Just because you (legally) can, doesn't mean you should. Freedom to express opinions (that someone may judge good or bad or even dangerous) is important. It's so important that people are constantly (and usually incorrectly) invoking 1st amendment rights. If the tables were turned, progressives would be screaming bloody murder and demanding an end to censorship by private conservative companies if they "showed them the door". For the moment, progressives hold the social media power positions. Someday, they may not. Then what? People should treat others the way they want to be treated if they happen to be on the "wrong" side.
>People should treat others the way they want to be treated if they happen to be on the "wrong" side.
How should someone be treated who has made it clear that they will never follow the Golden Rule, no matter how they're treated? Because that's the situation we appear to find ourselves in.
I find it useful, although not particularly encouraging, to think in terms of the Prisoners' Dilemma. In theory, initial co-operation followed by judicious application of the golden rule will lead to both parties converging on the best outcome. But if one party makes it clear that they will always betray the other (and demands that the other stay silent, in order to give the first party their desired better outcome) how should the other respond?
Sure, cooperation (silence) is objectively the better choice. But once you are confident it will always be met with betrayal, what does the correct or best action become?
And that's setting aside the inherent quality of the speech in question. "Drinking bleach is awesome and you should chug as much as possible as soon as you get home," and "washing your hands is good and should be done frequently" are not equivalent, nor should they be treated as such.
Article is total BS. Author seems to think that private businesses should be forced to publish anything some crackpot submits. Sorry, on my own website, I'll only publish what I want to. Here in America, that's what we call freedom.
There is nothing more than a guarantee against govt action as the framers feared and suffered such action. People have paid the price for speaking (libel, slander, worse) and the right to speak isn’t absolute (fire in theatres, etc). Civility and social norms collapsed years back and blaming a web comic that states things accurately at best is disingenuous. Yes, you will not face govt action, but you have no right to be listened to, hosted or be immune to the consequences of what you say.
Not entirely accurately. It pulls a subtle sleight of hand in saying "It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole, and they're showing you the door." It's not actually the people listening showing you the door - it's the owners of the social media in question.
But "the people", or small personal websites, are much more sympathetic than multinational behemoths like Facebook or Twitter, with ten to a hundred times more members than most countries have people. But it's not like such a massive difference in size causes a qualitative difference that might merit different treatment..
Well, in my case I exited Facebook rather than trying to ban every annoyance being put in my feed. Facebook thought it neat to feed me crap, so I took my eyeballs elsewhere. So, I guess we’re both right as I showed Facebook the door after failing to recover my feed.
I only read the post to see what would incur such a comment. And perhaps its even worse than you say...
There are no ideas in that "article" at all. It's a complaint list, and it's not even clear what the complaint is about. The only positive comparison is to the "moral" lives of rural Indians, Hondurans, and Somalians -- who are known to be some of the poorest people in the world and living under great suffering. This fact is not conveyed by the author but rather conveniently overlooked.
Blame me for thinking correlation equals causation in this case, but the prima facie evidence is overwhelming that democratic societies which encourage a free market and free speech do have better standards of living for their citizens. Despotism and totalitarian rulemaking from above, including rules about speech, have proven again and again to lead to desperate poverty and economic ruin. Free speech and free business go together, hand-in-hand.
I would not, for a second, want the US to become like China or Russia where the state decides which speech must (and, obviously, what must not) be carried by publishers, media, and artists. But freedom of speech goes both ways. In other words, every person and every business must also have the right to not speak if they choose not to, as illustrated in the XKCD comic. A newspaper or website is not compelled to address the latest lunatic cause or non-scientific theory, nor to give it coverage. The owners of that media, as free individuals, must choose which speech they want to hold up and convey and which they deny or ignore.
