[fshbbdssbbgdd]

Let’s compare these sets of people:

1. who reacts most strongly to this story about deplatforming porn

2. who reacts most strongly to stories about deplatforming hate speech and incitement

And try to figure out if the two groups have different principles about free expression, or perhaps the principles are irrelevant and only function as justifications when convenient for some kind of tribalism.

[ceejayoz]

Government deplatforming and private industry deplatforming are vastly different things, especially at a Constitutional level.

[fshbbdssbbgdd]

Sure, but there have been proposed laws requiring deplatforming of hate speech, and some have even passed: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/tech/french-hate-speech-socia...

Many keyboards have been worn out debating about the difference between the first amendment and free speech, but can we isolate to one case or the other here and set that issue aside in one thread?

[lallysingh]

Which government and which people? The link's about French laws. The parent article is a state in the USA. Different beliefs in many areas.

[fshbbdssbbgdd]

Ok, if a law that passed in France isn’t relevant, let’s look at proposals from politicians in the US: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/3/20965459/t...

I enjoy splitting hairs too, but I feel that the distinction between government and platform authority, and Europe and US law, would be used by either side of the porn-deplatforming-supporter and hate-speech-deplatforming-supporter dichotomy when convenient, so is not really a relevant distinction. We can probably locate similar proposals from each of the government/commercial (authority) and porn/hate-speech (content) quadrants, and observe the same dichotomy of reactions.

I feel these are all just justifications that people will deploy when applicable to the tribe they are defending, they don’t explain away the tribes.

[lallysingh]

That link is more relevant. I don't mean to split hairs. Different nations (cultures? belief systems?) will feel differently about them and make different decisions. I don't think that a discussion that doesn't separate them out will end up anywhere productive.

[ceejayoz]

> French parliament

C'mon.

[fshbbdssbbgdd]

So when debating the merits of government policy, we can’t talk about Utah and France in the same conversation? I understand that this would make it harder to fit into local tribalist conflicts.

[vinger]

Both are church driven societies

[imwillofficial]

They aren’t when tax dollars go into the pockets of BigTech, of which every single one of them has massive government contracts. Every one.

[ceejayoz]

That's not how the First Amendment works. At all.

[imwillofficial]

Your tired argument falls flat. Yes, the first admenement applies to government, but when government and private companies are so unified in task and purpose, as well as value exchange, the distinction between the two is meaningless. So no “muh private companies” holds zero water. At all.

[bitdizzy]

What do you mean by tribalism?

What is inconsistent about thinking hate speech should be deplatformed and porn shouldn't be? Or vice versa? It seems to me like you're implying that the only reasonable and honest principle of free expression is completely absolute and anything else is cynical.

People can agree on the value of free expression and agree that there should be limits which align with their values while their values diverge. Is people having different values tribalism?

[fshbbdssbbgdd]

I think it’s consistent to believe that free expression allows for deplatforming, and then to have a belief about when deplatforming is necessary.

I don’t think it’s consistent to think that deplatforming is wrong, but only when the type of deplatforming that was most recently brought to your attention is a kind you don’t like.

I think “free expression” in this context is more like a tool for argumentation than a real principle that people hold, so people forget about it when convenient. (people who always or never support deplatforming get points for consistency)

[bitdizzy]

Do you think the distinction between government interdiction and private is immaterial? I think I regard the distinction between business and government a lot less than most but still understand that there are significant differences between the two and some people think those differences are extremely important.

But what is meant by tribalism?

[fshbbdssbbgdd]

In this other thread I point out examples of government passing and proposing regulations about hate speech deplatforming: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26363013

By tribalism, I mean that people have an intuition for whether the deplatforming is promoted by, or used against, people who they identify with, and that guides their views on whether deplatforming is appropriate. For example, people in one tribe have recently been identifying with people who got deplatformed for hate speech or incitement and they believe these efforts are driven by the repressive values of another tribe. Others read the story about porn and think about how Utah legislators are part of some other tribe, and that leads that to make some argument from free expression (I think the highest rated comment here about “small government” is a good example).

You could make an argument that’s more tribe-independent like this: “limiting freedom of expression by deplatforming is appropriate, but only to prevent a legitimate harm”. Then the two tribes would try to justify their side by debating about which harms are legitimate, which at least has a chance of being data-driven.

People who say that deplatforming is never or always appropriate get points for consistency. But I suspect that their comments will mostly be upvoted on stories where the principle aligns with the more prevalent tribe.

[vinger]

Deplatforming anyone is foolish. Anyone who thinks otherwise will be deplatformed.

[inglor_cz]

I am one of those people who dislikes both. Not least because they complement and reinforce each other, plus the mania of the woke really looks like a redirected religious fervor to me. Perhaps people cannot really exist without some ersatz religion, so if Christianity goes away, something else takes its place.

If you can filter out X, you can filter out Y, and once you have a censorship system in place, the list of banned things will only get longer and longer, especially if the main qualification is that someone feels offended by that.