Coolwhhip
Neophyte
That I agree with, this forum is the closest to free speech you can get.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Is there free speech on the internet?
- Thread starter Coolwhhip
- Start date
That I agree with, this forum is the closest to free speech you can get.
Ionian
Member
She was, hate the dude who coined the term though. Max- sonething, don't remember the name. His father did films.
She's still better then Denaerys though and that really says something.
FingerBang
Member
Guys, the n-word isn't an opinion, it's an insult. Not being able to say that isn't a freedom of speech problem. You can't just accept insults in a public space with thousands of people, you need moderation.
JumpMan1981
Banned
LOL. When did this become a conversation about that specifically?
Ionian
Member
Someone mentioned it in a post in the thread, pretty stupid as it has nothing to do with anything being talked about in the thread.
EDIT: it was a cheap shot to be edgy at a guess.
Last edited:
6502
Member
I suppose the answer is no.
The solution is start your own forum / social media and have your own values enforced.
FunkMiller
Member
If nothing else, this thread is demonstrative of some absolutely fucking appalling educational standards.
StormCell
Member
Don't use those platforms? That assumes there are other comparable platforms that won't be taken down due to violating someone else's terms of service. And just because you don't think there is free speech today doesn't mean there shouldn't be or that it isn't something still worth fighting over. Just something to think about while you're busy rolling over and taking it.
Just don't be a cunt, he said. Who gets to determine what a cunt is? Depending on what country you're in, believing in freedoms makes you a cunt... so if you're living in a place like China, just don't believe you have any rights or you're being a basic cunt.
Ah, yes. If you think this is bad, try living over there! Just so long as this is technically better, we're okay.... right? Right?? Lord forbid we start mirroring China while pretending our bill of rights actually matters.
True, but the real problem is that when someone tells you to go build your own platform, that platform also must live on top of a platform (web server). If that isn't bad enough, even if you host your own site, domain name services can also block you for... violating their terms of service??? It's all fluffed up and cyclically fluffed if you want to have and share an opinion that is suddenly out of vogue. In a case where you've been culturally invaded and things have changed swiftly, you can't enable or allow this sort of ideological filtering that is trying to take effect.
This is just the pendulum swinging back the other way. Before the internet and basically before always-connected, people communicated within their radius influence. Even with the early days of the internet, people enjoyed the benefit of seclusion. What we're witnessing now is a level of McCarthyism that may as well have merged with elements of the book 1984 where anybody who wishes to go snooping can find damn near any kind of dirt they desire on someone. The so-called consequences that you mention are often far too severe, and additionally this segment of society that is bringing the so-called accountability is nothing more than a blood thirsty mob that delights in the destruction of others.
All anybody expects, or desires, is for a restoration to that seclusion or anonymity. I'm in full support of that, actually, and I feel that the world doesn't benefit much from forcing everyone into a single neighborhood. It's perfectly okay to not want to be neighbors with some people or some kinds of people. The pendulum will swing the other way again soon enough, and we'll grow past this age of commie hunting and witch burning.
The underlying problem is monolithic/centralized platforms. I believe that the original premise of Reddit was a set of forums for people who wanted to start a forum but didn't want to be a full blown web master. The promise was ideal: you would manage your subreddit under a set of guidelines for your group, and there was no overarching set of federal rules, really. What was there was so basic and minimal that during Reddit's history it even gained a terrible reputation for hosting pedophile rings.
Ideally, Reddit wouldn't reside on one set of web services and wouldn't have global moderators or administrators. You see, ideally, Reddit would be a web app hosted in chunks by the people who use it (like me or you). The index of subreddits would be shared globally and no one would have the power to control that list by themselves. Ideally, Reddit wouldn't rely on centralized DNS services. Everyone would host chunks of the DNS list. And so on.
If you want free speech, you're really only going to find it in an environment where no one has the power to revoke the existence of a thought or a thing. Additionally, no one would have the right to unmask an internet user via identifying a user's exact location or similar. It would be a much better internet if we all existed as a series of interconnected nodes hosting bits and chunks of encrypted web that only the requestor had the right to decrypt. Unfortunately, that's not the web that exists today, at least not in full functioning form yet.
Ionian
Member
WTF are you on about? I don't come to forums to read novels.
I'm not trying to be disrepectful but Jesus Christ man, skip the thesis.
They had an opinion I disagreed, do a word count on our exchanges, probably less than your post alone.
I was civil.
Is this ban baiting? My posts are public, read them from the start.
What would you like to say? As stated the Chan's still exist if you want a more open and anonymous ground, as far as I'm aware it's only a ban if you want to chat about CP, which shouldn't be an issue really.
