I’ve seen *a lot* of people approvingly share Robert Riech’s really bad Guardian piece on “reining in” Elon Musk.
I’m begging these people to please read @mmasnick.
https://www.techdirt.com/2024/09/03/robert-reichs-ridiculous-response-to-elon-reminds-us-that-censorial-instincts-have-infected-both-parties/
#techdirt #tech #socialmedia #freespeech
@chrishudsonjr @mmasnick sounds like a case of Poppers tolerance paradox, you have to be intolerant to intolerant people if you want a tolerant society.
@louis @ProfT@qoto.org @chrishudsonjr @mmasnick I agree. That's why I recommend we use the power of the state to persecute him as well other wealthy fascists.
@radicalrobit @chrishudsonjr So do you not realize that that would mean you'd become a fascist, purportedly to fight fascists? Or is that a feature you're looking forward to?
@louis @chrishudsonjr You think it's fascist to fight facists? Are you literally fucking stupid? You think persecuting people who want to kill people of color, queer people, Trans people, immigrants and anyone who isn't white and Christan is the same thing as being fascist? You fucking moron.
@radicalrobit @chrishudsonjr Using the power of the state to persecute people for their beliefs is exactly what fascists do, yes.
@louis @chrishudsonjr That's literally not even what the definition of fascism is you fucking clueless rube
@louis hi louis, just wanted to tell you this is the dumbest shit i've ever read in my life and you should delete your account, have a good one!
@ULTROS_PROFESSIONAL Yeah, having principles is just baffling to some folks. 🤷♂️
@louis @ULTROS_PROFESSIONAL what does power of the state mean? In Germany (and many other states) nazi symbols are censured (forbidden by law to use them in public)-surely that's power of state, and it doesn't make Germany a fascist state.
Of all the dumb BS I've read. Punching facsists is not fascist. Do some basic research and educate yourself please.
Or have a word with my grandfathers who punched fascists for their country.
@JimmyB If you start the violence, then you're the thug, yes, not them.
We have free speech in this country, and it applies to everyone equally. If they're peaceful and you're the one who throws the first punch because you don't like their speech, then yes, you're in the wrong.
Punching nazis, like *all violence* is only justifiable in self-defense.
@louis whose starting the violence? It isn’t those punching fascists.
Which country are you taking about? You’re not some American exceptionalist by any chance are you?
@JimmyB Uh, yes. If they're peacefully advocating their terrible ideas and you punch them first, then yes, you're starting the violence. By definition.
@louis @ProfT @chrishudsonjr @mmasnick
He's creating fake "election registration" websites, FFS.
But he is actiuvely persecuting all of us! We need to stop this moral high horsing with the fascist and deal with him as we alwqays end up having to deal with fascists.
We aren't the problem with our destruction of democracy and the planet. We need to deal harshly with the techbros who are killing us. And we need to do it now. Let's hold them to account in law for their deadly practices.
@JimmyB @ProfT @chrishudsonjr @mmasnick How exactly is he persecuting you? Is he taking away your rights? Your money? Your children?
No, he's just running a shitty service that you can choose not to use.
That's not "persecution".
@louis @mmasnick @chrishudsonjr @ProfT oh seriously - fuck off
@louis @chrishudsonjr @mmasnick I think that your view is based upon a very noble (but unfortunately not true) idea that if you let individuals say what they want, the majority will see through the lies and won't endorse the hate and won't resort to violence. It simply doesn't work that way. We need to make illegal type of speech that undermines democracy and/or leads to violence.
@ProfT @chrishudsonjr @mmasnick On the contrary. My view is based on the premise that if people want to believe the lies and endorse the hate, then that's their right, their freedom, so long as they don't harm anyone else in the process. The minute they turn to violence, I'll be right there to shut them down by force. But so long as they're peaceful, they should have every bit as much right as you or I to believe and espouse whatever they want.
@louis @chrishudsonjr @mmasnick let's take Jan 6. As I understand your argument only those participating in violent activities should face legal consequences, whereas those that organised and promoted (let's suppose there are some) have no responsibility? I believe that you can't separate the two- ones that stoke the fire in the first place and those that then act. Also, words can be violence as well- just see bullying - I hope we agree that there freedom of speech has to be policed by the state? So
@ProfT @chrishudsonjr @mmasnick That's a fine line. There is, and should be, an exception for "incitement to violence". And the US has a good standard for that in Brandenburg v. Ohio. To qualify as illegal incitement, speech must pass a four-pronged test, being both (1) intended to and (2) likely to provoke (3) imminent (4) lawless action.
So, anyone calling for a protest with charged rhetoric would be protected, but anyone directly inciting violence on-site would not.
@louis @chrishudsonjr @mmasnick i agree- there is a fine line - but obviously there is speech that is should be prohibited by the state. And I think that using old laws in internet age is not a good idea.
@ProfT @chrishudsonjr @mmasnick The internet hasn't changed speech, it's just changed the reach. And not using the old laws in the internet age is exactly why S230 exists in the first place.
If you've got a better idea, propose it. But for now, the status quo does seem like the best way to balance human rights against harm reduction.
@louis untag please
@ProfT @chrishudsonjr @mmasnick Refusing to tolerate him by boycotting his platform and products is a great answer. But there's a big difference between refusing to tolerate him and using the force of government to actively persecute him.