Elon Musk Takes Aim at Reddit
Musk previously hit out at Wikipedia after its annual report showed it spent 29 percent of its budget on "equity" and "safety & inclusion."
您正在查看单个线程.
one X user claimed the website was "anti-free speech" after he said he was banned from the "comics" subreddit for denying that the tech mogul did a Nazi salute
That sounds like pro truth rather than "anti free speech", no?
Free speech means having to read and hear things you don't like or disagree with every now and again. I personally think bans should be restricted to hate speech or else we'll sleep walk in to an echo chamber.
Moderators on a private website don't actually have to put up with Nazi liars.
Nice opinion, you're entitled to that!
Learn the definition of "opinion."
Opinion:
a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
What's your point? Other than trying to discredit me by insinuating I'm an idiot?
I never thought that endorsing the freedom of speech would be so controversial!
Oh, this is a much more dire educational lack than a single word. You can't even parse the meaning of a sentence. Sorry, kid.
asks definition of a wordwhen given the definition moves the goal posts in an incredibly condescending way.
Why don't you stop criticising me as a person and say what you want to say in plain English?
I take it you can't articulate your problem with my argument and that's why you have a problem with me instead.
Read The Parable of the Nazi Bar:
Ok, that's fine, but what you are doing is equating everyone that expresses a different opinion on musks salute to a Nazi, and whilst I understand why that is a popular opinion here, I don't think it's entirely helpful.
You could say it's your opinion that they are gullible, delusional, easily misled or whatever else, let me know when democracy, the rule of law and human rights are being infringed and let's talk.
Yes they are. And as you said, you personally should be subjected to opinion you don't like.
Exactly the point, I don't know why I'm struggling to get that across, apparently people get it when you say it!
No, you implied that unless you can force someone to listen to you, you are being censored. You being entitled to your opinion is true. But everyone else still had the right to ignore it.
I should be allowed to play the drums in your bedroom at any time of the day or night I please and you're not allowed to kick me out because freeze peaches
"freeze peach" you just outed yourself as a statist
Do you shower with the curtain open in case a statist tries to sneak up on you?
eets a fair cop guvnor
Invasion of privacy, breech of the peace, trespassing and probably more.
Your terrible analogy has almost nothing to do with freedom of speech, if you think a redditor writing an opinion on Musk is equivalent to them playing the drums in your bedroom at night, you might be a tad sensitive.
I understand your view of free speech, but they are also correct that it is a private space like a bedroom. They are in control of that space and made a rule saying not to bring articles from X into that space. The person ignored it and argued about it so they banned them from that space. If someone says don't bring food into my establishment and I do, I have no right to be mad at them for telling me to leave. If I argue with them I have no right to superceded their banning me from their establishment. The issue isn't free speech, the issue is respecting an establishments operation policies.
Thank you for understanding that I'm only here to talk about free speech.
If the rules were no X posts, then they should've had the post taken down with a warning. I don't think a lifetime ban is a reasonable response to an undesirable opinion, I don't think it meets the requirements of hate speech which is where I'd personally draw the line.
From what I understand from the article they did remove the post because it violated policy. It appears to me he got banned after arguing with the moderator that it wasn't a Nazi salute. My views aside, it was the person arguing the policies of the establishment shouldn't exist that got him banned from the establishment, not the post itself.
Edit: I may have this wrong though, I didn't try to investigate anything, the fact that he was bitching about it on X was enough for me to determine he wasn't worth my time. (Yet here I am talking about it .. damnit)
That's exactly my point: all freedoms are limited in certain contexts.
Nothing on Reddit has anything to do with Freedom of Speech as outlined in the first amendment. The first deals with the government's ability to prevent people from saying things and nothing to do with a non-governmental organization or individual person not allowing certain content in their platform. If anything, Musk forcing Reddit to allow the content is anti-free speech.
I personally think bans should be restricted to hate speech
Nazi salutes are hate speech.
Free speech means the government can't sanction you for unpopular speech. It says absolutely nothing about private citizens.
You're not entitled to an audience, or to anybody else's platform.
Freedom of speech is not a freedom to lie.
Damn, now you got me defending fucking Musk on this issue.
