Is it hypocritical for free speech advocates to moderate comments on their own site?

[tachin1]

But what if you’re wrong?
Instead of the right to freely say what you will, I would propose the duty to be persuasive when making an argument.
The right to free speech as you have framed it here seems pretty much meaningless, it is meaningless unless everybody else has the duty to listen and not interfere.
It necessitates of people to communicate using well constructed arguments and to speak the truth at all times.
Who really wants to give attention to lies and why should lies not be erased lest they be confused for the truth?

But lets not kid ourselves, that’s not the real world, in the real world good and bad ideas get traction all the time, it is never the truth content of an opinion that renders it interesting, it is how persuasive it is. How well the lie is told is the same as how well the tale is spun, the truth is assumed if the story is plausible and well constructed, the idea is memorable because of the skill of the teller.

@Umm

The cartoon doesn’t touch on censorship because you can be censored by anyone, including other people and corporations.

The cartoons tells you to not confuse peoples lack of interest in your idea for censorship.
You hold an opinion, great, if you want others to hold the same opinion, to grant enough value to your opinion as to not show that opinion the door, its on you.

You’re arguing your point as if the truth of the argument is understood. It is not, people have told you so. Make a better argument cause this one’s not working.

[Umm]

@tachin1

You’re arguing your point as if the truth of the argument is understood. It is not, people have told you so. Make a better argument cause this one’s not working.

I’m not sure what you think I’m arguing. I’ve said to Rob that “hypocritical” was a strong word to use for moderating the forum, but I still find it ironic. I conceded that after being able to speak freely to people with different opinions on the subject.

I made the comment on that cartoon because at different points people have accused me of being entitled. I wasn’t sure why that was until I realized in the US the first amendment is the “right to free speech”. I’d use the term “free speech” and I think it might have come across as demanding my right, when I was using it in a broader sense: the ability to express oneself freely, unrelated to law. I’m in Canada, and it’s not used as interchangeably as the first amendment is to free speech.

[anon68952647]

@Umm

I’m not sure what you think I’m arguing.

I’m not sure what you think you’re arguing either, but can’t you tell you’ve lost and it’s time to move on?

[Umm]

I’m not sure what to say. I’m trying to indicate to you that I come in peace. Let’s try to clear this up.

@Umm

the less restrictions we have on communication the better.

I said that meaning “we” as in society. Then you responded by saying I shouldn’t speak for everyone.

@AcerPlatanoides

For my part, I think I’d like to discuss it with someone who discusses their own opinions as their own, and doesn’t play True Scotsman.

Then I said I was surprised you’d argue with me on that because:

@Umm

Generally, people in freer societies are happier.

Free as in “free to say and do as they please”. It seemed surprising to me that you would call me out for claiming less restrictions on free speech are better. I think we just got our wires crossed. Does that explain it?

[anon68952647]

@Umm

I’ve certainly never seen it make life easier, and it was an appeal for compassion, not an insult.

people with disabilities can appeal for their own compassion, you noble paladin! What was the right course when someone tells you you’ve just insulted the disabled?

Please, keep mansplaining, it’s just fascinating. Its just so rare to see someone be technically correct and yet so totally selfishly wrong on the internet. That, like, never happens /s

[tachin1]

@Umm

I’m in Canada

And I’m in mexico, freedom of speech does not mean the same thing to me either, the cartoon still holds true, you assume freedom of speech to mean something that, (even if ratified by the UN) does not mean anything to anyone else.

@Umm

I’m not sure what you think I’m arguing

I’ve understood you to mean that @beschizza is calling the proverbial kettle black because you’ve assumed that he is for freedom of speech and since you believe that people who are pro-freedom of speech should act a certain way. Commenting on Facebook’s policies when BB has policies of its own, contradicts what you expect of @beschizza.

This is what I’ve understood from your posts. I do not agree and remain unconvinced. I’ve asked you to make a better argument for your opinion.

[Snowlark]

@Umm

The right to free speech is different from free speech. In the US, the right to free speech is synonymous with the first amendment, but the rest of us don’t necessarily have that.

Confused U.S. citizen here. Can you delineate this a bit further?

