arisuchan    [ tech / cult / art ]   [ λ / Δ ]   [ psy ]   [ ru ]   [ random ]   [ meta ]   [ all ]    info / stickers     temporarily disabledtemporarily disabled

/cyb/ - cyberpunk and cybersecurity

low life. high tech. anonymity. privacy. security.

formatting options

Password (For file deletion.)

Help me fix this shit.

Kalyx ######

File: 1499544725280.png (102.21 KB, 500x429, tumblr_mrw34wcZrm1swqc4eo1….png)


A lot of people commonly conceive free speech simply as the right essentially for everyone to say one's view, in any space without restriction, that there be no private spaces.

Now that conception of free speech is very intuitive and understandable, since one of the important and valuable thing about free speech is that no authority or value is free from criticism .
But i feel it is a incomplete conception, it's not so much that it's wrong, but that it is too simple, abstract and while it is intuitive, it leads to very counter intuitive conclusions.

The state of affairs where anyone can say anything in any space sounds desirable, but leads to a situation where most dissent and minority voices are drowned out so to speak in a constant static unable to productively make there voice heard , the voices that come to be heard will inevitably be the ones that appeal to the lowest common denominator and prejudices of largest blocs of opinion. In a space like this free speech will not last for long, those not of the monopoly opinion will either give up out of frustration or be hounded out.

Am i saying that theses spaces should not exist or that there useless? No, am simply saying is that are common conception is not enough, we need to develop it to be more concrete and nuanced. The kind of spaces where anyone can express there views are important and should be defended but there not the whole story.

The right to free speech should not JUST be the right to say one's view, but for everyone to be able to express there views in a way that is productive and let's even dissent and minority views be heard.
Along with the spaces where everyone can express there view there should exist spaces of expression that belong to all views where people of that view can express there view without being drowned out and can talk about it in space where with others of that view without fear of coercion.

These two kind of spaces where views are expressed need each other, without the other your either get a situation where no dissent or minority views is heard and on the other hand you get a situation where everyone is just stays in there own little holes.

Free speech is a careful balance of these two spaces.


Firstly, the fuark does this have to do with cyberpunk and cybersecurity? Your little treatise is very broad and doesn't specifically touch on anything cyber.

Secondly, all you've basically said can be summed up with:
>Along with the spaces where everyone can express there view there should exist spaces of expression that belong to all views where people of that view can express there view without being drowned out and can talk about it in space where with others of that view without fear of coercion.
Yeah, so? What's your point? Everyone understands this already (at least I hope), it's a moot point.

Of course people should be allowed to say what they want, even when it goes against the majority. Of course there need to be places where people can have civil discussion in addition to places that allow for verbal warfare. I agree completely.

What I don't understand is why would you write this up? It sounds pretentious and stupid to me. Brevity is the soul of wit. This means don't waste my time. I don't understand how your post can lead to any discussion beyond the typically autistic free speech debate that goes on all the time.

I don't understand why you started a thread about this. I'm pretty sure all cyber oriented people would agree with your statement. The only thing I can think of is that you wanted to show off your little rumination.


File: 1499552017849.png (313.05 KB, 701x394, HCU64O9.png)

>Brevity is the soul of wit. This means don't waste my time.



I disagree though.
Sure, if you have a small community that you run, then it's your business what people say there, but in the larger scope this is complete soykaf.
If someone thinks your opinion is trash then you can't force them to listen to you.


The reason it's broad is that I wanted to leave room for discussion and debate.

It might not be in its self a "cyber" thing, but it's important for internet communities and I didn't want to derail somebody's thread, so I made this thread.

There is a sizable group of people on the internet who think people making spaces where certain things aren't allowed counts as censorship or thought control, I wanted to have a discussion with these people and understand why they have there positions.

You say it stupid and pretensions, if it is I didn't mean to, I just wanted to understand people, I don't think I know a lot and I didn't want to pretend I knew a lot, I started this thread because I felt I didn't know much and I wanted to see if anyone had anything interesting to say.


I wanted to write response to this thread but in middle of writing I had some urgent stuff to do and did not actually reply.

I see what your getting here, and that is trend that public discussion should be moderated so that minority groups that have different opinion get their voice heard. Safespace and that kind of stuff.