Freedom of speech is also the freedom to lie. However, that just means the state can't arrest you for your speech. Nobody owes you a platform for your free speech.
That said, Elon Musk is a turd sandwich.
No, freedom of speech doesn't protect you against false statements. There's literally a ton of other laws that penalize that, depending on the context. Purgery, slander, libel, breach of contract, just to name a few.
I already said that there were limitations to free speech earlier. But untruth is also protected under the US Constitution. It all relates to a possibility of harm.
If i said that I was the Easter Bunny, it would be a lie, but who is harmed by it?
If I falsely yell fire in a crowded theatre and people get trampled, then harm, or a risk of harm is evident.
These are all standard arguments on free speech. But, yes, there are many carve outs where an untrue statement is protected under law. I just don't have the time or inclination to list them all. You can check them out yourself.
Freedom of speech is also the freedom to lie
Again, it is not. Freedom of speech is a freedom to receive information and exchange ideas. Not a freedom to lie.
Are you a USian by any chance? They quite often misunderstand what freedom of speech is.
Yes, but in this case we are not talking about a lie, we are talking about an opinion which you yourself consider a lie.
It comes back to objective truth Vs opinion which I have already replied to you about.
Regardless of this, there are cases where lying is protected by the first amendment.
https://www.freedomforum.org/is-lying-protected-first-amendment/
The example of where lying is not protected in the case to which we are referring would be:
Be a provable assertion of fact (not an opinion)
Yes, but in this case we are not talking about a lie, we are talking about an opinion which you yourself consider a lie.
You are going around in circles. I already told you it is fair enough - if he genuinely believed Muskler was not performing a nazi salute, it just makes him deluded. I however consider it unlikely, and if it indeed is not the case, that means he was lying.
Furthermore, Muskler himself never denied him making a nazi salute, making people denying it even more likely to lie rather than simply being mistaken.
Again, it is.
Show me the legalisation where it is illegal to lie. How is it enforced? Who enforces it? Who arbatrates it?
Freedom of speech is a moral right, and nothing more. If you start arresting people on perceived lies, that is a very dangerous slippery slope. I hope that the Donald doesn't start arresting people who he believes is lying. Where will THAT stop?
And, no, I'm not Asian, tho I don't understand your asking.
Again, it is.
Again, it isn't. Read the fucking definition and educate yourself.
'Freedom of speech is the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means.'
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech-freedom-expression-human-right
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
And, no, I'm not Asian,
Who was talking about Asians? I asked if you are a USian. Someone from USA. People from USA often misunderstand what freedom of speech is.
sigh
Again it is.
Neither of those links suggested that it was illegal to lie. Why not? Because it is fucking impossible to tie that rule into a working possibility. Go read your own links yourself, because it is obvious that you haven't.
It talks about limitations on hate speech, etc, but you can lie without hate speech.
Freedom of speech is an ideal, and is tied to state control of speech. There are all kinds of limitations, including public safety and defamation, etc. But if I called you a Martian, obviously that is a lie. What happens? Does the free speech police lock me up?
I'm not interested in personal attacks, by the way.
Again it is not.
Neither of those links suggested that it was illegal to lie
Which part of "the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas" caused you trouble?
So, are you a USian?
I'm not sure if you are trolling or not, because any plain English reading is obvious
Your own quote, as set out below...
"the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas"
That also applies to incorrect information ideas... or... lies. Or the truth... Or fantasy... Or anything in between...
It doesn't specify truth or otherwise. You are free to assume anything you care to - but it's not in the actual text.
As to your question, I have no clue about your insistence on me being whatever the thing is you keep repeating.
Friend, the issue isn't freedom of speech. It's breach of contract. The establishment has policies which are the contract for using the designated space. If you breach those policies you are in violation of said contract that deems you ineligible to participate within the establishment.
You do not have the right to intrude on other people's establishments after being asked to leave for violating their written terms of service without being accepted back.
Edit: for example, Lemmy.world has a rule of no advocating for future violence. Do I agree with it? It does not matter. They created the policy and it is their establishment. If I advocate for future violence they can ask me to leave, and if I argue with them they very well may ban be from posting/commenting there. It isn't my freedom of speech that they are banning, it is my access to their establishment.
None of that relates to the concept of free speech.
