[deciplex]

What if I told you that around 35% of the population is just terrible, and another 50% is too busy to do anything about it? Would that change your mind?

I'm not claiming these are the numbers, just pointing out that there are numbers, and I'm wondering where you would draw the line, if you would draw it at all. That is, giving these people a forum where they can freely associate, normalize their behavior, and find sympathetic friends, might make them a greater threat that if we just did everything we could to marginalize these assholes and atomize their communities/roach dens wherever and whenever we found them.

I really do emphasize the might here - I don't have an answer. But, I do think it's something that needs to be given serious thought, rather than reverting the default 'freedom of speech must be preserved' position so tempting to the typical liberal.

[McDoku]

Freedom of speech mean that these ideas can be challenged in the public sphere. Anything else is the department of arm chair theorist.

Freedom ain't free. It calls for noble labour.

[vertex-four]

> Freedom of speech mean that these ideas can be challenged in the public sphere.

I will note that much of HN doesn't seem to believe this - when the Brendan Eich thing happened, and people were choosing to boycott Mozilla for his views (thus using their freedom of association and freedom of speech to call for him to be removed from that post), many seemed to believe that Brendan Eich's rights to freedom of speech and political freedom were being attacked by anybody who chose not to associate with him because of his views.

The fact is, any individual or entity can, and should, choose not to associate with those who they see as causing harm to others. That's an individual choice. Free speech and free thought should not mean that anybody give anybody else a free pass to cause harm or spread ideas that are likely to cause harm - and we should use every right we have to ensure this, so long as it doesn't end up with people losing their rights to food, water, shelter, and (a duty of the Government and the people) protection from direct abuse.

Your right to freedom of speech do not mean that I have to listen to you, interact with you, or provide a platform for you, no matter whether I'm one person or a multinational. You can be angry that I won't - I'm angry that the mainstream media won't give my minority a platform - but I don't have to. The only entity which has to be fair is the Government.

[dubfan]

> Free speech and free thought should not mean that anybody give anybody else a free pass to cause harm or spread ideas that are likely to cause harm

But then you don't have free speech or thought anymore. You only have the freedom to express ideas that are deemed to be acceptable by whoever holds the most sociopolitical power at any one time. And there's never a guarantee that the progressive side will hold that power forever.

And the Mozilla boycotters weren't just "choosing not to associate with him". They were calling for him to be fired for participating in a political campaign they disagreed with. This is exactly what McCarthyism was about. It's amazing how progressives have forgotten the danger of this now that they control the social narrative.

[vertex-four]

> You only have the freedom to express ideas that are deemed to be acceptable by whoever holds the most sociopolitical power at any one time.

If there's any reasonable amount of support for your ideas, any at all, you really should have no problem finding work, friends, and wealth. We're not exactly at a point where LGBT rights, feminism, and similar subjects have anywhere close to unanimous support. You only have to look across this discussion board and in most newspapers to see that.

> They were calling for him to be fired for participating in a political campaign they disagreed with.

Yes, that's part of a decent protest - telling the company what they can do to get you back as a customer - and Mozilla could've chosen to ignore them and potentially lose them as customers and community members. That's fine. That would be their choice. Many companies have done so and succeeded - Chick-fil-a, as one example.

You really think that when it comes back round again, if we're nice and don't try to cause any real societal change, the (little-c) conservatives won't try to cause any real change in the opposite direction? That the Government and the media are never going to pick another scapegoat minority for society to go after when the majority is fed up again? That they'll always tell both sides of the story from a fair and neutral perspective? That's never been my experience, and history tells us the complete opposite.

The majority is always going to have immense amounts of power, and they're always going to wield it. We might as well try and push in our direction while we have any power at all (and seriously, we have far less than you think).

Here's a question: We have the right to freedom of association. Is that somehow a lesser right than freedom of speech? Or must we be forced to associate with those whose speech we find bigoted and harmful?

[mkr-hn]

> Yes, that's part of a decent protest - telling the company what they can do to get you back as a customer - and Mozilla could've chosen to ignore them and potentially lose them as customers and community members. That's fine. That would be their choice. Many companies have done so and succeeded - Chick-fil-a, as one example.

Chick fil A pulled back on most of its homophobic donations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_c...

I still don't eat there, but only because Bojangles is closer and better.

[ryanpardieck]

Yes, for some reason many people think freedom of speech means they--and those they identify with--should be able to speak free of social consequence. I don't really know what leads a person to think that. Maybe they just said stuff for so long without being challenged, that they start to think they are entitled to never being challenged?

[michaelt]

  It calls for noble labour.

I'm guessing, from your choice of words, that you've never tried to change public opinion in a forum like Reddit, Twitter, HN or 4chan?

[McDoku]

The design here is flawed. It is insane to expect anything different then what it is. You can still hack it if you are inclined, but I agree the bias is not prosocial.

By labour, I mean grab a pen and paper and devise a method to fix the problem. If it is broke devise a method to fix it.

Noble labour takes resolve.

[pjc50]

Ideas can be discussed and challenged. Threats and harrasment are not ideas and should be dealt with differently.

Organisation of campaigns of threat, harrasment and violence is on the boundary, and needs careful consideration. But the worst case is very bad; a sufficiently powerful hate campaign can provoke genocide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libr...

[deciplex]

Perhaps. I don't think people are as noble or reasonable or responsible as you obviously do. I'm envious of this somewhat :-)

My gut feeling is that most of the '50% busy' people I reference above do not identity strongly with the assholes in their community, but neither are they going to go out of their way to do much about it, and that includes listening to anything the other side has to say. They're going to usually conclude the truth lies somewhere in the middle and then move on to the other shit that occupies their time. It seems to me that, over time, a totally unmoderated and free community devolves into chaos and bigotry - look to television or talk radio after the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine for a solid example.

[verroq]

What if I told you I'm a fascist dictatorship and I and I alone uphold the moral authority? Maybe we should find these people and exterminate them, for the good of everyone.

[McDoku]

A bit bold, but it does highlight that insidious tension that leads good people to doom.