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
(US centric): The first amendment starts with “Congress shall make no law…”
People have unfortunately confabulated this with “I should be able to say whatever I want whenever I want on whatever platform I want!!”
That’s not how real life works and you’re not some courageous warrior for justice by pretending you’re a moral crusader acting like it is. I don’t go to my parents’ house dropping f bombs and they don’t come to my house talking to my kids about Jesus. We all moderate what we say based on the environment we’re in. What environment you’re in online is entirely your choice. This isn’t rocket science or some moral battle to be won
People have unfortunately confabulated this with “I should be able to say whatever I want whenever I want on whatever platform I want!!”
That’s not how real life works and you’re not some courageous warrior for justice by pretending you’re a moral crusader acting like it is. I don’t go to my parents’ house dropping f bombs and they don’t come to my house talking to my kids about Jesus. We all moderate what we say based on the environment we’re in. What environment you’re in online is entirely your choice. This isn’t rocket science or some moral battle to be won
Coolwhhip
Neophyte
I get that's how it works in the real world, but the internet is quite different. You don't enter the homes of people you know in person on the internet. There are "public" places on the internet, that get policed by people that often weaselled themselves into that position.
lame gag1990
Member
I think free speech is slowly being squeezed away from us. Not just on the internet. Everyone is so precious. People should be allowed to say what they want with no consequences (mostly). Where I draw the line is someone telling me "I'm going to murder you in your sleep". That's a threat and maybe should be looked at.
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
Why is public in quotes? Unless you’re posting on a .gov server, you’re likely posting on a private platform that’s owned by someone or share holders just like a house is.
StormCell
Member
There are things I would like to say without a concern of retaliation. I don't want to visit the Chans. GAF is relaxed enough that I can basically say anything I would have to say, but let's face the fact that politics had to be jettisoned from the site because of so-called fringe beliefs regarding the primary election. There's something we're not free to discuss now, and depending on where you choose to broach that topic and what you have to say about it can carry significant consequences -- this is not America as it was 20 years ago.
I can tell you that as someone who is a more left-leaning conservative with religious beliefs, I post with a degree of concern for my identity nowadays. I won't engage any political discussion under my real name, and I even consider potential ramifications of letting work or co-workers know that I have religious beliefs. When I post online, I occasionally wonder if I've divulged enough for someone who disagrees with me to figure out who I am. In that sense, it's not just the ToS of a website that is used for censoring things said but also the rise of "social consequences" when a loud group decides to take aim at someone's life.
For me, the determining factor of whether free speech exists on the internet boils down to "It would but no one is willing to host it or protect it."
And when you do have the ability to say things, you've now got to constantly mind what you say and always be looking over your shoulder in case you aggravate the wrong person by disagreeing with them. Because disagreeing with the wrong person can trigger those "social consequences" even when 70+% of the web agrees with you. lol
Maiden Voyage
Gold™ Member
No. There are no 'public' spaces on the web. You are beholden to each website's TOS.
Pegasus Actual
Gold Member
Free speech as a principle is definitely on the downswing. As in "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" views of free speech.
I mean yeah sure "The 1st amendment never said Google can't remove you from the Internet" 'free speech' is alive and well though.
I mean yeah sure "The 1st amendment never said Google can't remove you from the Internet" 'free speech' is alive and well though.
StormCell
Member
Question: Should there be public spaces on the internet?
What does it mean for something to be a public space?
What would count as a public space on the internet?
Basic definition of a public space - A public space is a place that is generally open and accessible to people.
Legal definition of a public space - any real property or structures thereon that are owned, leased, or controlled by a governmental entity.
I find the legal definition of a public space to be problematic for the internet because not even the lines used to transmit the requests and responses are truly public, and, in fact, some people have to deal with the private ISP shaping their access to the internet, injecting ads where they fit, and so forth. There aren't really any public roads on the internet. There aren't really any neutral places for the public to land. In the places where in the real world you may find a library or a park, you find Wikipedia and Facebook. To do anything on the internet with visibility, you have to function under the private terms of service of a very, very public platform. There is no street outside of Facebook for you to lobby or protest from.
Under a more expanded and user-friendly definition of a public space, it could be argued that sites like Facebook and Twitter behave in a way that leads users to believe that they are a public space of sorts -- many users didn't or still don't realize that photos and posts submitted to Facebook are property of Facebook. Indeed, a lot of Facebook users consider their accounts to be private and content they post to the site to be their personal property -- there have been copy/paste declarations that have made the rounds numerous times claiming protection of personal private content from Facebook. lol Twitter has also operated as a global news feed for all things across the globe. Tweets have notoriously spread faster than live television breaking news. People come to rely on Twitter for all things trending on the internet. Yet, Twitter now wants to enforce moderation on the kinds of info posted to the service after a decade of being a feed for all things.
