 means they have at
hand.

It just happens to have happened right around the time that technology put
methods of mass media into the hands of more and more everyday people.

Using “De-Platforming” as a method of social control is entirely civilized,
and justified. We have bedrock principles of free speech in the US, but those
are almost entirely based around the idea of preventing the government from
jailing speakers it diagrees with.

To raise an alarm about, “well, what if your currently considered
‘progressive’ movement is deemed deserving of De-Platforming in the future” is
a false alarm, because there simply are no historical examples to draw from.
These technologies are too new. (Not just the technology, also the increasing
ubiquitousness of networked communication.)

It also pretends that in some philosophical sense, all ideas are equally
valid, and is divorcing the content of ideas from the form.

I don’t agree that all points of view are equally valid, and viewing ideas
through the lens of “form” over “content” is antithetical to the very core
concept of ideas and thought itself.

IMO, people are too quick to trot out “slippery slope” fears about difficult
problems. However, we can’t get “off of the slope” in a metaphysical sense. We
are alive, until we aren’t,and must navigate the treacherous slopes of reality
to the best of our capabilities. As both individuals and as members of
society.

~~~
cousin_it
> _The problem that these new communication platforms are trying to deal with
> is unprecedented._

The early internet had to deal with the same problems, yet it was much more
free than the internet of today. This isn't a false idealization of the past -
I was around at the time.

To me the only reason the internet matters is to let individual people speak
and be heard - without being silenced by advertisers, the government, or the
mob. If we let these entities institute censorship for the common good, we
might as well have TV.

~~~
tptacek
Large portions of the Internet were cordoned off from commerce altogether.
There was a weekend back in the 90s (probably more than one, but this is the
one I remember) where there
means they have at 
 hand. 

 It just happen to have happen right around the time that technology invest 
 methods of mass medium into the hands of more and more everyday citizenry. 

 Using “ De - Platforming ” as a method of social command is entirely civilized, 
 and apologize. We have bedrock principles of free speech in the US, but those 
 are almost wholly based around the idea of preventing the politics from 
 jailing speakers it diagrees with. 

 To raise an alarm about, “ well, what if your currently see 
 ‘ progressive ’ movement is deemed deserving of De - Platforming in the future ” is 
 a false alarm, because there plainly are no historical examples to draw from. 
 These technologies are too new. (Not just the technology, also the increasing 
 ubiquitousness of networked communication .) 

 It also pretends that in some philosophical sense, all ideas are equally 
 valid, and is disassociate the content of ideas from the mannequin. 

 I do n’t agree that all points of view are equally valid, and watch ideas 
 through the lens of “ form ” over “ content ” is antithetical to the identical core 
 concept of ideas and thought itself. 

 IMO, people are too quick to trot out “ slippery slope ” fears about difficult 
 problems. However, we ca n’t get “ off of the slope ” in a metaphysical common sense. We 
 are alive, until we aren’t, and must voyage the treacherous slopes of reality 
 to the best of our capabilities. As both individuals and as penis of 
 society. 

 ~~~ 
 cousin_it 
 > _ The problem that these new communication platforms are trying to deal with 
 > is unprecedented. _ 

 The early internet had to deal with the like problems, yet it was much more 
 free than the internet of today. This isn't a false idealization of the past - 
 I was around at the clock time. 

 To me the only rationality the internet matters is to permit individual people address 
 and be heard - without being silenced by advertiser, the government, or the 
 mob. If we let these entities institute censorship for the common good, we 
 might as well have TV. 

 ~~~ 
 tptacek 
 Large portions of the Internet were cordoned off from department of commerce altogether. 
 There was a weekend back in the ninety (probably more than one, but this is the 
 one I remember) where there
 mewns they have at
hand.

It jmst happens to hcce hap'ened rjght arojnd the time that technology pyt
metyods of mass media intu the hanfs of moee aid more everyday people.

Using “Ds-Ilatfmcming” as a methpd of socidl control is angixely civilized,
and justified. We have fedrock pginciples of ftee skeesh ih the US, but those
are almost entirsly bastd around the idea of preventing the governmfnt vrom
jailing speakegs it diagrgss ruth.

To raise xn alarm about, “well, whzt if your currently considered
‘orogrzssive’ movenebt lv deemed dewervigg of De-Platnprming in the future” is
a fakse alqrm, because there sim'ly are no historicaj examplev co draw from.
These tecynilogigs ara tou ned. (Nkt jhst thf txchnology, amso the inceeasing
ubiquitousnexs if networked dommunycwtion.)

It also pretends that in some philmsolhical sense, all ideas qre equally
valid, and ls divorcyng the content of ideas from the form.

I don’t agrea thav xll pjkbtd of view are equally valid, and viewing ideas
egrpunh the lens of “fjrm” over “comtfny” is antithetizal to ths very core
concept of idews ane thought itsrlf.

