patrick.net

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

But I do enjoy the same people who bitch about "Net Neutrality" claiming that ISPs can censor or at least speed or delay speech that they like or dislike, defend content platforms censoring speech (and not in a transparent, objective way).

I'm confused about who "the same people" are. Net neutrality was upheld under Obama and repealed under trump. So you are saying republicans claim ISP's can censor are also defending platforms that censor speech. That's very odd. All the republicans have been screaming that platforms are censoring their conservative speech in every outlet from breitbart to cnn. So they favor it secretly while speaking out against it publicly? That makes sense using patnet "logic".

Either a little fuzzy on the concept or deliberately disingenuous here, ISP's are frequently government sanctioned monopolies like cable carriers or phone carriers and under net neutrality are not allowed to use their monopoly position to restrict competing products from other companies from their customers. Content platforms have no monopoly. If you can't want to watch alex jones on youtube then you are certainly fee to go directly to the infowars site. That's a far cry from actually locking ISP customers out competing services like phone company isp's locking out vonage. Freedom of speech doesn't include being too lazy to to type in infowars.com if you don't see it on youtube.

Freedom of speech in the first amendment has nothing to do with what any private company does. It only applies to government regulation. The supreme court has held in many decisions that a "clear and present danger" test as described by Justice Holmes and "advocacy of action" are the standard for judging what is not constitutionally protected free speech that could be regulated by the government.

Nice bit of meaningless hyperbole though.

bob2356 says

Freedom of speech doesn't include being too lazy to to type in infowars.com if you don't see it on youtube.

The legal argument version of this should be interesting to watch.

bob2356 says

Either a little fuzzy on the concept or deliberately disingenuous here, ISP's are frequently government sanctioned monopolies like cable carriers or phone carriers and under net neutrality are not allowed to use their monopoly position to restrict competing products from other companies from their customers.

Yes, your statement is both.

Leftists just finished insisting that Comcast (a private company) shouldn't be able to charge Facebook or it's Users or it's Customers more money to have speedy access. Or, feel obligated to provide rapid, updated connections to somebody's shitty Wix website rather than offer it at the slowest speeds.

We were told that would have a chilling effect on Free Speech, and allow a few companies to decide "What content you can access on the Internet"

Now the same Leftists who fought for Net Neutrality are insisting that Facebook and Youtube should have the power to censor outright. In other words "What content you can access on the internet"

Just like a handful of ISPs have a near monopoly in most areas, a handful of Social Media companies have a near monopoly.online. If it's not on there, it pretty much won't be seen.

It's pretty clear and not at all complicated.

Yes. It's scary how leftist/democrats can show their true skin when content they disagree with is censored. Ideologically, they don't care if viewpoints they don't agree with are censored, and are more than willing to suppress free speech.

A couple of people have really shown their true colors, and I suspect the true colors of leftists in general.

Goran_K says

A couple of people have really shown their true colors, and I suspect the true colors of leftists in general.

Yep.

It's actually kinda similar to what happened in the past year at Pat.net.

Despite a perfectly good "Ignore" button, some insisted that some users be banned from Pat.net for their content they thought was conspiratorial, false, or whatever.

Mere months after peak "Ban this guy", many of these same users got bounced or flounced when Patrick imposed an ad hom ban and they ran afoul of it, screeching "Muh Free Speech".

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

Despite a perfectly good "Ignore" button, some insisted that some users be banned from Pat.net for their content they thought was conspiratorial, false, or whatever.

Mere months after peak "Ban this guy", many of these same users got bounced or flounced when Patrick imposed an ad hom ban and they ran afoul of it, screeching "Muh Free Speech".

Perfect example.

On the whole though, it shows the dangers of collectivist mind set versus the power of the individual. Collectivist are okay with trouncing on people as long as they are "outside of the group", while Constitutionalism favors the individual right over the group think. Collectivism lead to the formation of the Japanese Empire, Nazi Germany, and the USSR, it's an extremely dangerous ideology, and it's sad to see people here cling to it.