With such huge platforms being private property, what does the public have on the internet other than some outdated .gov sites?
What does it mean for something to be a public space?
What would count as a public space on the internet?
Basic definition of a public space - A public space is a place that is generally open and accessible to people.
Legal definition of a public space - any real property or structures thereon that are owned, leased, or controlled by a governmental entity.
I find the legal definition of a public space to be problematic for the internet because not even the lines used to transmit the requests and responses are truly public, and, in fact, some people have to deal with the private ISP shaping their access to the internet, injecting ads where they fit, and so forth. There aren't really any public roads on the internet. There aren't really any neutral places for the public to land. In the places where in the real world you may find a library or a park, you find Wikipedia and Facebook. To do anything on the internet with visibility, you have to function under the private terms of service of a very, very public platform. There is no street outside of Facebook for you to lobby or protest from.
Under a more expanded and user-friendly definition of a public space, it could be argued that sites like Facebook and Twitter behave in a way that leads users to believe that they are a public space of sorts -- many users didn't or still don't realize that photos and posts submitted to Facebook are property of Facebook. Indeed, a lot of Facebook users consider their accounts to be private and content they post to the site to be their personal property -- there have been copy/paste declarations that have made the rounds numerous times claiming protection of personal private content from Facebook. lol Twitter has also operated as a global news feed for all things across the globe. Tweets have notoriously spread faster than live television breaking news. People come to rely on Twitter for all things trending on the internet. Yet, Twitter now wants to enforce moderation on the kinds of info posted to the service after a decade of being a feed for all things.
With such huge platforms being private property, what does the public have on the internet other than some outdated .gov sites?
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
There are ways to restructure the internet so it suits the supposedly ideal structure of being some public utility or space, but nobody seems to care enough to do it.
Like it or not, someone buys servers and bandwidth to host our musings. Right now the most popular places to do that are bought and paid for by people who have an interest in, to some extent, controlling what is said in those places. And if we’re really being honest here, for the vast majority of the cases, this works perfectly fine. Yes, some assholes get the boot. Boohoo. If it happens to you, chances are you’re the asshole. Not always, and there are exceptions, but chances are you’re not the exception
Ionian
Member
Spitting truth.
Basically if you don't like it, don't use use and stop crying about it.
The internet was never your safe-space.
Last edited:
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Banned
I think we need legal reforms. Small platforms can have more severe moderation but once a platform becomes a defacto monopoly like facebook or youtube different rules need to apply.
If platforms with tens or hundreds of millions of users want to bias the news bias the information shared and take on a political stance, etc they need to lose the sectiom 230 protections and be made liable as a publisher.
Only by acting as a platform should these large entities gain legal immunities for what they host.
Smaller communities having far less finances cant be held to the same standards. Smaller communities also wield far less influence.
Right now these companies are engaged in mass censorship and distortion of public speech.
If something twitter doesnt like starts trending they remove it. Youtube bans with no strikes or warnings nor saying what ToS violation occurred.
If platforms with tens or hundreds of millions of users want to bias the news bias the information shared and take on a political stance, etc they need to lose the sectiom 230 protections and be made liable as a publisher.
Only by acting as a platform should these large entities gain legal immunities for what they host.
Smaller communities having far less finances cant be held to the same standards. Smaller communities also wield far less influence.
Right now these companies are engaged in mass censorship and distortion of public speech.
If something twitter doesnt like starts trending they remove it. Youtube bans with no strikes or warnings nor saying what ToS violation occurred.
Ionian
Member
Twitter removes shit?
Hmmm, lemme think. An organized attack on the capital state?
They boosted it. They remove it, you gotta be kidding me.
Reckheim
Member
did someone stop you from stating your opinion?
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Banned
They allow stuff they dont like to start trending for a few hours then remove such before it gains too much traction.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
“Someone deleted my post!!!”
*drives to Taco Bell, goes home and plays video games screaming at 12 year olds”*
*drives to Taco Bell, goes home and plays video games screaming at 12 year olds”*
StormCell
Member
Yes and no. It's not nearly as simple as it's being made out to be. Parler has become the poster child example of "Don't like the way Twitter works, build your own" and while you're at it plan on having to own your own web hosting and if you're too "controversial" you may have to deal with DNS providers refusing to list you. These are public services ran by private entities who exercise their rights to refuse service. All of this is a little bit too far, imo, because it can have grave consequences if the wrong people come into control of these services.