While I kind of agree, I don't think it is ever possible to be in same time critical and entirely objective. Let me explain: There will be always some dominant world view, common sense or folklore knowledge whatever you want to call it - so free speech as absolute positive concept is impossible; if you want to have discussion you need to either take partisan position or conform to dominant discourse. So every critique of that dominant view is in its essence subjective, and it should be presented as that (purely subjective interest of some group). And this is what is the core problem of this form of moderation it wants to present this fight of some minority group for their right of expression (for example homosex) as something that is objectively right while in reality it represents interest of small minority. If any progressive movement (in sense that it wants to change dominant discourse) wants to be real force in society it has to include all parts of it. This is why communist movement was successful in mobilizing masses, it was presented as interest of group that is majority of society (class that exchanges its work for money) and not some small group defined by some purely accidental properties like skin color. That is why solidarity is answer, realizing common interest in pushing some idea of equality based not on dividing properties like skin color, but properties that unite (i.e. we are all workers)

Mind you this is not some general view on problem that states that we should not fight for interest of minority groups but problem of TACTICS and STRATEGY and impossibility of that fight if it excludes most of people and just leads to frustration in majority.


>trying to tell me what my free speech should and should not be
Come and take it.


I am not your enemy, i don't want to tell you what your free speech should be, i want to find out what it actually is, if we can't find that out then how can you know if your just fighting for phantoms.

Not everyone who disagrees with you or opposes you is a enemy, treating all dissent views as hostile will only hurt you in the long run.


I'm not sure I understand how or why both of these conditions are necessary for free speech. You talk a lot about the dominant world view, and how minorities get drowned out, but the truth of today's world is that we don't have any public (I mean that in the sense of government, not a private corporation) place, free of moderation/censorship where everybody (how you choose to interpret that term, I leave to you, whether it be citizens, humans, or people from a specific group) can voice their opinion in an intelligent manner without fear of coercion (the free speech side) or attack (the safespace side).
Our largest "public" (in the sense that the internet allows for them to exist) forums are owned by corporations (Facebook, Reddit) with explicit goals of increasing user activity. This means that they are heavily moderated and there are limits to what you can say.

I've gone on quite a tangent, but I guess my argument is that we lack the space for intelligent unmoderated discussion period. Before we decide which half of the space we're missing, I think we need an open forum for dialogue on the scale you're talking about. Once such a place exists, we can discuss whether it needs sections which are more heavily moderated to allow for the minority voice to be heard, or less moderation so that there isn't fear of censorship.

In the lack of the existence of such a space, I believe it is a contrived argument you are making. We don't know whether such a place would inevitably lead to only the lowest common denominator "being heard", and minorities being left out. Besides, people seek to have their opinion reinforced, whether they be from the majority or minority, and you cannot force either to listen to the other.

I agree with you. You cannot force people to listen to you, and people already look for echo chambers. Even if we assume the existence of this space, people are free to ignore whatever they please and accept whatever they want. Being drowned out is no reason for silence.


What do you mean by "drowning out"?
If you mean "more people talking about a topic that another" then that's kind of how it goes. Otherwise there would be no majority opinions.


> A lot of people commonly conceive free speech simply as the right essentially for everyone to say one's view, in any space without restriction, that there be no private spaces.

this is such a ridiculous stupid strawman. people thinking this make me very sad.



Except that IRL a select group gets to say whatever it fucking wants (the establishment) while the rests get soft-censored through ban and deletion (unlike old timey hard-censorship that got you arrested or killed)

Go to any major platform and you'll see some are being censored while others aren't even if the content they make is decidedly more offensive and their attitudes far more confrontative

The double-standards are quite obvious

You talk about noise and trolls but all I see is that there is still noise

There are still trolls

But the ones getting censored are those who DARE to criticize


"Free speech" specifically forbids governments from interfering with your freedom of expression, provided that you don't step on someone's toes in a way that goes against the law. It doesn't keep webmasters from deleting your soykaf and kickban you for soykafty behavior.


>minority voices need to be heard!

>so take away free speech and allow whoever's in control to police what those same "minorities" can say!

You're a moron dude. Fuck off back, way back to /leftypol/, there is no hope for you to ever be intelligent.


File: 1506303710657.jpg (5.56 KB, 64x64, image.jpg)

Is this the true face of communism?


something something your rights end where my feelings begin […]

Free speech isn't the problem. It's fine as the concept is defined. It's the people that are the problem and the constant media agenda brainwashing thats been going on for generations. The mention of anything that isn't accepted by the current establishment causes an immediate knee-jerk reaction in most people. They never think about the concepts discussed or conceive ever discussing them in a rational manner. They simply know it is something they must disagree with. They are not interested in discussion, or argue rationally as their brains simply shut off at the mere mention of something they're conditioned to dislike.