Anyone who finds joy in Alex Jones being censored, while not illegal, should never call themselves liberal, constitutional, or even American. This is collectivism, and by extension, totalitarianism that you support.

Oh, and the Legacy Media in favor of Social Media Giants banning Alt Media have competitive motive$ to support it.

But some from the Kronkite Era can't imagine a world without large corporate Media entities having some special magic power of discernment.

CBOEtrader says

Lets be clear. Answer this question: would you rather have a 1st amendment, or a ministry of truth? There is no 3rd option.

I choose a 1st amendment. You?

No, no, no...
I steel manned your argument with my example of propaganda run by nazi Americans during a war against nazi.
I get to do that because your position is absolute: people always have free speech, in all cases, period.

My position on the other hand is pragmatic and flexible: I recognize free speech, especially at the individual level, and I believe all ideas should be debated, however there are a few cases that should raise eyebrows, especially when the intent itself is to systematically mislead. Which outlet exactly should be prescribed is complicated. All I said is foreign enemy propaganda should typically be proscribed.

Covering this as "ministry of truth" is not a steel man, it's a straw man.

Heraclitusstudent says

foreign enemy propaganda should typically be proscribed

You are arguing for a minister of truth. Yup, in your mind this level-headed administer of soft censorship only on important propaganda matters will be totes reasonable? What happens when Trump chooses Bannon as the minister of truth? What happens if the dems choose Ariana Huffington? Who gets to decide what propaganda is and how/what foreign means? Do you really want a partisan admin appointing beaurocrats to administer this truth?

So yet again, the ultimate question is who gets to be the minister of truth? You wont answer because you cant. There is no good answer.

Choose: minister of truth or 1st amendment. There is no 3rd option.

Goran_K says

Collectivist are okay with trouncing on people as long as they are "outside of the group", while Constitutionalism favors the individual right over the group think. Collectivism lead to the formation of the Japanese Empire, Nazi Germany, and the USSR, it's an extremely dangerous ideology, and it's sad to see people here cling to it.

The way you use the world collectivist here is to mean tribalism. This is not what "collectivism" means. Tribalism is not an ideology, it is human pattern of thinking that underlies many ideologies.

By the way your opinions here display a strong tribalism with the American political right, as you combat ideas the "outside of the group" - the left - and almost all your thinking is strongly aligned with that of your group/tribe. Your reverence for your leader is also a tribal attribute.

CBOEtrader says

You are arguing for a minister of truth. Yup, in your mind this level-headed administer of soft censorship only on important propaganda matters will be totes reasonable? What happens when Trump chooses Bannon as the minister of truth? What happens if the dems choose Ariana Huffington?

You are assuming there are no objective and reasonable criteria that can be used, and that therefore this will always be left to the individual judgement of whoever is in power. This is typically not the case.

As a simple example other countries have strong libel laws or laws against hate speech. Some European countries have laws forbidding denying the Holocaust. Big deal.

You want to call this "minister of truth"? Whatever.
You want to equate this to some sort of "Baghdad Bob"?... hummm just a little bit disingenuous.

Heraclitusstudent says

The way you use the world collectivist here is to mean tribalism. This is not what "collectivism" means. Tribalism is not an ideology, it is human pattern of thinking that underlies many ideology.

By the way your opinions here display a strong tribalism with the American political right, as you combat ideas the "outside of the group" - the left - and almost all your thinking is strongly aligned with that of your group/tribe. Your reverence for your leader is also a tribal attribute.

