-
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
LegendOfKage
Member
There's some good posts in this thread that bring up some good points, and I would definitely consider this to be one of them.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
I suppose it really depends on your definition of "free speech" and what it is you want to say.
Also, from my observations, the majority of people being "cancelled" have either espoused racist/homophobic tweets or actual spoken words on video. Like some of these Karens (which are any color of people... Called that because it's a common name... "Sheniqua" isn't common amongst black girls and women, for example) acting crazy in stores, planes and such when they either don't get their way or are so entitled that they talk down to whomever and treat them like filth (like the gas station chick that got slapped after she slapped someone else).
I acknowledge there's a LOUD contingent that tries to "cancel" people that they simply disagree with and twist their words to make them sound like one of the -ists. Those people are CRAZY and should be cancelled themselves!
Twisting me saying "I don't agree with that" is a FAR CRY from "I hate you and your kind" ... I just wouldn't say that about LGBTQ+ folks. It's not my place to say whether I agree with their actual lives or not. They aren't hurting anyone? Good. I'll buy them a beer if they're decent people, which most are.
Also, from my observations, the majority of people being "cancelled" have either espoused racist/homophobic tweets or actual spoken words on video. Like some of these Karens (which are any color of people... Called that because it's a common name... "Sheniqua" isn't common amongst black girls and women, for example) acting crazy in stores, planes and such when they either don't get their way or are so entitled that they talk down to whomever and treat them like filth (like the gas station chick that got slapped after she slapped someone else).
I acknowledge there's a LOUD contingent that tries to "cancel" people that they simply disagree with and twist their words to make them sound like one of the -ists. Those people are CRAZY and should be cancelled themselves!
Twisting me saying "I don't agree with that" is a FAR CRY from "I hate you and your kind" ... I just wouldn't say that about LGBTQ+ folks. It's not my place to say whether I agree with their actual lives or not. They aren't hurting anyone? Good. I'll buy them a beer if they're decent people, which most are.
Last edited:
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
The thing people need to grasp is that the idea of institutional capture has moved beyond politics into the realm of economics and pure marketeering.
Take for example Resetera. Yes, its a site which was founded with a very distinctly progressive outlook. You may agree or disagree with that stance as a founding principle, but what needs to be recognized is that has caused it to appeal greatly to a certain sort of audience. To appeal to that community, moderation was drawn from that base, and thus its partisanship has deepened to the point where it became openly hostile to alternative viewpoints.
Now here's the key thing: Having arrived at that state, there's virtually no way that it can ever change. The staff is committed, the audience is committed, to try and change would alienate both. They'd lose traffic, they'd lose income, the whole thing would crash because beyond the specific base they've cultivated, they have no appeal.
This is how capture works. Everything ends up silo'd off such that it appeals only to a certain designated demographic or ideology, and noone top-to-bottom dares stray from that orthodoxy because there is no gain to it.
This is how free speech dies, because despite operating as a forum, a place for opinions to be aired, everything has to fit within certain prescribed parameters out of pure existential fear.
The same thing applies to any organ or outlet that becomes dependent on servicing a particular narrow base. The flavour of the politics, the platform of choice, whatever, becomes a trap.
Take for example Resetera. Yes, its a site which was founded with a very distinctly progressive outlook. You may agree or disagree with that stance as a founding principle, but what needs to be recognized is that has caused it to appeal greatly to a certain sort of audience. To appeal to that community, moderation was drawn from that base, and thus its partisanship has deepened to the point where it became openly hostile to alternative viewpoints.
Now here's the key thing: Having arrived at that state, there's virtually no way that it can ever change. The staff is committed, the audience is committed, to try and change would alienate both. They'd lose traffic, they'd lose income, the whole thing would crash because beyond the specific base they've cultivated, they have no appeal.
This is how capture works. Everything ends up silo'd off such that it appeals only to a certain designated demographic or ideology, and noone top-to-bottom dares stray from that orthodoxy because there is no gain to it.
This is how free speech dies, because despite operating as a forum, a place for opinions to be aired, everything has to fit within certain prescribed parameters out of pure existential fear.
The same thing applies to any organ or outlet that becomes dependent on servicing a particular narrow base. The flavour of the politics, the platform of choice, whatever, becomes a trap.
