this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
663 points (95.3% liked)

Technology

60379 readers
5376 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. —Noam Chomsky

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 hours ago

Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

I mean, sure, but does that mean people get to express themselves everywhere all the time?

I go to work and there’s always a couple fuckers who bring up their hateful opinions in a “I’m not racist but,” way.

It affects my productivity when I have to hear that bullshit all day while trying to get them to stop in a diplomatic way.

I can’t say it so directly, but it’s not censorship to say “shut up and let me work”

[–] [email protected] 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

If they’re disturbing you from working, that’s an issue independent from the message they’re expressing, so freedom of expression does not apply.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Ok, now I argue that the constant bombardment of misinformation and hate speech we face online and through the media clearly affects people’s ability to live their lives, and is no different than the guy talking my ear off at work.

I’m not saying they can’t express themselves. I’m just saying that we don’t have to listen, but with the current state of things we’re being forced to listen.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Nobody is forcing you to read anyone’s comments on Facebook.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

No, but we're on the receiving end of the consequences of those comments.

When they come for you because they're acting on some shit that Zuckerberg's algorithm amplified, your shallow moralizing won't make any difference.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago

By this logic they should ban all religious speech from every platform

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago

It’s not just comments and I’m not talking just about me.

You and I and Mel Brooks all know that the common person is a moron.

Algorithms push misinformation. Bots push information. Are we limiting free speech by saying “you can’t use algorithms and bots to spread lies”?

Does lying count as free speech?