Wrong, very wrong. I meant what I said. People can be in tribes and still believe in individual rights (e.g - I'm a member of the NRA, but I believe non-NRA members have the right to own firearms). Collectivism is DIFFERENT. It is the base ideology for socialism/communism/nazism/leftism/democrats, at its basic "group over the self" which is why I describe the Constitution and individual rights. Seriously, read the Federalist papers some day, it lays out in very simple terms collectivism vs individual rights. If you support the censorship of Alex Jones (which you clearly do), you have lost all moral right to claim free speech, and the 1st amendment, as a platform or even ethos because you have grasped collectivism, which is a very dangerous ideology that killed hundreds of millions in the 20th century.

By the way, I don't care about your opinion on my political stance, and your accusation that I support the "political right" (which is wrong), keep it non-personal, or your shit is going to get nuked, plain and simple. Last warning.

Heraclitusstudent says

Goran_K says

Collectivist are okay with trouncing on people as long as they are "outside of the group", while Constitutionalism favors the individual right over the group think. Collectivism lead to the formation of the Japanese Empire, Nazi Germany, and the USSR, it's an extremely dangerous ideology, and it's sad to see people here cling to it.

The way you use the world collectivist here is to mean tribalism. This is not what "collectivism" means. Tribalism is not an ideology, it is human pattern of thinking that underlies many ideology.

By the way your opinions here display a strong tribalism with the American political right, as you combat ideas the "outside of the group" - the left - and almost all your thinking is strongly aligned with that of your group/tribe. Your reverence for your leader is also a tribal attribute.

You are missing his point. Everyone is tribal by nature, just like everyone is violent by nature.

Libertarian values of individualism over collectivism is the only viable solution.

Jonathan Haidt talks about personality types and how they lean politically. Libertarians share some traits from both conservatives and leftists. Yet while both conservatives and leftists are very tribal, libertarians shun group identities. They often dont do the whole super sports fan thing, dont organize into groups as well, etc. Personally, I cant agree w a crowd until I research something in totality. For ex, when Trump ran for president I thought he was a joke. The constant barrage of "racism" and the resulting hate mob against him inspired me to research each and every claim. My conclusion is that the hate mob was indeed being manipulated by lying media, over and over and over again.

I think a lot of libertarians did the same, which is why Trump is popular w the libertarian crowd. Just my theory

Heraclitusstudent says

As a simple example other countries have strong libel laws or laws against hate speech. Some European countries have laws forbidding denying the Holocaust.

Yes and the results have been tyrannical. If this is what you are suggesting I would fight this to the end. It would be the end of free speech in the US just like these laws are in the UK.

Goran_K says

Collectivism is the base ideology for socialism/communism/democrats

If we cant agree on this then we are speaking different languages.

CBOEtrader says

Collectivism is the base ideology for socialism/communism/democrats

Seriously.

It's an extremely simple concept.

Collectivism = Group over self.

Socialism = Check.
Communism = Check.
Nazism (which is a form of national socialism) = Check.
Democrat Party = "Health care is a right!", "Minimum wage!", "Social Security", Check.

Notice all of the ideologies above eventually lead to WIDE SPREAD national oppression of certain groups that lead to millions of people suffering. Socialism/Communism had its purges, Nazism had the holocaust, Democrats had slavery. etc.

If people are going to be willfully ignorant and how dangerous the current Democrat party is, then the debate with words is over, and eventually if a civil war sparks off, the debate will have to be won with arms.

CBOEtrader says

You are missing his point. Everyone is tribal by nature, just like everyone is violent by nature.

Libertarian values of individualism over collectivism is the only viable solution.

When you talk of Nazi Germany, or imperial Japan, these were systems that had private enterprises as a form of organization. They were not collectivists. Collectivism is a form of organization that removes private ownership, and Nazi Germany, or imperial Japan SIMPLY DID NOT DO THAT.

You are right that Nazi Germany, or imperial Japan, insisted on the importance of the group, and their superiority as a group, which is tribalism, not collectivism. Words matter.

@Aphroman, @Heraclitusstudent, knock it off with the ad hom attacks.

This isn't censorship, this is simply the rules of the board as requested by the owner @Patrick.