V1LÆM
Gold Member
of course but like in real life don't be surprised to experience consequences if you are an asshole and being hateful/abusive (not implying you are). be respectful and use common sense. if a site attracts certain people who share a similar belief then of course if you go there with an opposing view chances are you'll be removed. visiting websites is a privilege and admins/mods are more than free to restrict your access/interaction. lots of places have issues with mods/admins on power trips but there's also a lot of places where you can share your thoughts and opinions.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
Agreed.
Taking NeoGAF as an example... You can have your POV but you have to be civil and not needlessly antagonize people. That's why folks get booted for console warring, that's why folks got booted for conspiracy theories supporting Jan 6, that's why folks got booted for their racism (go back to Africa, black people are like dumb Chihuahuas, among other posts), that's why folks got booted for antisemitism... There are hard lines but there's still a lot of latitude here. This forum is great! Just don't be a prick to folks.
Yeah, for the most part we're all anonymous, But I've seen some genuine friendships develop on here. I've seen exchange of ideas on here. I've seen empathy on here. I've seen some amazing examples of what we say humans are about: that we are good and want good for others.
Coolwhhip
Neophyte
GAF I agree with, Reddit not so much. They have trigger happy mods on lots of subreddits.
I don't know when it happened but words like "free speech", "dictatorship" and "immune system" are being misused constantly.
These and "literally".
I'm just going by the Oxford definition:
free speech
noun: free speech
the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.
Last edited:
MastaKiiLA
Member
Free speech? Sure. You can say whatever you want. Just like in real life, you can expect consequences and/or repercussions for acting a fool. OP says he gets warned or banned when he expresses himself. Well, if it happens more than one time, then maybe you're just a jerk?
You wouldn't walk around in public, talking to strangers the same way you would in a private conversation with your best friend. That's not how the world has ever worked. And when the internet briefly did work like that, it could be a real shitshow. I think we need look no further than the relative lack of such "free speech" havens. If this was such a high-demand request among the billions of internet denizens, someone would've already found a way to get rich with it. However, no one wants to moderate something like that. The chans must be an absolutely miserable existence for a moderator. How are you going to make money when payment processors don't want to touch your product? Who wants the massive liability taken on by running a comms site for some of the worst people on the internet? Those kinds of places always attract the absolute dregs of internet society, and it's always just a matter of time before some idiot pops off in an attempt to outscumbag the other scumbags, and then you're getting sued, blacklisted, or both.
The internet should be treated like any real public forum. Mind your manners, and be as polite as possible. No one cares about your wild-ass opinions. Save that shit for your circle of friends, because at least you can feel comfortable that they already tolerate your shit.
You wouldn't walk around in public, talking to strangers the same way you would in a private conversation with your best friend. That's not how the world has ever worked. And when the internet briefly did work like that, it could be a real shitshow. I think we need look no further than the relative lack of such "free speech" havens. If this was such a high-demand request among the billions of internet denizens, someone would've already found a way to get rich with it. However, no one wants to moderate something like that. The chans must be an absolutely miserable existence for a moderator. How are you going to make money when payment processors don't want to touch your product? Who wants the massive liability taken on by running a comms site for some of the worst people on the internet? Those kinds of places always attract the absolute dregs of internet society, and it's always just a matter of time before some idiot pops off in an attempt to outscumbag the other scumbags, and then you're getting sued, blacklisted, or both.
The internet should be treated like any real public forum. Mind your manners, and be as polite as possible. No one cares about your wild-ass opinions. Save that shit for your circle of friends, because at least you can feel comfortable that they already tolerate your shit.
MilkyJoe
Member
Look at this high and mighty cunt
MilkyJoe
Member
Daenerys got her tits out though, instant win.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Obviously free speech exists on the internet. Pretty sure you could go write whatever you want in certain parts of the net. But having the right to say something is not the same as the right to say it to a whole bunch of people who don't want to hear it.
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
Getting banned from a forum or a platform for violating their terms of service is not a free speech violation. You are still free to go to other places online or stand on a street corner and talk about your views. Now if the government kicks in your door and arrests you for speaking out against them or something then THAT would be a free speech violation.
What you are describing is just a website ToS thing not a free speech violation. Read the rules, don't break them, and boom you have nothing to worry about.
TLDR; Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of what you said.
What you are describing is just a website ToS thing not a free speech violation. Read the rules, don't break them, and boom you have nothing to worry about.
TLDR; Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of what you said.
Last edited:
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Banned
Again people dont realize these companies have been given special legal immunities. Immunities that should apply to platforms not publishers.
And they act in concert from payment processors to hosting to the platforms. Any idea even covering news they dont like and youre deplatformed.