[anon68952647]

Teresa Nielsen Hayden on Online Trolls (with image, tweets) · KaaSerpent

Here is a former moderators opinion about some commenters.

This seems relevant, and some folks in this conversation might find some points worth reflecting on.

Or not. Probably not. But maybe!

[Melizmatic]

@Mister44

You people are hard to please.

[Snowlark]

This thread.

[ficuswhisperer]

Advocating free speech doesn’t mean you’re required to listen to shit you don’t want to hear. In all I feel that the mods use a fair amount of tact when doing their job (that doesn’t mean I always agree with their decisions, and I have seen some unnecessary lashing out at users but that’s rare). They take a fair amount of abuse and criticism in stride, but that doesn’t mean you won’t get mauled if you poke the bear enough times.

I consider this to be a “safe place” to come and voice your honest opinion without fear of being doxxed or harassed. That doesn’t mean that assholes shouldn’t be shown the door. Even some of Reddit’s worst communities have moderation and rules.

If you don’t like it, it’s a big internet and you’re free to set up your own community.

[Snowlark]

Pretty sure it’s a water bear.

[clicks avatar to zoom]

Yeah, that’s a water bear.

[anon68952647]

@ficuswhisperer

I can’t speak for others reasoning, though.

that’s where you and your conversational partner diverge, if I may say that.

[Umm]

It probably comes down to your personal values. If you think it’s best to lead by example, or if you think it’s better to have open conversation than restrict for the sake of keeping things on topic, than you’re more likely to agree with that idea. I think you can have some great conversation by letting things meander a bit, but that’s not for everyone.

After talking to a few people about it, I think it’s something that might only be possible as a non profit organization (social networks and online forums). A group that could dedicate the resources to allowing free expression online without worrying about explaining costs to shareholders. Another alternative would be state run social networks, but I’d personally find that a bit too big brother. Still, that might be better than allowing corporations to control our private data, and restrict our speech.

Rob mentioned that he’d considered starting another board with less restricted conversation than here, which I think means we agree in some ways, but he mentioned it would be a huge undertaking, in particular monitoring for hate speech, etc. A non profit NGO would probably be the best mix of no strings, and freedom to pursue a project with those values.

[anon68952647]

@Umm

and restrict our speech.

Nobody has restricted your speech.

Entitlement feels like cold when you deserve warmth (but arent grateful for it when you were being treated warmly), and feels like “being silenced” when you deserve to be heard (but were actually disrupting an unrelated conversation). It also feels like you were called an asshole when someone said your behavior was in question and seemed not to be in good faith. That’s your own ad hominem, not anyone elses.

[anon35121463]

@Umm

. A group that could dedicate the resources to allowing free expression online

So, 4chan or Reddit? Or the EFF, if you’re more about actual useful stuff?
I seen what happens when unregulated free expression happens and it ends with racism, threats, hate campaigns and potentially a Cheezel Cockweasel with his tiny hand on The Button.

Fuck that noise.

[Umm]

Yeah, it would require a lot of resources for preventing issues related to the harm principal… clearly more than what Facebook is dedicating per user right now.
This is Rob’s more specific idea:

Is it hypocritical for free speech advocates to moderate comments on their own site?

You know, I always wanted to create a non-profit comment hosting service designed so that the public could easily comment on anything online and, so long as it were legal, the subject of that commentary had no control over it. The downside, of course, is that the subject wouldn’t be insta-publishing it vicariously with the original content, though I suspect many sites would eagerly drop in the code anyway. Whatever policies they have for local presentation, bans, or moderation, the comment woul…

[anon35121463]

@Umm

This is Rob’s more specific idea:

I can see why he changed his mind.

What would be cool is a forum ran with vague but generally benevolent guidelines to encourage the exchange of ideas and opinions. If we could run it on some neat software that’s designed with similar ideas behind it, that’d make things real awesome. Maybe link it to a zine or website that has a mixture of activism, science, cool weird shit and I dunno, bananas or something in order to draw in the sort of weirdos that have a broad cross-section of life experiences but as a whole, still have a sense of wonder and humour despite the three-ring shitshow the world throws at them.

Nah. No fuckin way that would ever fly, amirite.

[anon50565130]

I did make post in that thread too!