Trump has been lying through his teeth since the moment he could talk. I don't see either him being penalized nor anybody trying to stop him. It's got nothing to do with contracts.
Also, I never said that free speech had no limits. If you were to follow the thread you would see that I have nominated a bunch.
I know my comment had nothing to do with free speech, I was saying that the user in question got banned for arguing the rules of the establishment. Whether I agree with the ban or not, if it is a written policy of the community, that is the social contract you are committing to when participating in that community.
From the article: "Reddit continues to be anti-free speech," Cedric Hohnstadt said on X. "I just got a lifetime ban from the 'comics' subreddit. Yesterday, I posted a humor comic that got over 5,400 upvotes. Then I noticed that there was a pinned post from the moderators saying that comics linked from X could no longer be shared because Musk gave a Nazi salute. I commented saying no he didn't. The moderator accused me of being pro-Nazi, banned me permanently for life, and deleted all my past posts from the 'comics' subreddit."
None of the issue at hand pertains to free speech. The moderator might be an ass, but it's their choice to ban users from their community for violating set policies.
It would be like me arguing with the asklemmy community about the title not being in the form of a question and them banning me and me screaming "my freedom of speech!". Nah, they just have a rules you have to follow to participate.
That's true and I appreciate that different opinions are often unwelcome, I'd still rather that than end up in an extremely boring echo chamber where the "conversation" is not much more than a circle jerk.
In legal terms it is (with the obvious exceptions for impersonation, defamation, etc)
But in private forums? Mods can be however strict they want
It isn't - unless your comment applies just to the USA, otherwise read the UN definition of freedom of speech.
Are you a another USian by any chance? I noticed people from USA have completly skewed definition of freedom of speech which may partially explain why Trump is able to get away with his constant lies.
Tell me where fiction is illegal to publish
Are you a little bit slow?
Freedom of speech does not cover lies. It doesn't mean lies are illegal - it only means they are NOT protected under the freedom of speech - which means they can be banned or made illegal if individual states decides to do so.
Furthermore there is plethora of situations in which lies are illegal in multiple countries. As a matter of example, in the UK lying when you are selling something is called "fraudulent misrepresentation" and it is a criminal offence.
Tell me where scientists are prosecuted for having got a theory wrong
Tell me where meteorologists routinely are prosecuted
I already mentioned the obvious exceptions (lying to cause certain types of harm) but few western countries allow penalties for anything outside those exceptions
Tell me where scientists are prosecuted for having got a theory wrong
Tell me where meteorologists routinely are prosecuted
Are you more than a little bit slow?
Do you see the difference between "lies NOT protected" and "lies criminalised"? And BTW I just gave you an example of a criminalised lie.
So you're admitting you didn't read any of my comments, and that you don't understand that only very narrow types of lies are criminalized while the vast majority are not
Hint: read my first comment again
And then again
And then again, and notice the parentheses this time. Then ask somebody to explain it to you.
Well if this person truly believes it wasn't a Nazi salute, then he's not lying.
I believe ghosts aren't real, but that doesn't mean I think anyone that has seen a ghost is lying, I truly believe that they think they saw a ghost.
There's a huge difference between an objective truth and a widely agreed upon opinion.
It's weird that this issue only comes up when it comes to defend nazi shit and not with other things. I'll give you a specific example: I posted this on r/ShowerThoughts: "Incest is like pissing in your gene pool". I think it's pretty good, but mods deleted my post because it goes against community guidelines. If I got into an argument with the mods and got banned from r/ShowerThoughts, I wouldn't be going around crying about "freedom of speech", because it's dumb, and communities have rules.
These arguments are always about normalizing nazi shit. Fuck that.
The difference here is that you made a post against community guidelines. Where as in this case the guy seems to have been banned for wrong think.
I'm not arguing that communities can't have their own rules.
Possibly defending Nazis was against community guidelines...? Pretty doublespeak of you to call one example "against guidelines" and the other "wrong think" and I'm sure I know why you do it.
We're back to opinion Vs fact, again!
At the end of the day, until Musk comes out and says, "it was a Nazi salute and I'm a Nazi", it will be up to opinion and everyone has a right to share their opinion.
and I'm sure I know why you do it.