Even banks have started to say they wont serve you if you dont align.
Right now the idea appears to be to put a social credit system were companies are evaluated on woke metrics over 80% of large company ceos have agreed to be measured that way.
At first voluntary later what some are fearing is this woke score will be used to grant credit to a company and to penalize those who invest in nonwoke companies.
It is essentially one agenda one set of ideas and if you oppose the central authority you may not even be able to buy a house or work. Of course theyll promote who they have financed and deplatform those they dont like.
We already are seeing similar with the vaccine mandates. And the large protests against such mandates taking place across the world being ignored by msm and censored across the web.
What people dont understand is that if practically all sources of information become propaganda for a few billionaires, youve practically destroyed democracy as without adequate information the people cannot choose otherwise.
And they act in concert from payment processors to hosting to the platforms. Any idea even covering news they dont like and youre deplatformed.
Even banks have started to say they wont serve you if you dont align.
Right now the idea appears to be to put a social credit system were companies are evaluated on woke metrics over 80% of large company ceos have agreed to be measured that way.
At first voluntary later what some are fearing is this woke score will be used to grant credit to a company and to penalize those who invest in nonwoke companies.
It is essentially one agenda one set of ideas and if you oppose the central authority you may not even be able to buy a house or work. Of course theyll promote who they have financed and deplatform those they dont like.
We already are seeing similar with the vaccine mandates. And the large protests against such mandates taking place across the world being ignored by msm and censored across the web.
What people dont understand is that if practically all sources of information become propaganda for a few billionaires, youve practically destroyed democracy as without adequate information the people cannot choose otherwise.
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
Getting banned from Twitter or a subreddit for breaking their terms of service is not the death of democracy and Free Speech.
You overshot the mark by several hundred thousand miles.
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Banned
People are often deplatformed from not just one place but from all. Twitter facebook youtube patreon paypal also unless you are very big google also shadowbans you from search results too.
Btw they ban without breaking ToS without strikes warnings or explanations.
All of them act in collaboration with one another, in collusion, and i probably forgot a few. It is simultaneous deplatforming from all the big sites in the web. At the same time they allow calls to violence and misinformation to spread and remain uncensored for long if it aligns with their agenda all with legal immunity.
The social credit is being tested on companies but rumor is individuals are next. And just like the vaccine employment travel loans credit etc may eventually be conditioned on woke score.
Last edited:
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
No, the issue is the use of section 230 to indemnify them from liability on the premise that they offer an open service, when in fact they do curate and editorialize their platforms for more than strictly staying within the legal requirements.
Essentially what it boils down to is social engineering for profit, not public good. It needs addressing and right now, because the algorithms they are employing are toxifying the culture. Thought and discourse is getting balkanized.
Coolwhhip
Neophyte
I don't break ToS rules, unless certain opinions are listed as against the ToS, which I doubt. Though I'm sure for example the crazies at reeee have a list of allowed opinions in their ToS.
dr_octagon
Banned
no, it costs $3.50
Maiden Voyage
Gold™ Member
Chankoras
Member
Depends on the interpretation of the good Samaritan law of section 230 does it not?
Not that I disagree with your premise about manipulation of opinion, I think we need better antitrust laws for the platforms that have their fingers on every pie and want to be the only game in town.
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
It's not opinions that break ToS. Its the attitude and language used behind them. Unless its just offensive nonsense or hate speech.
TaylorSwiftFan
Member
You know full well that even tame speech can have terrible consequences.
The Pleasure
Member
Bbs coming back ya'll
Cyberpunkd
Member
It does exist however there is a philosophical difference between the US and Europe:
US: you can legally say wherever you want, the penalty comes not from the law but platform holders e.g. Facebook
Europe: you cannot say legally whatever you want e.g. saying a lie will make you face consequences
People here sometimes forget that not the whole world operates as the US does.
Cyberpunkd
Member
Legally speaking TOS were ruled both in the US and Europe to be null and void - companies cannot put everything they want there, they must comply with the existing regulation.
Amiga
Member
people can hang with smaller more mature groups, create and grow new communities instead of contributing to the benefit of platforms hostile to their ideals. but they would rather go along to get along. and give up a lot of their convictions in the process.
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Banned
You were banned at ree for saying certain developer games were good or you were gonna buy them, iirc.
Btw if they have politics over there pretty sure its their way or the highway.
