Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by healsdata | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

healsdata

Can you help me understand what rights you'd take away from others to change this situation?

1. If everyone has free speech, then people are free to criticize the speech of others.

2. If everyone has free speech, others are free to publicize the things you said.

3. If everyone has free association, others have a right not to associate with you based on your speech.

View on HN

Whoa whoa whoa, why are we immediately jumping to solving this problem through legislation / talk of rights?

I'm all ears for other idea that don't infringe on others' rights.

Talk it out, change the culture -- the same way so many other problems have been solved. Homosexuality went from culturally prohibited to culturally celebrated over the course of time. Surely we will find ways to inoculate ourselves and our culture against misinformation and rage-bait as well.

That's a rose-colored reimaging of the past, including for your own example. I imagine most problems you'd point to were solved via criticism, protests, violence, and more.

To look at your example in a US-centric light, being homosexual was literally lethal for some and cost thousands others their jobs. LGBTQ+ people are still losing their jobs for being homosexual. People are still saying things about the LGBTQ+ community that are statistically and provably untrue.

I personally don't understand why we would hold those perpetuating such things above criticism or force association.

My view includes protest and criticism under "talking it out" -- these are both integral parts of staging a society-wide conversation.

But what problem has been reasonably solved by violence that you're thinking of?

The issue is that laws and regulation are exactly what is being peddled in our legislative and judicial systems, eg https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gonzalez-v-googl...

I'd go with 3. Overturn Citizens United and then take away freedom of association from corporations (let human persons keep it though).

Although I agree with overturning Citizens United, but where do you draw the line? I assume you mean "an employer can't fire someone for what they say in their free time" but what about non-employees? Will they be required to keep contractors? Vendors? Spoke persons? Customers?

Then you'll start getting tons of stories about small businesses being run out of business because they can't fire someone so the community has boycotted the business.

I doubt that will happen. The cancel mobs are just a very vocal minority. For example, look how popular Hogwarts Legacy is even though the cancel mob has been viciously attacking it.

Nobody talked about changing rights. People have the right to speak, and others have the right to reciprocate. We should voluntarily practice tolerance toward each other because the fragile apparatus of society breaks if we don't.

Asking respondents to be tolerant is limiting their freedom of speech in the name of civility. I find that troubling, especially given that most folks on the receiving end of a "social media mob" is because they said something others perceived to be intolerant.

in general, the concept of "taking away rights" is ill formed. my rights end where yours begin. in particular, i would take away the right of companies to fire people based on their speech outside of work, and i would take away the right of social media companies to censor people's political views. these can both be phrased as awarding new rights to people, namely a right to employment, and a right to internet expression. both of these come across as much more foundational rights than the alternative.

Neither of those changes would address the large majority of interactions deemed "social media mobs".

Maybe take away the right of businesses to fire employees for comments they've made in their personal life?

Perhaps, but that would cover a small portion of people who are "canceled" by a "social media mob".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com