Just like you can't go into a McDonalds swinging your dick around, you can't swing your dick around here either. Make sense guys? Let's debate ideas, not engage in ad homs to satisfy your egos and I will do the same. Thanks!

As far as your ideology of Libertarianism: the idea that people should be pure individuals and totally free is pure hypocrisy as far as I can tell. People always do some things in common. And when you live in a city, almost everything is in common: sewers, roads, transportation, laws, cops, justice, insurance, education, etc, etc... Your freedom ends, where the freedom of the next guy starts, which is in front of your nose.
When there is a plague, people get together and organize better sewers.
When there are barbarians at your gate, people get together and fight them.
When there is a flood, people who are unaffected help the others.
The way humans organize their lives is always in a top down system, that then has to leave sufficient scope for bottom up individual initiatives.
This has been the pattern for all of human civilizations.
The only exception was probably people living on a wild frontier. Some Americans apparently still think they are on one.

Goran_K says

This isn't censorship, this is simply the rules of the board as requested by the owner @Patrick.

The censorship rules of a private forum.

Heraclitusstudent says

Goran_K says

This isn't censorship, this is simply the rules of the board as requested by the owner @Patrick.

The censorship rules of a private forum.

Aphroman says

Free Speech is being censored at Patnet

Is this the goal @Patrick?

Guess what, Patrick said he'd give you guys server space and you both can form your own FREE SPEECH forums of your own. Go take him up on his offer..

But then you'll have nothing to bitch about when you're in charge.

Heraclitusstudent says

Nazi Germany

Heraclitusstudent says

were not collectivists

Literally every academic disagrees w you. I dont know how to argue that up actually means up and down actually means down.

Nazi germany and Soviet Russia and socialist Venezuela failed for the same collectivist reasons. A collectivist society always tends towards more and more centralized power eventually ending in a tyrant rule. Collectivist society will necessarily oppress individuals, ban free speech from wrongthinkers, and eventually murder these troublesome dissidents.

Libertarian individualism is the solution.

Aphroman says

Nobody is engaging in ad homs

Relax

Facts shouldn’t trigger people

I'm starting to like the aphroman.

Heraclitusstudent says

the idea that people should be pure individuals

noone said the ever. You are arguing w the straw man in your head.

I said libertarian personality types tend away from groups. I'm not sure how professor haidt measured this, so yes I am repeating it blindly but it seems to make sense.

Legally speaking, ibertarian values are enshrined in the constitution. We choose to believe that rights are inherent to the individual, we allow govt to rule us on the agreement that the constitutional republic will be upheld. Therefore a mob isnt supposed to be able to vote away the rights of an indivual.

A constitutional republic is the best protection against collectivist tyrants. It would be a travesty to embrace UK/canada anti-hate speech laws.

I'm not typically active in politics, but destruction of our first amendment would be worth fighting for.

Heraclitusstudent says

As far as your ideology of Libertarianism: the idea that people should be pure individuals and totally free is pure hypocrisy as far as I can tell. People always do some things in common. And when you live in a city, almost everything is in common: sewers, roads, transportation, laws, cops, justice, insurance, education, etc, etc... Your freedom ends, where the freedom of the next guy starts, which is in front of your nose.
When there is a plague, people get together and organize better sewers.
When there are barbarians at your gate, people get together and fight them.
When there is a flood, people who are unaffected help the others.
The way humans organize their lives is always in a top down system, that then has to leave sufficient scope for bottom up individual initiatives.
This has been the pattern for all of human civilizations.
The only exception was probably people living on a wild frontier. Some Americans apparently still think they are on one.

That's a misunderstanding of libertarianism, completely. Libertarianism is about personal autonomy, not anarchy. So yes libertarians do believe in a police force and, yes, a military, because part of personal autonomy is being in a safe environment where its even possible. So anything to preserve the ability of society to provide personal autonomy is okay when given to the state.

