[_dh54]

The funny part is that this is the bio in Mozilla’s twitter:

“We work to ensure the internet remains a public resource that is open and accessible to all.”

I guess by “all” they mean only people with political opinions they support.

[happytoexplain]

You accused them of using an oversimplification with a selective definition, and then immediately performed that exact fallacy ("people with political opinions they support").

[Kbelicius]

> I guess by “all” they mean only people with political opinions they support.

You are just misinterpreting what that quote says. They think that the internet should remain a public resource that is open and accessible to all. They don't think that everything on the internet should be a public resource that is open and accessible to all as you are implying.

Do you really think that everything on the internet should be a public resource and accessible to all, even your email, bank accounts, etc?

[jhardy54]

In case you're unfamiliar: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Unfortunately part of making things "open and accessible to all" means revoking access to people who would weaponize the internet to contradict those goals.

A tolerant society means no tolerance for terrorists.

[CyberRabbi]

If you can effectively cast your political opponents as “terrorists” you can rationalize denying them all sorts of rights and still get to call yourself a supporter of human rights. They did a similar thing during the Iraq war.

[busterarm]

I made a litmus test that an alarming number of people I've had recent discussions with cannot pass.

Basically it's about whether you can get them to agree with both of the following statements:

1) X-ism should not exist. 2) X-ists have a fundamental right to exist.

Point number one is perfectly reasonable as should be point two. The really scary authoritarians flat out deny point number two, but most people will start equivocating or scream at you because you don't want to punch X-ists.

This is a growing problem that society needs to find a solution to quickly. Denial of point 2 leads to mass murder of people for thought crime. Still some people seem okay with this.

And I just want to point out before I get tons of hate that it's perfectly acceptable to give X-ists consequences for their _actions_. Not their private thoughts.

[happytoexplain]

>Denial of point 2 leads to mass murder of people for thought crime. Still some people seem okay with this.

You're exaggerating. We don't have a real problem with people who want to mass murder people for being X-ists. It's easy to observe the inverse, though.

[busterarm]

Large numbers of people saying that a group of people don't have a fundamental right to exist is literally the same thing as X-ism.

[happytoexplain]

The terrorists who stormed the capitol are nobody's mere "political opponents". They are hateful, violent cowards together with some innocent non-violent people tricked by propaganda, the former of whom hide behind the broader identity of conservative or Republican, precisely so that people can defend them under that umbrella as you have done. You shouldn't be helping them.

[hkt]

Iraq seems a little different to an armed invasion of.. the capitol building. No?

[xvector]

One day, people may actually need to invade the Capitol building, but it will never happen because of your eagerness to create an authoritarian state that shuts down all controversial discourse.

If we deplatformed every “violent thug” that did something people didn’t like, you would have a fraction of the rights you have today.

[Draken93]

I believe that we passed a controversial discourse, when a certain group of people decided to ignore all reasonable arguments, to ignore sience.

This is not about shutting down all controversial discourse. It is about "defend[ing] a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant". Surpression shall only happen if there is no other way to defend a tolerant society cause the intolerant are working with (massiv, wide spread) violence.

I don't know who is in the position to decide when that point has come. But one could argue that people invading the capitol is that point.(I don't think so)

What I am really worried about, is that it seems like tech companies will have to make those decisions. In the end there will be individual persons, who make that decisons and that is very dangerous.

[ajsnigrutin]

But how do you know who is a 'freedom fighter' and who is a 'terrorist' then? Do you let google and facebook decide?

Look, an "Anti soviet warrior", "on the road to peace" - https://www.businessinsider.com/1993-independent-article-abo...

[hkt]

Worth pointing out that innocent people were shot and killed and senators were evacuated while they confirmed the election result. It isn't "something I don't like" it is "something reprehensible which cannot under any circumstances be tolerated".

[imtringued]

Well, in the case of violence it is quite easy to pass judgement and just lock them up. However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to those terrorists. Even if they only talk bullshit you should at least try to understand why they became terrorists or else you will just declare more and more people as terrorists because it is the easy way out.

[Draken93]

Thats exactly what Karl Popper says. We should listen to them, aslong as society is strong enough to defend a tolerant society against intolerance.

The question is: When do we reach the point where the defence starts to break?

You could argue that that point is reached when terrorists storm the capitol.

I don't know if we reached that point already. What I do know: If we wait for too long, we reach a state of no return.

[int_19h]

The answer is: we need to use as much violence as is necessary to suppress the violent actions, and then revert back to tolerance.

[CyberRabbi]

I’m so glad people like Karl Popper didn’t write the constitution.

[jhardy54]

Feel free to listen to terrorists all you want -- I'm under no obligation to listen to people who are advocating for my torture or death, and I'm certainly not obligated to supply a platform for their views.

[agilob]

>A tolerant society means no tolerance for terrorists.

Ex CEO of Mozilla and current CEO of Brave has been removed from Mozilla for donating his private money to some conservative same-sex marriage organisation.

[jhardy54]

So what? Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

You can't be taken seriously as an advocate for a tolerant and accessible non-profit when you spend your salary denying people the right to get married.

[ajsnigrutin]

> A tolerant society means no tolerance for terrorists.

But how do you know who is a 'freedom fighter' and who is a 'terrorist' then? Do you let google and facebook decide?

Look, an "Anti soviet warrior", "on the road to peace" - https://www.businessinsider.com/1993-independent-article-abo...

[jhardy54]

(Flagged as duplicate comment.)

[int_19h]

Orwell wrote a nice essay on this, all the way back in 1940s, when the war was still being fought, and organizations like the British Union of Fascists were around:

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

And it could as well be written yesterday:

"The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news—things which on their own merits would get the big headlines—being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness."

"The ordinary people in the street – partly, perhaps, because they are not sufficiently interested in ideas to be intolerant about them – still vaguely hold that ‘I suppose everyone’s got a right to their own opinion.’ It is only, or at any rate it is chiefly, the literary and scientific intelligentsia, the very people who ought to be the guardians of liberty, who are beginning to despise it, in theory as well as in practice."

"One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that ‘bourgeois liberty’ is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means."

"1940 it was perfectly right to intern Mosley, whether or not he had committed any technical crime. We were fighting for our lives and could not allow a possible quisling to go free. To keep him shut up, without trial, in 1943 was an outrage. The general failure to see this was a bad symptom, though it is true that the agitation against Mosley’s release was partly factitious and partly a rationalisation of other discontents. But how much of the present slide towards Fascist ways of thought is traceable to the ‘anti-Fascism’ of the past ten years and the unscrupulousness it has entailed?"

(Note that the guy writing all this was a socialist who volunteered to go and literally shoot at - and be shot by - actual Fascists in the Spanish Civil War less than 10 years earlier.)

[brabel]

Wonderful sentence in this link:

"But we should claim the right to suppress them (intolerant philosophies) if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."

How relevant to our age... and this appears in a treatise by philosopher Karl Popper from 1945, who attributed the paradox to Plato's defense of "benevolent despotism"... i.e. the discussion is as old as civilisation itself!

[int_19h]

The "paradox" of tolerance is only a paradox if you tolerate actions other than speech. If you only tolerate speech, there's no paradox - as soon as speech translates to actual harm, the hammer is brought down.