How do we teach people tolerance. Do we create a rule book? A law? We can’t teach people as a whole. There’s always so many versions of truth and morality.
Correct, we can’t teach people as a whole. Gotta get them while they’re young and fresh, at least if you don’t want it to take fucking forever. But even extremely rigid mindsets can change. This guy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-wanted-to-understand-why-racists-hated-me-so-i-befriended-klansmen/2017/09/29/c2f46cb8-a3af-11e7-b14f-f41773cd5a14_story.html?utm_term=.ecf894ad9f54 is an interesting example of someone with the patience and tenacity needed to alter adult bigotry. Not that his success rate was that high, but it can be done. I don’t think this translates online though, you need to be in each other’s physical space.
Maybe this is less important for Gen Z as the internet has always been part of their world. In general I think Gen Z has a higher degree of tolerance, partly related to how changes in media portrayals of people traditionally othered (race, sexual orientation, gender etc.) have changed significantly in the past few decades. Social media is a big part of this equation too. Kids are exposed to things that fall outside what is deemed appropriate by their families. They engage with curiosity, and see examples of people trying things that could never be accepted within their immediate social spheres but is accepted online. Not that there isn’t still hate and vilification (you see extremes of this on both the right and left), but there is a ton of info out there to sort through, and I agree with you that young people are getting wise to algorithms. I also think Gen Z may be the most depressed generation, but that is a topic for another thread.
With every law passed, there is an automatic polarity.
Can you speak to this a little more? I’m not sure I agree but I’m interested.
No one googles “how to have free thoughts.”
I just did. An interesting mix came up:
30 Ways to Free Your Mind Immediately - Lifehack
Free Thoughts on Free Thoughts: 200 Episodes and Counting … (libertarianism.org)
Free Thought Is for White People - The Root
A History of Freedom of Thought - Foundation for Critical Thinking
Shit I just realized I have 20 tabs open!
I’m aware that I might have taken your comments out of context
No worries I’m pretty detached from this argument but it is fun!
Alex Jones and Roseanne Barr
I don’t really have an issue with what happened to Roseanne. She wasn’t banned from social media, though she did voluntarily leave Twitter for a short time. Her show was supposed to be renewed with ABC but was cancelled as a result of her racist tweets. To me that falls outside the realm of free speech. She isn’t censored, she just got fired for behaving like an ass. Sucks for her co-stars, but seems to fall outside what we are discussing.
Alex Jones is a tough call for me. If it weren’t for his rampant popularity I would be right with you, leave him up and let people sort through the lies. For the sake of argument I’ll say I agree with the ban. Because he had access to such a wide audience there was the potential to do a lot of damage.
we should spend our time debunking them and debating their ignorance.
We’ve all agreed here that most people don’t think for themselves, especially when motivated by underlying emotionally-charged ideologies. Jones is catering to these people and feeding misinformation that he knows won’t be challenged. Whose responsibility is it to protect the public from misinformation, and at what point do we determine that open debate about something obviously untrue is a waste of time? Should the public be protected? Should textbooks that preach creationism and deny the holocaust be used in public grade schools if the administration of that particular school is onboard? Where do we draw these lines? Sammy made the excellent point that it is very difficult to teach tolerance and open minds (past a certain age level). Is there a point when enough is enough?
I’ll draw my line at Alex Jones being kicked off Twitter. I’d need to do more research to feel stable about it, but ultimately this is a private corporation and they can choose to regulate what gets said. Dude has multiple defamation suits in the works as a result of shit he’s said about Sandy Hook. If Twitter as a corporation wants to wipe their hands of that seems ok to me. No one is telling him he can’t speak, just that they aren’t willing to host his bullshit. I’ve watched Info Wars a time or two and sometimes they say some pretty smart shit. They’re especially good at pointing out many people don’t have a solid backing for what they believe (though they focus on the left when really it is an issue on both sides). But they’ve been irresponsible about the accuracy of much of their information and now are losing privileges as a result. A newspaper doesn’t have to publish an article that doesn’t meet certain fact-check standards, but social media should have to host flimsy content simply because their platform is free?
I think Twitter, Facebook, et al should not have the right to ban people from their platforms as they are making money off of the open and public use of the internet
So you think a social media platform can set no limits as to what is appropriate conduct on their platforms unless they charge? For example, Twitter has a policy against what they call abusive behavior and, as far as I can tell, people are given numerous warnings before their accounts are suspended. Users who sign up for this platform agree to this policy when they register, and a small amount of research shows what conduct results in being banned.
Specifically address your stance on the regulation of hate speech on social media. What I hear from you right now is people should just ignore it. But from what I can tell Twitter does just ignore it until a substantial number of complaints have been made by users, and takes into account the severity of the situation. One comment here or there isn’t going to get you banned. Hundreds of abusive tweets directed at a specific individual may not get you banned, but could if complaints are made and recognized. What should be tolerated? Rape threats? Death threats? Doxxing? I think I’m ok with it if Twitter decides they don’t want to be 4chan or Reddit.
We have increasingly given corporations the rights of privatization and personhood while simultaneously deregulating limits on their control of resources.
I agree, but don’t know if free speech is a central component of this. Would be interested to hear more.
They aren’t charging the public to use their platforms yet they are at the same time some of the wealthiest corporations on the planet. Why? Because of their ability to control free speech.
Please argue this further. I don’t see a direct correlation between how social media controls free speech and how much money they make. Show it to me.
Youtube removed a few of Alex Jones’ channels that had millions of subscribers. I would guess they lost advertising money because of that rather than boosted profits.
I think this clearly violates the Harm Principle and goes beyond the domain of free speech.
Yes, I used a very cut and dry example. Interested in your thoughts on this: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24772724