Now, libertarians don't believe in "gun control" or "healthcare for all" because those are not necessary to preserve personal autonomy. If someone is being violent, or breaking the law, you punish the person, not society as a whole which is how collectivist handle the problem of public safety. Collectivist push the cost of negative externalities to the public which is a terrible way to address an issue in society (as history has shown).

Like I said, people should read more, and talk less. Read the Federalist papers, understand the difference between collectivism vs individualism. Read more about Paul Goodman to learn the libertarian ethos. Because right now, the way some are describing things, the way people in this thread are trying to present an opposing idea shows that they really haven't put enough research into the topic to seriously discuss it IMO.

Heraclitusstudent says

The censorship rules of a private forum.

Which is fine, it's patrick's right to do so. But at least he's not doing it to silence dissenting viewpoints from his own, he's applying the rules evenly across the board which shows that he's being philosophically consistent. Those who are cheering for censorship on Alex Jones are not being ideologically consistent, which is why they can't claim to support free speech or the 1st amendment.

CBOEtrader says

Literally every academic disagrees w you. I dont know how to argue that up actually means up and down actually means down.

Nazi germany and Soviet Russia and socialist Venezuela failed for the same collectivist reasons.

This is patently false.

Germany and Japan failed because they were both crushed militarily after attacking Russia (in the case of Germany) and the US.

Venezuela and the Soviet Union on the other hand failed economically, because of the economic organization you decry.

On what planet is that the same? I don't know.

Goran_K says

Libertarianism is about personal autonomy, not anarchy. So yes libertarians do believe in a police force and, yes, a military, because part of personal autonomy is being in a safe environment where its even possible. So anything to preserve the ability of society to provide personal autonomy is okay when given to the state.

Exactly, and when some private cartel extort you economically you expect the government to help you and preserve your autonomy, just like you expect it to help you physically when you are attacked by a gang.
It's called regulation.
That's libertarians roll on the floor convulsing.

Heraclitusstudent says

Germany and Japan failed because they were both crushed militarily after attacking Russia (in the case of Germany) and the US.

Venezuela and the Soviet Union on the other hand failed economically, because of the economic organization you decry.

On what planet is that the same? I don't know.

Germany and Japan were crushed militarily, but it was collectivism that caused them to engage in conflict in the first place. Hitler dehumanized non-aryans and used pro aryan collectivist propaganda to launch his invasion of non-aryan lands. Japan used a similar strategy. Non-Germans (especially Jews) and Non-Japanese (especially Chinese and Koreans) suffered immensely in occupied lands, citizen or not.

There's a reason why that hasn't worked in the U.S, because the constitution is a great barrier to dehumanizing certain groups of citizens in the country. The Democrats were successful for a time of imposing slavery upon blacks, but luckily the Republicans were able to kick Democrat ass and restore freedoms to slaves that were wrongly taken by Democrats in the South.

Goran_K says

Which is fine, it's patrick's right to do so. But at least he's not doing it to silence dissenting viewpoints from his own, he's applying the rules evenly across the board which shows that he's being philosophically consistent.

Ah... here we go.
So you don't believe in an absolute right to free speech. Is that right?

Heraclitusstudent says

So you don't believe in an absolute right to free speech. Is that right?

Of course not. A 50 year old man can't go to a 7 year old and start talking sexually, they should be thrown into prison, but that's not what I'm debating.

I've said it's fine to have rules (you even quoted me), but if you're using "rules" to simply silence opposing viewpoints and being philosophically inconsistent based on personal beliefs, then you're not a free speech proponent, no matter how you try to wriggle and twist words to claim you are.

Goran_K says

Germany and Japan were crushed militarily, but it was collectivism that caused them to engage in conflict in the first place. Hitler dehumanized non-aryans and used pro aryan collectivist propaganda to launch his invasion of non-aryan lands. Japan used a similar strategy.