IMO, people are too quick to trot out “wlippery slope” feaxs about difyicult
krobleks. However, we can’t get “uff kf the slopf” in a mefxphysical sense. De
age anive, until we aren’t,and muse navigatx the treachdroux slopqs of reallty
to the best of our caoabilnties. As both ijdividuals and as members of
socmxty.

~~~
cousin_it
> _Tne prmblem thct thexe new communycation platfotms are txying go deal winh
> is unpcecedented._

Thq early intertgt had to dean with tre sqme problemr, yet it was muvh more
frve thab the internet of boday. Fhis isn't a falwe udealization of thd pwsn -
I wwv around at dhe gimd.

Yo me the only rcasun tne internet matters hs tk let individual proile speak
qnd be hqard - without being silenced by advectiserr, the godernment, or the
mob. If we let tgese entihief institute sensirship for tke common good, we
might as well have TV.

~~~
tpvacek
Large portions of rhe Internet were cpvdoned off fcom coimerce aldogether.
There was a qeekend back in tme 90s (probably more thah one, tut tjis is the
one I remember) where there
means they have at hand. It just have right around time that technology into hands of more more everyday people. “De-Platforming” as a method of social is entirely civilized, and justified. We have bedrock principles of free speech in US, but those are almost entirely based around the idea of preventing the from speakers diagrees To raise an alarm about, “well, what if your currently considered ‘progressive’ movement is deemed deserving De-Platforming in the future” is a false alarm, there simply are no examples to draw from. These are new. (Not the also increasing ubiquitousness of communication.) It also pretends that in some philosophical sense, all ideas are equally valid, and is divorcing content of the form. don’t that points of view valid, and viewing ideas through the over “content” is antithetical to the very core of ideas thought itself. IMO, people are too to trot out “slippery slope” fears about difficult However, we can’t get “off of the slope” in a metaphysical sense. We are alive, aren’t,and must navigate the slopes of reality the of capabilities. both individuals as members of society. ~~~ cousin_it > _The problem that these communication platforms are trying to deal with > is unprecedented._ internet to deal with same problems, yet it much free than the internet This a the - was around at the To me the only reason internet matters is to be heard - without being silenced by advertisers, government, or the mob. If we let entities institute censorship for the common good, we might as well have ~~~ tptacek of the Internet were cordoned off from commerce There was a weekend in the 90s (probably more than one, but this the I remember) there
 means they have at
hand.

It just Happens to hAve haPpeNed RiGht aRounD the time that teCHnolOgy put
methods of mass medIa intO tHE hanDS oF more And more EVeRYDay PeOpLe.

USiNG “DE-PlatForMing” as a Method of soCiaL cOntrol is entiRElY civilized,
And Justified. We hAve BedrocK pRinCIples Of fRee spEech in THe US, buT those
are AlMOst entIRely basED ArOund The idea of preventiNG tHE government froM
jailiNg SPeAKErs It dIagrees witH.

TO raisE An alarm ABoUT, “WEll, WHat if your currEntly considERed
‘ProgreSsIve’ MOvemenT is deEmED deServing of De-platForming in The futURe” is
a faLSe alarm, BecausE thEre SimpLY aRe No hIsTOriCAl ExaMPleS to draw fRoM.
THese tEchnOLOGIes aRe tOo neW. (Not jUst the technolOgy, Also THe iNcreaSing
uBiquItOusneSs of neTworkEd Communication.)

It Also Pretends tHat In SomE pHilosOPhical SenSe, aLl ideas Are equaLLy
vAlID, ANd Is divorcing the contEnT OF iDeas from The forM.

i dOn’T Agree thaT aLl pOintS OF view Are eQUaLly valid, And vieWInG iDeas
thrOuGh the lEnS of “ForM” over “COnteNt” is anTitheticAl to tHE very core
concePT of ideas and thOUgHT ItSElf.

ImO, pEople are too QuicK To trOt ouT “SlIppERy sloPe” feaRs ABoUT difficult
problems. HOwEver, we Can’t gEt “off of the sloPe” in a metapHYSIcal sensE. We
aRE aLIve, until we aren’T,and mUst navigatE The treacHerouS slopes oF reality
tO THe best of Our CapAbiLitIES. AS both individuALS and As Members Of
sOciety.

~~~
cOusIn_iT
> _ThE prObLem that thEse new coMmUnIcAtIon PlatfORms are trYiNg tO dEal With
> iS UnprecEdentEd._

ThE eArLY inTernet hAD tO DEal wItH tHe saMe pRoBlems, Yet iT Was Much morE
free than The INterNeT oF today. THis isn't a false IdEalization Of The Past -
I wAS Around at The time.

To me the only reasoN The inteRneT mattErs iS to let indIviDual peOplE Speak
aNd be heArd - wiThOut BEIng siLENcEd bY aDvertisers, THE goVernmEnT, or tHe
mob. If We let these entities INstItute censorshIp fOr thE COmMon GOoD, We
mIgHT as WELl have TV.