You say for the vast majority of cases it works perfectly fine, and that if it happens to you then you're the asshole. It doesn't take much for society to shift and suddenly for you to become the asshole. We live in a fragile society as it is, and it's not hard to imagine countries like China managing to come into ownership of huge chunks of the private internet. The amount of power they can wield financially and the millions and millions of patriotic users they can turn loose onto our social media platforms... you know, if they chose to wield a cyber army of that fashion, it's totally doable. They can flood the internet in all manner of toxic behavior. The biggest issue I see besides cancel culture is the fact that, should they choose, the components making up the internet (web host, domain name service, and also services like banks and transaction processors) can collectively keep you off just because of their politics...
Simply just because of their politics.
May the eternal mailer daemon help us should these powers become aligned with a nation such as China. Just imagine an internet where the American flag and photos of firearms become totally illegal to post or share.
Last edited:
AlteredForms
Banned
Next time somebody attempts to cancel your ass then pull one of these:
Ionian
Member
Tell that to the wounded and dead.
SidViscous
Member
I'd say no, all the platforms are owned by someone, and everyone has their own personal bias. Talk about politics here and you get banned, say not everything is political on the other forum and you get banned there. You can find places where you can talk about what you want, but you can't talk about whatever you want at all places.
Until there is something that isn't owned, some sort of crypto block-chain twitter - then free speech, as in truly free speech, doesn't exist online.
Until there is something that isn't owned, some sort of crypto block-chain twitter - then free speech, as in truly free speech, doesn't exist online.
I_D
Member
Absolute free-speech? Maybe on 4chan or something. There aren't many places out there; at least not high-traffic places.
Understandable levels of free-speech? Sure, there's tons of them out there.
Before "The Exodus" of GAF, there were a few times when I was nervous about posting, I will admit. Since then, however, I feel like I have pushed quite a few buttons, and not even gotten a warning.
I feel like, as long as you're not advocating for something obviously wrong (murder, rape, etc.), the level of free-speech is acceptable, at least on this site.
The same thing can be said for Reddit. That site has a sub-reddit for damn near everything that has ever existed.
I don't frequent any other sites, but I do occasionally check a few message boards. I feel like a similar level of acceptance is pretty standard across most of them.
I will, of course, mention ERA. I have, thus far, not been worried about any of my posts, but it's definitely a bit over-zealous in some regards. Even innocent questions about legitimate issues can cause a person to be banned.
Once upon a time, many moons ago, I posted something about Joe Rogan - an identical post - on both GAF and ERA. I'm not going to say it was my fault, but it was ironic. The ERA thread was locked within the next few posts, and the GAF thread is probably still open to this day.
I guess my point is that it depends on which types of sites you seek out.
If you want to find over-zealous sites, you can definitely find them.
But if you want to just chill and talk to people with relatively similar interests, it's not that tough to do, as long as you're a reasonable-enough person.
Understandable levels of free-speech? Sure, there's tons of them out there.
Before "The Exodus" of GAF, there were a few times when I was nervous about posting, I will admit. Since then, however, I feel like I have pushed quite a few buttons, and not even gotten a warning.
I feel like, as long as you're not advocating for something obviously wrong (murder, rape, etc.), the level of free-speech is acceptable, at least on this site.
The same thing can be said for Reddit. That site has a sub-reddit for damn near everything that has ever existed.
I don't frequent any other sites, but I do occasionally check a few message boards. I feel like a similar level of acceptance is pretty standard across most of them.
I will, of course, mention ERA. I have, thus far, not been worried about any of my posts, but it's definitely a bit over-zealous in some regards. Even innocent questions about legitimate issues can cause a person to be banned.
Once upon a time, many moons ago, I posted something about Joe Rogan - an identical post - on both GAF and ERA. I'm not going to say it was my fault, but it was ironic. The ERA thread was locked within the next few posts, and the GAF thread is probably still open to this day.
I guess my point is that it depends on which types of sites you seek out.
If you want to find over-zealous sites, you can definitely find them.
But if you want to just chill and talk to people with relatively similar interests, it's not that tough to do, as long as you're a reasonable-enough person.
Last edited:
Ionian
Member
No point telling them, wasted words. Maybe they're doing a school essay or something. They Certainly have never read the news, which is a shame.
LegendOfKage
Member
Censorship is only a reality when it's based on perceived moral values. So no, console warriors would not be a free speech issue. We're in agreement there.