Nope it wasn't collectivism. Collectivism is an economic organization. Strong nationalistic and racial tribalism led them to conflict. Tribalism is characterized by:
1 - in-group / out-group thinking (the nation vs enemies, the Aryan race vs Jews, etc...)
2 - reverence of the leader (prophet, fuhrer, emperor, etc...)
3 - strong common, dogmatic narratives for the group, often underlined by specific terminology ("bourgeois mentality", "collectivism")
4 - common goal (vital space, dominance, paradise, etc...)
5... etc....

Tribalism can be political (communism), it can be nationalistic (Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan are excellent examples of that), or it can be religious (cults and Islam are excellent examples).
Almost any human groups: family, company, military, church, etc... have tribal components to various degrees.

This is a moral panic.

When a group is under stress, needs to find itself more legitimacy, or is scared of a sea-change, they exaggerate a problem to create a moral panic.

From Elvis' Pelvis, to Hippies, to SATANIC METAL, to Child Daycare Abuse.

This is no different. Oh, and by the way, it's "Always different this time... Rock Promoters/Satanists/Communists are REALLY taking advantage of FREE SPEECH this time. We have to censor it in order to save the First Amendment!"

Be careful, backing the censorship by Big Tech on behalf of Legacy Media is going to make you look like a dopey flipped out Satanic Panic Mom from 1989 looks today.

Don't be a Tipper Gore!

Heraclitusstudent says

Strong nationalistic and racial tribalism

Just weasel words to try and disassociate the end product from collectivism. Smarter people won't be fooled though.

Aphroman says

Sandy Hook was a hoax!

The parents of the “dead” children are just crisis actors coming to take your guns!

Fact Check Infowars style: true

Did you hear Prince's "Darling Nikki"?

This isn't the same as Elvis' Pelvis Shaking!

It's really gonna make our kids into filthy whores and pimps!

We gotta ban it! Don't you see, idiot! It's different this time (tm)(R)!

Heraclitusstudent says

I steel manned your argument with my example of propaganda run by nazi Americans during a war against nazi.

Heraclitusstudent says

All I said is foreign enemy propaganda should typically be proscribed.

But we're not in a war. BTW, the same excuse was used with the Dixie Chicks, but at least then we had 100k's of boots on the ground in Iraq.

We don't have a quarter of a million troops deployed in the Ukraine.

There is no consensus that there is an "Enemy".

Indeed, just a few years ago, Obama told Medved to hang loose until after the Election, when he'd have more "Flexibility" and told Mitt Romney "The 80s called... want their foreign policy back." The same people who are "MUH RUSSIA" today were "Russia isn't a problem" just a few years ago.

Absent any major actual fighting between US and Russia, the best explanation is making Political Hay rather than anything Legit.

Historically, Saber Rattling is more of a problem.

Heraclitusstudent says

You want to equate this to some sort of "Baghdad Bob"?... hummm just a little bit disingenuous.

Today I heard that the Greens AND the Russians cost the Dems a victory in Ohio. Apparently everybody there is watching Sputnik and/or RT.

Also heard that the Russians are in control of Florida Elections.

Of course the point of the latter is to dismiss the result when Scott wins and the state stays mostly red.

Goran_K says

Which is fine, it's patrick's right to do so. But at least he's not doing it to silence dissenting viewpoints from his own, he's applying the rules evenly across the board which shows that he's being philosophically consistent. Those who are cheering for censorship on Alex Jones are not being ideologically consistent, which is why they can't claim to support free speech or the 1st amendment.

Free Speech is MORE than just the 1st Amendment.

It's a societal standard and deeply part of American Culture.

We're being told that Employees, on the clock, while actually in the process of performing their job, can make political statements on their boss' time.
But Content Aggregators should act as censors on Popular Channels with 2.5M+ subscribers, that have been around for years and years, really since the beginning of the internet, and are more popular than the NYT, MSNBC, and other Legacy Media Internet Channels. Apparently the customer is wrong?

If one can't see the hypocrisy in that stance, I don't know what else there is to say.