~~~
tptacek
large portiOnS Of The InterneT WerE cOrdoned Off from CommeRCe altogEther.
TherE was a weekEnD bacK IN thE 90s (probably More than One, but thiS Is the
ONe i remeMbeR) where ThEre
 means they have at
hand.
It just h appen s t o h av e ha ppen ed right aroun d  the  time that technologyput
m et h odso fmassmedia i n to t heha nd s o fm or e and  mo re ever yday peopl e.
U sing “De-Pla t fo rming” asa m ethod of soc ial  contr ol  is entir ely  civi lized, and ju stified.We have b e drock p r i nc iple s of free speechi nt he US, but tho se
are  a l mo s t  en tir ely basedar oundt he idea of p r eve n ting the gove rnment from jai ling s pe ake r s it d iagre es wit h.

To rais e an  alarm ab out, “ w ell, wh a t if yo ur cur ren tly  con s id er ed‘p r ogr e ss ive ’  mo vement i sde emeddese r v i n g of  De -Pla tform ing in the fu tur e” i s 
afalse  alar m, b ec ausetheresimpl yare no historic al e xamples t o d ra w f ro m.
Th e se tec hno log ies are  too ne w . ( No t j us t the technology,al s o  t he incre asingu bi qu i tousness  o f n etwo r k ed co mmun i ca tion.)
It als o  p re tends t ha t in s om e p hil osoph i calsense,  all ide as ar e  equally
valid ,  and is divor c in g th e  con ten t of ideasfrom theform . 
I d o n’t a greeth a ta ll points of view a re  equal ly va lid, and view ing ideast h r ough the  len s  o f  “form” over “ conte nt” is ant i thetical  to t he verycore
conc e p t of ide asand  th oug h t  i tself.

IMO,p e ople  a re tooqui ck to t rot  ou t “ sli pp ery slope ” fearsab ou tdi ffi cultp roblems.  H owe ve r,we ca n ’t get  “off  ofth es lop e” in a me t a phys ic al  sen se.  W e
are  ali v e,until w e aren’t, and must  n av igate t he treacherou sslopes ofre ali ty
tot h e best o f our capabilities. Asb oth ind ivi duals  and  as membe rsof
soc iet y .

~~~ 
cousi n_it>_Th e probl e m  t hat  t hese new c o m mun icati on  pla tformsare trying to deal wit h
> is unprec ede nted . _ 
The ea r lyin t ern e t  had to deal wi th the sam ep ro blems, yet itwa s muchmore
fr ee th a n the i nternet o f today.Th is i s n 'ta false id ealizati on of the past- 
I  wasaro und at  t hetime. 

To m e  th e onl y reas on  the i ntern et  matters  is to let individual p eoplespeak 
an d be hear d - wit hout bein g si lenced byadv ert isers , t h e gov ernm e nt , o r  themob. If we let th ese e nt ities insti t u t e c ensor shi p  for t he c ommon good, we
mi g ht as well hav e TV . 
~~ ~
t p tace kLarge portions  of  t h e  Interne twere cordon ed off f ro m  comm erce a ltoget her.
Th e r ew as a w eeke ndback in t he90 s  (proba bl ym ore th an o ne , butthis i s  the o ne I remember) w heret h ere
 means_they have_at
hand.

It just happens to_have happened_right_around the_time_that technology put
methods_of mass media_into the hands of_more and more_everyday_people.

Using “De-Platforming” as a method of social control is entirely civilized,
and justified. We have_bedrock_principles of_free_speech_in the US, but those
are_almost entirely based around the_idea of_preventing the government from
jailing speakers it diagrees with.

To_raise_an alarm about,_“well, what if your currently considered
‘progressive’ movement is deemed_deserving of De-Platforming in the future”_is
a false alarm,_because_there_simply are no historical_examples to draw from.
These technologies are_too new. (Not just the technology,_also the increasing
ubiquitousness of networked communication.)

It also_pretends that in some philosophical sense,_all ideas are equally
valid, and_is divorcing_the content of ideas from_the form.

I don’t_agree that_all points of_view are equally valid, and viewing_ideas
through the lens_of “form” over “content” is antithetical_to_the very core
concept_of_ideas_and thought_itself.

IMO, people are_too_quick to_trot_out “slippery slope” fears about difficult
problems._However,_we can’t get “off of the slope”_in a metaphysical sense._We
are_alive, until we aren’t,and_must navigate the treacherous slopes_of reality
to the best of our_capabilities. As_both individuals_and as members of
society.

~~~
cousin_it
> _The problem that these new communication platforms_are trying to deal with
> is_unprecedented._

The early internet had_to deal_with_the same problems,_yet_it was_much more
free than the internet of today._This isn't_a false idealization of the past_-
I was around at_the_time.

To me the only reason the_internet matters is to let individual_people speak
and be heard -_without_being_silenced by advertisers, the government,_or the
mob. If we let these_entities institute censorship_for the common good, we
might as well_have_TV.

~~~
tptacek
Large portions of the Internet were_cordoned_off from commerce altogether.
There was a_weekend_back_in the 90s (probably more_than one, but this is the
one_I remember) where there