21
   

New A2K is Anti-Free Speech

 
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:10 am
@hawkeye10,
Then how come you run away from the thread each time I ask you to give examples for your nonsense?

Put up: show me an example of how the new software has caused what you claim it did.

Edit: and you too are a hypocrite for voting down and still making these nonsensical claims.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:20 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
First, I note that you consider this little dig to be more interesting than the thread topic.

No, they're about on the same level.

Brandon9000 wrote:
I would think that, as a lawyer, you would be interested in defending the ideals expressed in the Constitution.

The constitution says that congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn't say anything about internet message boards. If the government tells you to shut up, that's raises a constitutional issue; if I tell you to shut up, that doesn't.
cicerone imposter
 
  4  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:21 am
A2K is not anti-free speech; there's no restriction on what anybody can say. That's quite different from any individual wishing to avoid what somebody says.

Even in "free speech," one cannot cry out "FIRE" in a theater when there is none, because it puts many people in danger.

Nothing on a2k comes even close to those kinds of restrictions.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:23 am
@cicerone imposter,
That's an example of a real restriction on free speech because the government can punish you for it.

This is very different and is more like calling a spam filter unconstitutional.

If Brandon takes this misinterpretation of the Constitution to its logical extreme he shouldn't ignore the "unpopular" telemarketers and spammers.
Brandon9000
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:23 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

You are wasting your time Brandon, as we have already been through this topic. While a sizable portion of a2ker's are nervous there is not enough energy for a revolt, the ownership has dug in their heels and refused to change course, so the outcome has been determined. Already many of the most interesting and thought provoking members have departed or reduced activity, and this trend will continue. a2k will not attract replacements for them. I gather that this site was the go to place after Abuzz went to hell, and I suspect that many of us will eventually meet up at the next hot spot now that a2k is failing.

Your point about a lack of support of free speech is right on. Many commentators in America have pointed out that it is highly unlikely that the people who make up America in 2008 would ratify the Constitution as it is written. The speaks to how Americans have been corrupted by fear, been manipulated with fear up power games for so long that the majority no longer know any other way to live. For the majority the freedoms in the Constitution represent uncertainly and danger, it is a bad idea.

Which gets to why it was a bad idea for a2k owners to empower majority rule and to set up a system where group decisions are emotionally made on the fly. The tendency of modern majority is to choose safety and comfort over the hurly-burly of the free exchange of ideas. It is not by accident that the level of discourse in general society has become a shadow of what we once had, back when America was the home of the free man who was determined to stay free. The old a2k with its energetic discussions and cultural clashes was an aberration, and that aberration has been fixed.

Well, if you do run into another good message board, let me know. It's sad how quickly posts intended to present ideas are converted into attacks on individuals here.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:25 am
@Brandon9000,
This is rich, now you are looking for a board that censors attacks.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:25 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
First, I note that you consider this little dig to be more interesting than the thread topic.

No, they're about on the same level.

Brandon9000 wrote:
I would think that, as a lawyer, you would be interested in defending the ideals expressed in the Constitution.

The constitution says that congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn't say anything about internet message boards. If the government tells you to shut up, that's raises a constitutional issue; if I tell you to shut up, that doesn't.

My point is that the philosophy underlying the Constitution is that minority opinions should have equal access to expression.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:26 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

My point is that the philosophy underlying the Constitution is that minority opinions should have equal access to expression.


Unless the opinion is that you are a hypocrite or liar? Why don't you support that?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:26 am
@cicerone imposter,
So, what does yelling "fire" in a crowded theater have to do with expressing a minority opinion? My original point was that you can say what you like here, within the bounds of the TOS, but that opinions voted down become less visible, and that people will certainly vote posts down merely because they don't agree with the opinions expressed.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:28 am
@Brandon9000,
So why did you vote posts down hypocrite?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:32 am
@Robert Gentel,
The government can punish us for many things that may be arkaik or asenine. Many laws are even an invasion of our privacy. We are restricted from using our cell phones in our cars if they are hand-held; and yes, they can "punish" us for breaking that law.

Many restaurants now restrict the use of cell phones as does many theaters; the punishment is that they can choose not to serve you or throw you out of the theater. It depends on which side of arkaik or asenine one wishes to stand.
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:34 am
@cicerone imposter,
The majority should have as little ability as possible to prevent or make it difficult for minority opinions to be expressed.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:39 am
@Brandon9000,
Can I shout "FIRE" here when there are 730 people online? Just a test people, don't rush for the exits.

What if I was the only one online?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:41 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
My point is that the philosophy underlying the Constitution is that minority opinions should have equal access to expression.

A2K has taken the same sort of "open marketplace of ideas" approach to free speech that Justice Holmes alluded to in Abrams v. US. Users have always been able to ignore posts -- we just now have a mechanism for doing it. Likewise, users have always been able to express their disapproval of certain posts or posters -- we just now have a mechanism for doing that too.