I think the problem is people don’t think when posting their views or pictures on FB and Twitter.

Your family and friends probably know some of your views on certain subjects and not be too offended, but with FB and others people share things and that’s when a problem could arise because the others don’t know you.

It’s very easy to offend people and some people like offending others, they seem to derive a great deal of pleasure from it.

I told a joke in mixed company one night it goes like this:-

Q:- What do you get if you cross a insomniac, agnostic and dyslexic?

A:- Someone that sits up all night pondering if there really is a dog!

Whilst others were laughing a family member sternly replied to me “But there is a god”. Whoops!

Now if I posted to my Niece on FB (Mostly cute fluffy animals, horses etc on her TL) the gif of a load of baby chickens in a meat grinder which goes from bright yellow to bright red in a second or two, she would probably punch me the next time she saw me.

So very easy to upset someone isn’t it? Still might post it, her husband would laugh his head off and I’ll run when she calls over.

With regards to moderation, if someone on this site decided that they hated you and began a derisory campaign against you, you’d want someone to stop them yes?

It’s somebodies site and at the end of the day there are rules and laws society has laid down for our general good, the owner of the site is also bound by law and would have to answer to the police if a serious abuse occurred and it was reported.

If the person owning and running this site allows peoples personal views on say religion or politics without being too disrespectful I’d be OK with that.

Censorship is a part of our daily lives, when you watch the news on the TV you don’t see a lot of the terrible things happening in the world, you only see their bias.

On the news in the UK the report of the poor young girl in Israel, stabbed repeatedly to death was shown.

The two innocent Palestinian teenagers recently shot dead was not!

Now to set the record straight I am neither pro or for either or against, I read The Algemeiner and The Electronic Intifada so I get a balanced view on the suffering and injustices carried out by both sides.

A good example is, I was reading the online edition of The Telegraph and the story was about some ten or twelve more Syrians suing the US over allegations of illegal detention and torture, half way through the article the screen refreshed and I was back at the home page, so tried to find the story again and couldn’t, it had been pulled!

So at the end of the day I decided to join this forum, it wasn’t forced on me, I’ve read the rules and agreed to them so there is where I stand.

I think I prefer to a degree someone is protecting us from that stupid rant, say one night whilst a little drunk and saying something that with a clear mind would never say.

I’ve upset a moderator or two and usually not for doing anything really heinous at all, some of the sites have US moderators and are biased against anything anti US, even if it’s the truth and that’s what pisses me off more than on the odd occasion getting a rap on the knuckles for being a dick.

So mod’s please, if I do something really stupid please feel free to reject it and in the cold light of day I’d probably agree with your decision.

FYI A devout atheist.

Regards.

[jsroberts]

@Umm

Although corporations don’t need to provide free speech they are very much involved in censorship, that is not limited to governmental organizations. Virtually all of our non face to face communication is sent through a corporate entity at some point and many of them could prevent you from communicating or censor your message. That’s why this is important.

Liked for this. A lot of our social spaces – including physical ones – are privatised (e.g. shopping malls rather than high streets), so it matters beyond the level of government. On the other hand:

@codinghorror

BB has always presented itself as a place for Happy Mutants. Not a place for every living human being, like Facebook.

Yeah, scale and scope really matter. Stormfront exists. Many : - friendly websites exist. It’s perfectly reasonable for a website to aim for a particular kind of community and restrict some kinds of speech that aren’t illegal or even offensive to many people. We don’t even have to like their criteria. In some ways, their freedom to moderate some comments and allow others is a free speech issue greater than that of an individual, since there are many other communities that the individual could join but the host should be free to host a particular kind of speech rather than being forced to host them all. While I may want to be able to express my opinion freely on issues like religion or politics, I’m fine with some communities saying that I’m not welcome to join (or that I can only comment in a restricted form) because I don’t share their religious or political opinions. Maybe they’re wrong, maybe it’s an echo chamber, but I have no right to insist that they welcome my opinion.

There are big differences in the freedom of speech I expect from Google or Facebook and from BoingBoing. On the other hand, even those websites are entitled to regulate speech that is not illegal in order to stop it from turning into Twitter. Extreme libertarianism doesn’t make for a good community.