Today, as with most of history, free speech is impossible and will continue to be so for the forseeable future. This generation doesn't seem to grasp the concept and theres little hope for the next. I didn't go into any details regarding the subjects of these reactions intentionally. For now all that those of you, who value free speech, can do is keep your heads down and your mouths shut untill you are in a decisive position to change something. We have had plenty of examples of what happens to the people that like to go out of line.

As for this thread, it's either extremely misguided or uninformed. I realize you're attempting to gouge opinions and create discussion, however either are unnecessary. You can understand all that is needed simply through reading newspapers, watching the news on tv and observing surface net online communities on redit and facebok. Looking to alter definitions of things, and moulding yourself into a shape, to satisfy an increasingly insane population is precisely whats expected of you. Don't fall into that trap.


But that's not free speech?

Wikipedia is more accurate than you
>Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.
>social sanction


File: 1506319189681-0.jpg (158.14 KB, 1685x474, dual_screen_wallpaper__384….jpg)

Go check out the actual hearing of Bill C-16 in Canada. If your interested in seeing the seeds of the death of "free-speech"


>social sanction
Oh. Okay then, no chances of free speech for a lot of us.


Good to know you can soykafpost on arisuchan if you have left oriented opinions.

Yeah the original idea is beyond deprecated by now. I try to rely on achieving my goals without actually expressing any opinions or ideas, at least for now. I guess many people don't share my methods, and their only chance at fulfillment is trying to change the status quo. I pity them but it's not my business. I'm prepared to live in the world of tomorrow, whether it's the same as this one, or some commie bread line cannibalistic early USSR like hellscape. At least it'll be something new.

What I think about this entire thread: If your opinion is drowned out by bullsoykaf, then your opinion is just part of the bullsoykaf. So if you're pushing a bullsoykaf agenda, don't be surprised when people call it out for being bullsoykaf.


I looked it up… seems to me that it just labels gender expression as protected under anti-discrimination laws. What does this have to do with free speech?


here in klanada, we have a law on the books that prohibits hate speech against certain protected categories (ethnicity, religion, &c), and the bill basically just adds transgendered people to the list. Even as a queer person and friend of trans people myself, I think that this is a terrible idea because it
1. turns the concept of hate speech into a legislative object, which isn't right at all, and
2. is vague enough to be interpreted at will by the judi system, which reeks of potential for overreach.


>>1672 (cont.)
on the other hand, right-wing fear mongers are acting like C-16 is somehow the death of free speech even though it's a minor modification of a law that has existed for decades and already violated the principle of free speech. Y'all know these Tory morons are only mad cos it's about trans people. They would ban free speech their own way if they could.


>whether it's the same as this one, or some commie bread line cannibalistic early USSR like hellscape
>At least it'll be something new
Oh lol. As if you knew something new when it hit you in the face. Right now communism shouldn't be your main concern. Actually, scratch that, for the past thirty years communism shouldn't have been a concern for people, yet the battle rages on, breeding the terrific examples of crybaby "left" around the world.

The problem is not the left, or the right, or the lgbtabcxyz, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or Trump, or General Lee. The problem is that most sides just believe themselves to be invariably correct, which is, in itself, idiocy, unless we speak about the roundness of the Moon. Oh, wait, a rapper, of all people, wants to finance a rocket to space to prove that wrong.

Communication is the problem. And the idea of silently marching forward without even trying to show how your views are different just reinforces the crowd instinct in everybody around who, under other circumstances, would also show their own true views and opinions. We like to be a heard, and it's hard to step out of the trance, but we believe in you, lainon. You can stop being three monkeys in one human.


I understand and agree with you, but I'm not planning on expending energy to preach my opinions. You and others like you, do it for me. Thanks. And as I stated, whether tomorrow is like today, or a close minded society where new ideas are frowned upon, I don't care. I clearly have a preference, but I came to the conclusion that investing effort into it is pointless.


The problem with C-16 is compelled speech, not a ban on it.

If you are forced to say something, are you really free to think about it?


I get the impression that you don't think popularity indicates anything important. What's popular is generally what most people are interested in. There is some influence on this from media outlets. However, if you create a platform where all these minority views are given equal footing most people will not be interested, thus solving nothing.

There are already communities and websites setup around these alternative views most of the time. They have their own spaces that are just not in the public eye. Rather than trying to make a table big enough for everyone to sit at, using a central platform to direct people to the places these issues are already talked about might be better.


Forcing people to say something is an entirely different beast compared to simply banning particular words. Both are a violation of free speech but one is far more grievous beyond any shadow of a doubt

[Return] [Go to top] [ Catalog ] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]