I haven't noticed a marked dropoff in the number of conservative posters on this forum. Some have left, but no more than the number of liberals. I attribute that mostly to the change in the format, not to any change in attitudes. If there has been any increased hostility toward conservatives, I haven't seen it. And if conservative posts are getting more "thumbs down" than liberal ones, maybe that has more to do with the generally poor quality of the conservatives on this forum rather than any animosity toward right-wing views in general.
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:42 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
My point is that the philosophy underlying the Constitution is that minority opinions should have equal access to expression.

A2K has taken the same sort of "open marketplace of ideas" approach to free speech that Justice Holmes alluded to in Abrams v. US. Users have always been able to ignore posts -- we just now have a mechanism for doing it. Likewise, users have always been able to express their disapproval of certain posts or posters -- we just now have a mechanism for doing that too.

I haven't noticed a marked dropoff in the number of conservative posters on this forum. Some have left, but no more than the number of liberals. I attribute that mostly to the change in the format, not to any change in attitudes. If there has been any increased hostility toward conservatives, I haven't seen it. And if conservative posts are getting more "thumbs down" than liberal ones, maybe that has more to do with the generally poor quality of the conservatives on this forum rather than any animosity toward right-wing views in general.

Do you not believe that people will, with significant frequency, vote down posts merely because they disagree with the ideas expressed?
caribou
 
  7  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:46 am
@Brandon9000,
huh, hello, the majority does not have the ability to prevent or make it difficult for minority opinions to be expressed.

You can express them all you want.
We just don't have to read it.... much like the last a2k.

Did you know we can all change our sorting methods?
And that the voting is not affecting Google?

Are you just pouting that your minority opinions aren't popular?
yea, that wouldn't be minority opinions if they were popular, right?

Face it, no one is stopping you from expressing your opinions and anyone who wants to find them or hear them is doing so.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:55 am
@Brandon9000,
The so-called "majority" are individuals who can vote their preference. You can express any opinion you wish on a2k or most any place else. That people can choose to listen or not listen is "their" choice - isn't it?
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:57 am
@caribou,
caribou wrote:

huh, hello, the majority does not have the ability to prevent or make it difficult for minority opinions to be expressed.

You can express them all you want.
We just don't have to read it.... much like the last a2k.

Did you know we can all change our sorting methods?
And that the voting is not affecting Google?

Are you just pouting that your minority opinions aren't popular?
yea, that wouldn't be minority opinions if they were popular, right?

Face it, no one is stopping you from expressing your opinions and anyone who wants to find them or hear them is doing so.

First of all, even in my current sort by time (new posts) choice, posts with low vote counts are collapsed into the caption "voted down."

Secondly, regarding the new option to sort by popularity, someone may desire to see and hear only ideas that he agrees with, and it's his right to do so, but to enable him by creating a specific mechanism for it is not a good thing.

Certainly no one's post is made completely invisible when it's voted down, but this design will have the effect of giving minority views less visiblity than majority ones, which is not something we should be trying to do.
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:58 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

The so-called "majority" are individuals who can vote their preference. You can express any opinion you wish on a2k or most any place else. That people can choose to listen or not listen is "their" choice - isn't it?

Yes, it certainly is, but when they vote a post down, it will become less visible for others too.
Izzie
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:58 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Do you not believe that people will, with significant frequency, vote down posts merely because they disagree with the ideas expressed?


Hey...

Nope... I don't believe that statement. In fact... I don't post down topics that I disagree with the ideas expressed - I am more like to read them and keep and eye on them and perhaps even learn from them (heck!) - tho, I doubt I would participate in them unless I felt strongly about the subject. I'm not American - I don't really watch your politics (sorry) so I would more likely vote the political "discussions" down as.... they don't interest me. Same goes with cooking.... it doesn't interest me - doesn't mean I disagree with it.

If I see a topic which may absolutely disgust me, wind me up or makes me shudder - I wouldn't post it down unless I found it "uninteresting".

Whether that is the purpose of the voting up and down is neither here nor there to me. A2K is as much "my" forum as anyone elses and I believe, newly designed in order to suit the "person veiwing it". Perhaps I am wrong... if I am, so what?

What I don't understand (being totally ignorant, naturally) - is... why do people stay on the forum if it p*sses them off so much.

Personally, I love it - if there's some changes that I don't like - well, too bad on me I guess -

but....

posting topics down just because I disagree with something...

errrrrrrr.... nope..... not me!







(and I am one of the minority topic"ers".... but I 'aint shedding tears over it....!)







edit: oh.... for the record... this is maybe the first time I have posted on a topic I felt UPPITY about - yay! Shocked
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Oh My God - Discussion by cjhsa
Is free speech an illusion? - Question by Angelgz2
Does freedom of speech excuse preaching hate? - Discussion by izzythepush
Time To Boycott EA games? - Discussion by RexRed
Four Dead In O-Hi-O - Discussion by realjohnboy
respect or free speech? - Discussion by dyslexia
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/25/2021 at 01:27:52