mmooss
yesterday at 11:47 PM
Instead of rehearsing the same old arguments like a ritual, we know the heart of the issue:
(A) Freedom of speech is the highest value (that's applicable here), to simplify a bunch of stuff.
(B) Limiting antisocial behavior is valid 1) in any community, 2) especially when the behavior limits other people's freedom (e.g., by shouting them down or through intimidation or hostility), and 3) especially in the forum of a business that provides forums - they want their customers to enjoy the experience. There's some validity to a business with such widespread control of the public space respecting freedoms more broadly than they might privately like.
(C) Defining (B) in a way that respects (A) is the heart of the issue.
-
I think the issues with (C) are realtively easy to resolve:
* I) Don't tolerate intolerance, to apply Popper (to my understanding). The social contract is I tolerate you and you tolerate me; that's freedom. If someone violates the contract, the deal is off and they're out. They're a parasite on the relationships. As long as people respect that, they can say what they want. That's how a free society works, and works very well.
* II) Relative power matters: Intolerance + Power = Danger; Intolerance + Powerlessness = Rudeness. For example, a room contains 20 Romulans and 1 Klingon: The Klingon expressing hatred of Romulans is obnoxious but can be mostly ignored (maybe don't stand too close), while a Romulan expressing hatred of Klingons is a serious threat to the Klingon. In a discussion, it's a good way to silence the Klingon. Obviously, you can substitute any groups you want in that room, and I think it matters who is powerful in the wider world - for example, the billionaire can go elsewhere and be safe, while the homeless person has little safety, little room to express themself, anywhere.
IMHO the biggest problem is people who seek disruption - trolls - being parasites on good faith. At (C) they see a weak spot in the social fabric and they press on it and tear at it, trying to maintain deniability about what they are doing. By now everyone knows it when they see it; the great majority can be removed with ease.
-
> Old Twitter had banned several politicians including US Congress members for their views, sometimes for things like misgendering someone.
I didn't pay much attention to the issue - it was hard to find genuine (non-disingenous) information about it - so I don't know.
Generally I don't think being a politician gives you more rights than other people. You can easily have political debate without intolerance - without advocating against others' freedom. Do you have an example of the misgendering? A mistake is one thing; persistently doing it is harassment, an aggressive intolerance of someone's gender.
But the same goes for everyone - people can say, 'I think I'm either female or male, not both', and they shouldn't be harassed or silenced any more than people who say 'I think I'm neither female nor male; I'm somewhere on a continuum.'
There are always grey areas in everything in the universe, but I don't think these are hard.
frollogaston
today at 12:22 AM
https://ballotpedia.org/Elected_officials_suspended_or_banne...
The example I remembered was Jim Banks suspended for saying "The title of first female four-star officer gets taken by a man" in reference to a transgender officer.
Thanks for the link. Here's the site's full Jim Banks story; it's not incidental but aggressive intolerance.
On October 23, 2021, Twitter suspended Rep. Jim Banks' (R-Ind.) official account for fourteen days after he made two posts referring to Admiral Rachel Levine, a transgender woman and the United States' first openly transgender four-star officer, as a man. A Twitter spokesman said one of the tweets violated the company's hateful conduct policy, which prohibits "targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals."[30] After Banks deleted the tweet, Twitter restored his account on Nov. 5.[31]
Banks tweeted in response from his personal account, saying: "Twitter has suspended my official account for posting a statement of FACT. I won’t back down. I’ll be posting on my personal account for the time being … Big Tech must be held accountable!"[32]
Other stories there show I should add another criteria - safety. Dangerous advice ('eat rat poison') obviously should be removed, but of course there are grey areas of wrong but somewhat dangerous ('drinking a few glasses of wine a day helps arthritis'), of information of unknown accuracy.