and a lack of a humanities education might make them less attuned to the social and political nuances of speech."
His wealth is rather locked up at the moment and depends on continued operation. He sees this as a key way to ensure this. I agree with him, someone needs to do this.
>“free speech seems to be much more of an obsession among men.”
Why even include this in the article? Really drops quality of the article.
>But “free speech” in the 21st century means something very different than it did in the 18th, when the Founders enshrined it in the Constitution.
No it doesn't. It means exactly the same thing. Nothing changed. No idea why the author thinks otherwise.
>The right to say what you want without being imprisoned is not the same as the right to broadcast disinformation to millions of people on a corporate platform. This nuance seems to be lost on some techno-wizards who see any restriction as the enemy of innovation.
So freedom of the press you have an issue with as well?
Closed the article here. Can't believe the quality of time.com has dropped so significantly.
https://skepchick.org/2017/08/popper-and-the-paradox-of-tole...
This is not a difficult concept, but many libertarians and conservatives seem to have trouble with it. And that includes many techbros too.
"The appeal of this passage to those seeking philosophical justification for suppressing the political rights of Nazis and white nationalists (who, after all, are practically the definition of intolerance), should be obvious.
But while Popper might at first seem to be providing a clever loophole in the traditional arguments around free speech that would allow only the most dangerous ideas and ideologies to be censored or otherwise suppressed, he has in fact only managed to disguise the problem by shifting the goalposts. Even if we answer the question of “what kind of political speech should be suppressed” with “intolerant speech,” we are still left with the same old problem wherein the arbiters of what kinds of ideologies are considered “intolerant” and worthy of suppression will inevitably be those who operate the levers of state power.
...
The actual merits of any case for one group being more intolerant than another are unfortunately immaterial in the larger context; once the meta-argument is conceded that intolerance justifies suppression, the targets of the oppression will depend more on who is in power than how intolerant their ideology might actually be."
I think for me it comes down to the point, where the tolerant end up being destroyed.
How does this happen exactly? Shouldn't we focus more on that? Are we to destroy the intolerant prematurely before they destroy us?
How about just not destroying people, no matter the perceived tolerance or intolerance they exibit?