Last edited:
EverydayBeast
ChatGPT 0.1
The internet’s identity has always been the Wild West
MikeM
Member
Make a post about how you don't like Biden/Trump/whomever floats your boat. Likely nothing will happen. Maybe some conversations and some angry faces. Unless you post something under the guise of freedom of speech and it is in fact hateful, clearly not based on facts, etc.
Make the same post in China or Russia about their leadership. You will likely disappear.
See the difference?
Make the same post in China or Russia about their leadership. You will likely disappear.
See the difference?
Last edited:
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
ARGHHHH!!!
This thread is driving me crazy. I really want to discuss this topic, especially about the bigger social media platforms.
However the irony is that by doing so would mean I'm discussing politics, which is a banned topic on this site!
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
You can create your own web site and do mostly what you want; of course you are bound to some hosts term who might boot you, but chances are they won't, as chances are very few will look at your random web site.
But of course you aren't guaranteed access to any given web site no matter what you say on it. Web site owners have the... freedom, to ban you.
But of course you aren't guaranteed access to any given web site no matter what you say on it. Web site owners have the... freedom, to ban you.
Maiden Voyage
Gold™ Member
I’m sure it will return as soon as people can disagree politely.
John Bilbo
Member
I don't think there is free speech on the internet. Also in my home country you can get fined expressing opinions on the internet and by the public discussion, being jailed for expressing opinions is not far off the table at the moment.
gamescoltsfan
Banned
I try to push the limit.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
In my country you can be jailed for expressing the wrong opinion online, but that's not actually a bad thing.
Very recently, a man was sentenced to 50 days in prison for expressing his opinion online. However, it was racist abuse against the black English players who missed a penalty in the Euros. In this instance, prison time for expressing his hateful opinion was totally justified. I'd even argue that 50 days is a pathetic sentence and the guy should have got at least 10 years, but that's another debate.
I'm actually all for opinions being punishable by prison time if they're considered hateful, so homophobic, transphobic, racist, misogynistic etc. Hopefully that way we'll create a better world to live in.
So, in conclusion, I'm happy there is no free speech online and would like to see free speech eradicated.
Edit - just to elaborate on the last sentence. I don't want to live in some 1984 nightmare, but I do want to see a world where nobody is able to post racist or bigoted shit online without punishment.
Last edited:
Coolwhhip
Neophyte
John Bilbo
Member
I'd say that is the problem though. Whose opinion should on what is hateful et cetera be paramount? Will the same law be prosecuted and processed the same way by different people within the same culture with differing worldviews?
What if you are jailed for something someone else considers hateful or bigoted or phobic even when you know yourself that the meaning behind your speech is none of those things?
BigBooper
Member
That's disgusting.
John Bilbo
Member
I think anyone considering limiting speech should read the George Orwell classics Animal Farm and 1984.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
Anything that is homophobic, transphobic, racist misogynistic, xenophobic or just bigoted is hateful in my opinion.
I can only speak for the UK, but we're already going in that direction, and although this seems extreme, it means that hateful pricks won't have a space to spew their filth.
In regards to your last question, it would be the courts who decide if something somebody has posted online/said in person constitutes as a hate crime, which therefore is punishable by law.
Both are actually two of my favourite books of all time. Highly recommended reads.
LegendOfKage
Member
Over a given length of time, the ones who will jail you for speech "to protect society" will always use that power to remain in power, and to remove those who are a threat to their power. Even when people intend to do good, once they have the power to silence speech the temptation to benefit from that ability is just too powerful.
Last edited:
Coolwhhip
Neophyte
Damn, that's a lot of groups. If I call you ugly, you can call 911?
This topic is about free speech on the internet though, you seem to want to have none in real life even...
Last edited:
John Bilbo
Member
Ok. Not somebody, but you as in you yourself. Would you be ok with some or any of your spoken or written words been deemed hateful, bigoted or phobic no matter what the intention behind your words were and you were fined or jailed?
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
I know it's different in the US than it is in the UK. For example, in the UK you can get put in prison for posting anything racist online, but from what I understand, that is protected under "free speech" in the US right?
But to answer your question, calling somebody ugly wouldn't be a hate crime, not even the UK. However, being racist is a hate crime and should be punishable by law.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
This is hard to answer, but only because I couldn't see myself getting into that situation.
It also depends on context. In this hypothetical situation, did I say something to purposely cause offensive? If so, then it could possibly be a hate crime and I am therefore likely to be punished.
Similar threads
- Locked