Read on Twitter
Where the fck to even start.
First off, i think stopping the massive spread of misinformation and curtailing harassment are incredibly desirable goals, and if she has any alternate ideas on how to do that, then Iâd love to hear them.
First off, i think stopping the massive spread of misinformation and curtailing harassment are incredibly desirable goals, and if she has any alternate ideas on how to do that, then Iâd love to hear them.
We have fairly solid evidence, from banning Trump to deplatforming ISIS, that this approach works. It has measurable positive outcomes wrt slowing the spread of misinformation and weakening extremist organizations. There is legit research on this.
If she thinks itâs not a good trade off, well, I think sheâs wrong. But she should at least offer an alternate approach.
But this also annoys me because it just reinforces the useless, shallowest version of this whole debate. The one where we embrace a thin, narrow way of-
But this also annoys me because it just reinforces the useless, shallowest version of this whole debate. The one where we embrace a thin, narrow way of-
-thinking a out âfree speechâ and then it just ping pongs back and forth between whether the left or the right favor this particular narrow version of the concept. Its a version thats largely the creation of the 60s âfree speech movementâ and 90s comedy bros, among others.
Its defined solely in terms of that insipid pseudo-Voltaire quote, and never connects the topic of free speech and who IS free to speak to any analysis of power, nor does to actually think about what is âworth itâ and what genuine cost-benefit thinking about this would entail.
Like come on...she frames it as âfree speech vs curtailing harassmentâ.
Does she not see...how harassment IS relevant to free speech and how harassment itself curtails speech?
The free speech debate as it exists now is too shallow and limited in imagination to engage with this.
Does she not see...how harassment IS relevant to free speech and how harassment itself curtails speech?
The free speech debate as it exists now is too shallow and limited in imagination to engage with this.
Its a debate stuck in the past, mostly concerned with pundits being free to do racism and comedy bros being free to say mean words.
Performative faux debate within the bounds of mainstream acceptability.
Performative faux debate within the bounds of mainstream acceptability.
An actual conversation a out free speech might be worthwhile.
But thats not this convo.
None of this deals with actual freedom in any meaningful sense. If it did, Natalie might realize that âfree speechâ doesnât inherently liberate the marginalized any more than free markets do.
But thats not this convo.
None of this deals with actual freedom in any meaningful sense. If it did, Natalie might realize that âfree speechâ doesnât inherently liberate the marginalized any more than free markets do.