I really don't appreciate the insinuation but the least you could do is grow a pair, come out and say it.
You're a very good little reminder that no one should take the ability to regurgitate alt-righticisms for intellect.
yup. A good intellectual test would be asking whether people would draw the same conclusion on intent about the gesture if:
A) it were sexual coming from a person with a history of sexually harassing comments who provides a sexual joke for explanation B) it were a direct insult (like middle finger) from a person with a history of verbally abusive comments, who provides a fuckyou joke for explanation.
People usually have very little difficulty judging the intent in those situations.
If endorsing the freedom of speech makes you alt-right, then I guess I'm alt-right.
Finally you noticed.
Fuck you.
The difference here is that you made a post against community guidelines. Where as in this case the guy seems to have been banned for wrong think.
Man, it's such a shitty hill to die on.
Hear me out. Let's remove the politics from this equation for a second
Let's say I stood on a podium, did pelvic thrusts and formed a V with my fingers stuck my tongue through them making circular motions with it, and when people got upset, I responded to with pussy jokes. Would you interpret my actions as an "awkward gesture"? You could, but people would consider you either a perv, or a troll. Same applies here.
So yeah, stop normalizing nazi shit.
People here seem to be confused between me endorsing "Nazi shit", which I am not, and me backing the freedom of speech.
I don't know why this is such a hard concept to grasp.
me backing the freedom of speech. I don’t know why this is such a hard concept to grasp.
FYI, your comment history is public, so people have more context for your posts here than you assume.
I don't care. Read my full comment history if you want, you'll find I'm quite clearly a left winger.
I really don't know what my comment history has to do with my ability to defend freedom of speech.
I couldn't care less if people want to take issue with my opinions, I only ask that it's kept civil and the debate is kept relevant to the subject, I'm not interested in personal attacks.
I only ask that it’s kept civil and the debate is kept relevant to the subject
I'm getting really tired of self-claimed "left wingers" advancing the alt-right agenda. You're either a useful idiot, or dishonest.
If you accept that communities can have their own rules, then the rule here is "no defending Nazis".
Regardless of Nazi anything: community guidelines state no posts from X.
They have a right to ban posts from whatever website they wish for whatever reason they wish to do so - it's their community. They weren't saying the person couldn't have hosted the same comic on Imgur and posted it. He got banned for arguing back, not for the contents of his comic. It's rational that any community would ban any idiot who is breaking their guidelines and being rude about it.
Well if this person truly believes it wasn't a Nazi salute, then he's not lying
Agreed, that makes him deluded instead. Not many people however are stupid enough to be able to analyse Musk salute and belive it wasn't a nazi one.
I'm not getting in to the Musk debate, I'm quite frankly bored of it, just let me know if he does it again.
I'm only here to defend freedom of speech.
I'm just here to defend freedom of speech.
Ensure you understand it first:
'Freedom of speech is the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means.'
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech-freedom-expression-human-right
Thus my point that freedom of speech is not a freedom to lie or a freedom to spread hate or encourage violence (this is a general point, I am not referring to your views in particular).
Honestly, that's very insulting and I don't appreciate the insinuation. I know very well what the freedom of speech entails and I donate monthly to amnesty international.
Honestly, that's very insulting and I don't appreciate the insinuation.
All I would say is that you picked up a very odd example to defend the "freedom of speech".
Nah, you don't have a right to a space; that is, spaces have a right to police themselves. If you don't like it, the cost to start your own community is virtually nill, and you can go ahead and refuse to moderate that community. That's your choice and you're free to make it.
No. You have no right to force me to listen to you.
Free speech protects hate speech in the United States, so you've already got your wish.
But the Constitution restricts the government, it doesn't apply to your peers, and nor should it.
Freedom of association is important, too. You have the freedom to speak, but people don't have the obligation to listen to you. If they're running a forum and they don't like what you say, they can ban you. It's their forum. You have the freedom to go to a different forum or start your own.
Absolutely not you dimwit.
I run a security related subreddit (cryptography). A false sense of security from wrong answers can literally kill
This place is already an echo chamber. Just try not agreeing with the party line.
I agree why I agree if you defend nazi then that is hate speech and he was rightly banned.