Last edited:
Ionian
Member
So perfect, so so perfect. Polite and precise.
LegendOfKage
Member
Now take the point being made in that image back to the 60s, and consider the people being shown the door then. That's the problem with that mindset. Discussion leads to progress and understanding. Prevent discussion and all you do is drive everyone into echo chambers and foster hate for one another.
Last edited:
M1chl
Currently Gif and Meme Champion
Mainly from the point of government/law ONLY.
Ionian
Member
Not disagreeing with you my good man, quite the opposite.
My degree is in propostinal logic in coding.
It is a pointless one. (The argument).
n0razi
Member
Well you can goto places like 2ch/4chan and get much more free speech but all the negatives that comes along with it. Ideally, you want a balance of freedom and regulation not all or nothing of either.
Raven117
Member
Obviously anyone with any sense can recognize that "Free Speech" in a strict traditional sense applies only to the government passing laws that inhibit such speech.
However, ending the analysis there as it relates to "online interactions" is simply making the discussion more simple than it really is. The internet has essentially privatized the "public piazza." For better or worse, we communicate over the internet now and to ignore that is to be deliberately ignoring reality. (There is also a body of case law saying that the government can't collude with private enterprise to get things done which government can't due to limitations).
Having a true oligarchy of companies that can completely control the communication and discourse of a country (who aren't elected), is even worse than the government passing laws affecting free speech.
In the end, its probably more of a monopoly issue rather than a free speech issue, but anyone ANYONE who does not at least recognize the difficulty of the speech in the "communication revolution" and merely states that it only applies to the government, is doing so because they think they are on the right side of private censorship. They are happy that it is not THEIR speech being limited by private individuals....
Further, what is even more disappointing that regardless of the "consequences" thing, society use to value "free speech" more. Instead of just letting things roll, people that say things you don't agree with must be destroyed. Now, obviously there are lines out there where there should be consequences, but now the line has been drawn too close leading to a sterile world where there is still plenty of hate, nothing is fixed, and people can't express themselves. Discussion of even the most terrible of ideas is what ultimately sets us free....not pretending they don't exist. But, its a difficult line to draw overall, but we are nowhere near drawing it properly.
However, ending the analysis there as it relates to "online interactions" is simply making the discussion more simple than it really is. The internet has essentially privatized the "public piazza." For better or worse, we communicate over the internet now and to ignore that is to be deliberately ignoring reality. (There is also a body of case law saying that the government can't collude with private enterprise to get things done which government can't due to limitations).
Having a true oligarchy of companies that can completely control the communication and discourse of a country (who aren't elected), is even worse than the government passing laws affecting free speech.
In the end, its probably more of a monopoly issue rather than a free speech issue, but anyone ANYONE who does not at least recognize the difficulty of the speech in the "communication revolution" and merely states that it only applies to the government, is doing so because they think they are on the right side of private censorship. They are happy that it is not THEIR speech being limited by private individuals....
Further, what is even more disappointing that regardless of the "consequences" thing, society use to value "free speech" more. Instead of just letting things roll, people that say things you don't agree with must be destroyed. Now, obviously there are lines out there where there should be consequences, but now the line has been drawn too close leading to a sterile world where there is still plenty of hate, nothing is fixed, and people can't express themselves. Discussion of even the most terrible of ideas is what ultimately sets us free....not pretending they don't exist. But, its a difficult line to draw overall, but we are nowhere near drawing it properly.
Last edited:
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Banned
Look dude we shouldnt get into politics. But news reported the request for additional security for that day was denied. That was the main problem insufficient security.
These platforms have allowed calls to violence to take place and some went uncensored for long
Sorry but these large entities couldnt exist without section 230 special gov protections to what they host. It was expected theyd be open platforms not take sides while fomenting agitation and violence.
You have a few billionaires basically running their own propaganda to divide and hurt the people while promoting their agendas and interests. Doing these things in the platforms relied on by most of the american public and all while feigning theyre not biased.
Last edited:
close? my ass. you can't discuss politics here
Last edited:
Winter John
Member
You either have free speech or you don't. That includes someone threatening to murder you. You might not like what they say but if you want free speech then you'll have to support their rights to threaten to murder you.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
LegendOfKage
Member
This is true. I'd say you also want clearly defined rules that are fairly enforced, applied to everyone with full transparency, and not constantly being revised with the goal of limiting opinions that the platform holder doesn't agree with.
BarringGaffner
Member
Trumpers were spreading dangerous conspiracy theories and threatening people including myself. Are threats covered under free speech? Evilore was smart to cut that shit off.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked