Real Chilling Effects
185 comments
·March 10, 2025huijzer
> A couple of weeks ago, students asked we keep the discussions, but stop recording the class. They worried about any record of their words that might be viewed as criticism of the current administration, and somehow weaponized against them.
Words being weaponized is a problem that exists for multiple years now in the US. From the free press [1]:
"To give a sense of proportion, only three professors were fired or forced out of schools over something they said in the post-9/11 panic. The modern era of cancel culture (2014 to present), by contrast, has resulted in almost 200 professor terminations. That exceeds even the standard estimate of 100 professors terminated in the second Red Scare (1947 to 1957)."
[1]: https://www.thefp.com/p/american-colleges-gave-birth-to-canc...
styxfrix
Where does Free Press source the claim that 200 professors were fired due to cancel culture? I looked on the site because I want to see the actual reasons the professors were fired (reasons can be justified) but could not find them. The linked The Fire website displays zero results for filtering by "Outcome is Termination"
evanelias
They said "sense of proportion" and then proceeded to omit the denominator, presumably because it would contradict their overblown point. The number of college professors in the US has by far more than doubled since the 1950s, so they're essentially saying "cancel culture" is much less impactful than the Red Scare.
archagon
I’m surprised it even needs to be said, but the government arbitrarily revoking visas (and, eventually, citizenships) for speech and behavior unpalatable to the regime is far worse than firings related to social media outrage. Cancel culture will not cause your entire life to get uprooted or get you thrown in some ICE blacksite. And however you may feel about social pressure, cultural compliance enforced by an elite embedded in the government is a much bigger threat to our freedoms.
null
acdha
The “cancel culture” scare was a marketing campaign designed to elect right-wing politicians, not a serious free speech movement. You can note how many of the people involved have been silent or even expressed enthusiasm for the speech of their political opponents being stifled now.
gizzlon
Absolutely! But it was quite limited, to colleges etc. Now it's potentially all of US government employees. And, I assume, most of the private ones ?
So .. basically everyone in the US.
Maybe also people working for US companies abroad? Some of them did at least shut down DEI initiatives in Europe, so not so far fetched to think it is/will affect who they hire? "Oh, this candidate was outspoken against Trump on social media" . Of course, many places this will be seen as a good thing, so maybe it evens out, outside of the US.
ajd555
very good itemization of what's happening, thank you for doing this. Unfortunately, one very important bullet point was missing: the world's richest man and arguably most influential in the white house controls a large internet satellite constellation and has acquired tremendous geopolitical power, even before having the president's ear. This is the single biggest threat out there I believe, as he has already had an impact on the Ukrainian front, and world leaders continue to placate him in fear of Starlink service being cut off in their country. I still don't understand how a private american company was allowed to obtain such geopolitical power, but this is by the far the most worrying point that needs to be brought up a lot more
kragen
Basically, countries where private people are allowed to build things like Falcon and Starlink progress technologically and economically, and countries where they aren't progress, if at all, much more slowly. Instead, they suffer a brain drain of those people and then have to rely on the freer countries for things like communications services and weapons.
This article is about the US changing which group of countries it belongs to, much as China did 40 years ago. So you are likely to get your wish in the sense that US companies will probably not be allowed to build such things anymore, because they might pose a threat to King JD's power.
OgsyedIE
There's a multi-decadal controversy in sociology and political science over whether some countries are forced to adopt the regressive approach because of structural geographic factors they can't control (such as low population density or aggressive neighbours) or whether every country has a choice. The US definitely has a choice, FWIW.
[edit] Of course the anthropomorphization I've used here isn't a completely serious representation of states, they are a mass of interconnected people and not individual agents, but the metaphor is a valuable shortcut.
kragen
The US isn't a consciousness, so I think it's not meaningful to ascribe choices to it. Admittedly, I kind of did in my comment! But the reality is that these changes in course are the emergent outcomes of interactions between factions with different interests influenced by individuals with different interests and the memes that are most fecund, not the choices of a shadowy puppetmaster pulling the strings from behind the scenes like a Civ 5 player. That's why it's so common for societies to take obviously self-destructive courses of action.
immibis
Do they? Pay in Europe is lower, but life is a lot nicer. If you aren't chasing the numbers and you aren't host to an American strain of brainwashing that makes you think it's the only free country, life in Europe is better.
kragen
It probably depends on what your personal situation is in Europe.
One country in Europe is currently being invaded by another European country†, resulting so far in about a million casualties and 16 million refugees. Both countries have established conscription and prohibited emigration for military-age men.
To me this seems like a bigger determinant of how nice life is than anything related to either pay or the level of economic and technological development. Perhaps you disagree.
______
† Some might debate whether it's a European country, because much of its territory is in Asia. However, its capital, currently on fire due to large-scale drone attacks last night, is the largest city in Europe, and most of its population is in Europe.
ajd555
> I still don't understand how a private american company was allowed to obtain such geopolitical power
Interesting way to see this, as you immediately went to a zero-sum approach of winner takes all, and the other countries must be brain dead. What I meant in this case was, how did the EU not foresee this and dramatically ramp up their internet satellite capabilities. Arguably, the answer is simple, as this was a rhetorical question: the EU approached this topic as they did a lot of things recently - no action, lots of regulation and facing the consequences or said inaction right now
kragen
A lot of that regulation was justified precisely by appealing to the principle that private companies should not be allowed to build things that would give them such power.
I don't think it's either a winner-take-all situation or a zero-sum one.
guelo
The countries that allowed things like Starlink to be built also had regulations to protect democracy from the power of money, such as media ownership rules, campaign finance laws and high marginal income taxes. Those have all been swept aside.
kragen
It isn't clear that democracy is a prerequisite. The UK was a monarchy, albeit a parliamentary one, in the 19th century. The PRC was a one-party state with strictly limited political freedom in the period 01980–02015. Germany in the late 19th and early 20th century was a monarchy. Taiwan was a single-party state under martial law. Freedom of entrepreneurship and the resulting industrialization is clearly not dependent on democracy.
jajko
No worries various groups will create or increase their own space investments. Nothing spacex did was a miracle just well executed engineering, despite an whimsical idiot steering it from far enough.
Correction globally will take some time, but it will be a permanent one. You don't develop your own space program to scrape it in few years. Europe is there with pretty healthy space program, China may become more open to others, India is way beyond initial successful steps. Reusable rockets are great when they work, but again thats just (at this point well tested) engineering.
China just needs to sit and smile how US is handling them global leadership one big chunk a day. Maybe in 4 years we can send elon permanently on mars with 8 billion middle fingers raised as a 'salute', to start future setup that The expanse showed us or to die there miserably.
M95D
> Nothing spacex did was a miracle just well executed engineering
There were so many failures that I wouldn't call it "well executed". More like "work hard until it happens to succeed".
lotsofpulp
> I still don't understand how a private american company was allowed to obtain such geopolitical power,
No one else wanted to spend the money to sustain the organization needed to put those satellites in service.
It’s that simple. GPS is there because someone spent sufficient money developing it.
null
slimebot80
I feel many of us in the IT world have stood along side this descent in real time, because technology has been an enabler (far from being an equaliser). We were mostly mute because of money and traction.
jajko
Look how elon was worshipped here, long after his mental issues, massive ego and racist south African nepo kid upbringing started coming out with force.
I find it very shortsighted to substract features from personalities of successful visible people that one likes and (selectively) ignore the rest. Why the heck, adult people don't like absolute truths and don't understand those are inseparable parts of a single whole?
elon is a fascist pos, gates is probably a pedophile/hebephile (epstein) pos, so is clinton and orange man, all good epstein's friends. Jobs was a horrible person. Yes they did or are doing some good, but above is still valid. And so on and on.
OgsyedIE
Elon's track record with effective management in the first decade of SpaceX was genuinely impressive and led to bullish misunderstandings about the rest of his career (and is still impressive today even after accounting for every other part of his character and contemporary drug use). The guy running the country today doesn't have the impulse control or intellectual curiosity to accomplish the stuff he used to accomplish.
The best generic explanation I've read on this phenomenon is the article "Shallow Feedback Hollows You Out" by Midjourney's Ivan Vendrov:
https://nothinghuman.substack.com/p/shallow-feedback-hollows...
acdha
I also wonder how much of that was his working relationship with Shotwell. Nationally it looks like he doesn’t have anyone he trusts who can tell him when he’s making a mistake or redirect him towards a more useful use of his time. I’d believe that much of the credit for SpaceX is really a team of people he met early enough that there’s no way to replicate that relationship.
It’s a different context but I’m reminded of how George Lucas’ work got a lot worse after his divorce from Marcia Lucas, who was not only a very talented film editor in her own right but also apparently unique for having the ability to get him to actually listen to constructive criticism.
jajko
Impressive it may have been, but he is still firmly in pos camp. Hitler (if I really have to go full Godwin) was a decent painter, loyal friend to those few close to him and a dog lover. Amon Goeth may have been a great manager too, at least from certain perspective. Who cares?
Having or applying flexible morality is a very slippery slope to no morality. I mean we're not discussing some academical theory but real situation and real person. People are shocked in recent weeks, I am not just mildly disappointed. The signs were there.
Just to be clear - with such brutal logic many sport folks become undefendable. Or generally famous people. For good reasons. I am fine with that, no need to desperately put people on pedestals which are temporary at best, the whole idea of desperately looking upon somebody is fine in childhood but adults should know better.
huijzer
Will Durant and his wife have spent multiple decades writing history books. One of their observations was that technology creates inequality, see the book Lessons of History.
Having said that, I still think technology has been a net positive. Just imagine living in 1900. It would take months to go from Europe to the US. Medicine was able to cure almost nothing. What we consider simple diseases now would be deadly back then. And you can forget about watching or listening your favorite musicians online. Also, imagine driving with a modern car into a 1900s village. People would be in shock.
JohnFen
> I still think technology has been a net positive.
I stopped thinking this a decade or so ago. I now think that technology has become a net negative.
Yes, it brings huge benefits as you note. The problem as I see it is that it now brings even larger drawbacks as well.
huijzer
You rather live in 1900? Or pay $100k for 8 kW of solar panels (1974 price) instead of $2k? Or pay orders of magnitude more money for slow computers?
samiv
It's worth to keep in mind that it took only about 2 years for this one guy from Austria to remove the final backstops the society had in place before until he was able to become the supreme leader in the 1930's.
2 years.
What has been hard won and fought over can easily be lost very fast and the only way to regain it will be through blood and violence.
OgsyedIE
53 days, surely? The gleischaltung had finishing disbarring every non-NSDAP lawyer, firing every non-NSDAP judge, firing every state governor and seizing a voting majority in every state legislature in less than two months after the Enabling Act was passed.
samiv
I mean the time frame in which he took his party from nothing to the second biggest in the parliament and then got himself promoted from the party leader to Chancellor. Of course then the ultimate power was then seized rapidly as you say once he was already selected as the Chancellor.
bananapub
Yet to see any of the Free Speech Absolutists come out in defence of actual free speech and against the tyranny of far right lunatics running the federal government, weirdly enough.
pixelpoet
I'm wondering when the well-armed militia (that's been the excuse for countless shootings) designed to revolt against tyrannical government is going to even say anything. Or is it perhaps, that those guns and gun-culture are for something else...
nobodywillobsrv
People forget what free speech really is though. The most important point is a contract with the government: that they hold a monopoly on the ability to censor and control speech. That any other group who threatens anyone for their speech must be dealth with using even hand of the force of law by the government/legal regime.
Mobs suppressing your free speech is never ok. It is a sign of a government that is no longer in power.
It is unclear exactly what these students are worried about ... the details should be provided. Are they discussing the organization of violent resistance for example? Or are they merely worried that simple discussion of government policy will somehow land them in jail. The latter seems ridiculous but it is worth hearing them out in detail.
And somehow in all of this, people on one side are forgetting the numerous attempts at assasination. And the successful assasination of a CEO. Regardless of your political angles, the risk is severaly one sided by any empirical measure right now. To dismiss this is to remove yourself from serious discussion.
kolektiv
"Give me the man and I will give you the case against him" [0]
It isn't that they're discussing anything which would traditionally be considered risky or out of bounds - that's the whole point. It's that they're discussing anything to do with an organisation which has made it quite clear that if it disagrees with you, it will find some way to make your life miserable. Even if it doesn't disagree with you today, who knows what it will disagree with tomorrow? This is the absolute classic way of instilling fear in a population, the original chilling effect - when you don't know what will be forbidden tomorrow, better to say nothing today.
Your latter point on assassination attempts is also very odd. It conflates some broadly disconnected things (an actual attempt on a presidential candidate) with an apparent murder based on political views, two unrelated but very direct consequences which you could perhaps correlate through the types of people targeted. On the other hand you completely ignore the wider systemic violence inherent in stripping people of jobs, healthcare, social security, etc. Do you think those actions will have no consequences? That no deaths will result? Just because a chain of action might have more than one link, doesn't mean the consequences can be dismissed.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_the_man_and_I_will_giv...
throw0101b
> "Give me the man and I will give you the case against him" [0]
And in the opposite direction as well, where someone is probably guilty of something and prosecution is held back if they're on the 'right side', e.g.:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_U.S._Department_of_Justic...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigations_into_the_Eric_A...
People think of authoritarianism as going after someone, which was prevalent in the 20th century; but it can also be protecting (and enriching) your friends, which has become popular in 21st century regimes.
flir
> It is unclear exactly what these students are worried about
> They worried about any record of their words that might be viewed as criticism of the current administration, and somehow weaponized against them.
hth.
paulryanrogers
> And somehow in all of this, people on one side are forgetting the numerous attempts at assasination. And the successful assasination of a CEO.
Has the side you're thinking of pardoned the (would be/alleged) assassins? Or perhaps mounted a coup attempt, blamed others for failing to suppress it sooner, then called it a "day of love"?
XorNot
This is literally not what free speech is as defined in the US Constitution.
Constitutionally protected speech is speech criticising or commenting on the government, and defines the right of citizens to do so.
The government has never had a reaponsibility to ensure all speech is heard, it certainly is not granted a monopoly on power of censorship (again, literally the opposite - no one else has to grant you a platform, but the government cannot take it away), and if you're worried about the power of "the mob" then you really should've worried more when the Supreme Court ruled the police had no duty to protect citizens.
llamaimperative
> People forget what free speech really is though. The most important point is a contract with the government: that they hold a monopoly on the ability to censor and control speech. That any other group who threatens anyone for their speech must be dealth with using even hand of the force of law by the government/legal regime
WHAT?
This is literally the EXACT OPPOSITE of free speech, at least as it is defined in America. The 1st Amendment SPECIFICALLY AND SOLELY prevents the government from putting its thumb on the scales.
Private parties are necessarily allowed to respond to speech with whatever other speech they wish to use, including utilizing their rights to free association (or non-association) in response to what you say.
This is absolutely 100% backwards. I highly suggest reading some basic American civics material or something.
the_gipsy
> Mobs suppressing your free speech is never ok
Of course it is sometimes ok. There is no absolute here. It's neither always nor never. If it's never okay, then it is "tyranny of the majority". If it is always ok, then it is "minority rule".
alabastervlog
1) Are we pretending the two assassination attempts were by left-wingers now, in addition to all the rest of the pretending? Trump gave them permission, anyway. I mean he had a different candidate in mind, but still.
2) The CEO thing was popular across the board, not just with democrats. Health insurance companies are that bad. Everyone who’s not taking their bribes hates them, and I mean hares. Also: again, not a left winger, so yes, I agree with you that right wingers should be regarded as dangerous.
mentalgear
> Peter Baker, the New York Times White House correspondent, compared the current moment to his time at Russia at the beginning of the Putin era:
> By the time we left in late 2004, Moscow had been transformed. People who had happily talked with us at the start were now afraid to return our calls. “Now I have this fear all the time,” one told us at the time. There is a similar chill now in Washington. Every day someone who used to feel free to speak publicly against Mr. Trump says they will no longer let journalists quote them by name for fear of repercussions, both Democrats and Republicans
suraci
I'm very curious about why americans always use examples from China and Russia to describe something shit happening in the USA
> Some compared the atmosphere to Maoist China, so great were the chilling effects.
i mean, americans have their own history - it's short but it's remarkable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
In China, when something like this happens, some people shout, "Are we going back to the Cultural Revolution?!"
Why Americans don't talk about McCarthyism?
"Are we going back to the McCarthyism???"
Nobody ever said this
nonrandomstring
If even half of this is true, I wonder what the future of HN is? THis forum is backed by Ycombinator, a US based "investment" company. Do they have plans to relocate to friendlier climes?
silvestrov
I see an even bigger problem with Wikipedia.
How long time will it be before they are pressured to censor or change articles?
Will they even have the power to move?
mcintyre1994
Wikipedia is already a target. The Heritage Foundation (who wrote Project 2025) is planning to identify and doxx editors. Reported by Forward who obtained the documents: https://forward.com/news/686797/heritage-foundation-wikipedi...
OgsyedIE
Strictly speaking that is probably not as important a risk as the direct political risk of the Wikipedia 501c being involuntarily dissolved by AG Pam Bondi.
OgsyedIE
Wikimedia has spent years setting up a parallel org in Germany. The internet archive, ICANN, PCH and IETF are far more exposed to U.S. risk than WMF.
immibis
Germany has similar problems but at least they are confined to the topic of Israel. If Wikipedia's hosted in Germany right now, it's committing a crime there.
mentalgear
It's time to look for an European HN alternative.
nonrandomstring
FTR that's not what I'm suggesting. Good communities are worth protecting and preserving. But that means looking out for threats to a community and defending the members. Clearly moderators (of all US-based forums) are facing a hard time. And FWIW it's even worse in UK where forum hosts are simply shutting down rather than face draconian threat tactics of deliberate ambiguity (by OFCOM).
OgsyedIE
I agree but I think most people will reject the idea without considering it if it isn't formatted as a 1500-word article hosted on substack.
samiv
I don't know if it's a co-incidence but this topic disappeared from the front page faster than you can say "front page"...
close04
I'm sure they'll find a way to make a profit working with the system rather than against it.
kolektiv
Quite - so far the tech community (at the top level), with a few exceptions, has shown itself quite willing to bend itself to whatever is required as long as it can carry on making money. The cowardice involved is apparent, do not look to corporations as your potential protectors. They've never turned out to be before, they're not going to be this time either. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_...
OgsyedIE
What makes you think that Zuck, Ellison, Pichai etc are "obeying in advance" and haven't already received implied verbal threats of imprisonment?
RGamma
Having a global investment portfolio and probably several doomsday bunkers also helps to be indifferent about it all.
intended
Trump agreed on TV, that he believed meta’s capitulation was out of fear of him.
For the country of free speech, to have not even noticed a threat to a media company? How is America in a position to say anything to anyone?
mexicocitinluez
> Do they have plans to relocate to friendlier climes?
Bro, do you even know who Paul Graham is? He'll do anything to satisfy those turds and then write a blog post about how being kind to others is destroying the world.
codingbot3000
You might remember he was one of those recommending to vote for Harris. And some of the reasons he gave can be found also in the article btw.
mexicocitinluez
Recommending Harris and sucking up to whoever wins are not mutually exclusive ideas in the realm of people with too much money.
Also, and this is a big also, he defended Elon buying Twitter for free speech. So I'd say his grasp of what should actually constitute free speech (the topic in this article) is a bit muddled at the moment
nonrandomstring
Paul Graham wrote some very fine LISP books IIRC, and that's absolutely all I know about him. We may have had some cordial exchanges here on HN. To the extent Mr Graham is influential on this forum I'm sure he understands the peril facing any nexus of open speech in the current technofascist climate.
itsibitzi
The elite Silicon Valley venture capitalist class has made it pretty clear which side they're on.
nonrandomstring
They pick their sides for profitable expedience. I expect they would betray those sides just as fast for profitable expedience. US, EU, it's all one big world, and business never prospers in the long-run under the heel of a boot.
chillingeffect
Is it a monoculture? obviously theres Thiel and his clan. But are there other powerful elements?
matthewdgreen
Honestly, step one is for the folks screaming “free speech” and arguing about censorship to see what’s happening, and what real threats to free speech look like. We spent years being told that moderation on private social media was the worst possible thing in the world, and today there’s a real possibility of government prosecutions for protected speech. Even if you don’t like the people being threatened and chilled right now, it will be you eventually.
immibis
They see what's happening and they like it. They never supported free speech other than their own.
intended
This was not said for years. This became a thing post COVID and Trump.
I couldn’t get anyone to pay attention to content moderation if I tried. Only after misinfo and false hoods became the fuel of politics, did the filters and janitors become an issue.
“Content moderation is allowed to work as long as they dont touch the wires that carry political power”
This was the message when the Stanford internet observatory got targeted.
LightHugger
I agree that what trump is doing is a threat to free speech, i really wish there was some kind of non partisan free speech faction in US politics but there doesn't seem to be. In any case, i'm replying to this post because you're apparently blind to your hubris.
> Even if you don’t like the people being threatened and chilled right now, it will be you eventually."
Maybe you should give yourself your own advice. You seemingly stood by doing nothing and even still think you're in a position make fun of people campaigning for free speech protections on social media (especially considering the fact that the government was indeed involved in censoring speech on these platforms). You literally already had the chance to stand up for people being threatened and chilled and not only actively chose not to, you stood in opposition to those people because you deemed it not "real" enough for you. You are not above anyone else nor are you in a position to lecture anyone else on this topic, ever.
matthewdgreen
I deemed it real because I believed and still believe that private companies (even if I dislike them) have the right to moderate speech as they please. A big section of the right wing believes differently and passed laws in several states overriding that principle, while proclaiming that a direct and obvious violation of the First Amendment was actually “free speech.” I also believed and still believe that this fake free-speech posturing would lead directly to what’s happening now: direct governmental attacks on speech the administration doesn’t like.
You may be a troll or so lost in politics that nothing reaches you anymore. But if you’re actually an American who cares about the bill of rights, the time to stand up has already arrived. It’s going to be hard for you to do so if you’re busy telling people “well, the government using police to target opponents is bad, but here’s this other thing that manifestly isn’t as bad and I am going to dismiss the former and dwell on the latter.”
LightHugger
The government was moderating speech through those private companies, like twitter. Before musk bought it was literally taking government orders on what to censor, so your basic argument is not responding to what i already said. You come off as a dishonest, incoherent person and you're now saying i'm dismissing the thing i spent the first paragraph acknowledging, then calling me a troll. Wacky.
Given you have now proven you have no interest in standing up for other people's free speech until it's you being threatened you will unfortunately find it hard to convince anyone. Even now you have no ability to admit you were wrong in the past to cheer other people's free speech rights being taken away. What a disappointment.
nobodywillobsrv
Might be a strawman, but it seems this kind of person reverses the order of time.
People worrying about free speech before (and now in the UK) are ignored, called hysterical etc ... yet the minute someone is worried about Orange Man it's legitimate worry and you are hypocritical if you feel schadenfreude a bit.
Denialism is a real poison. Sided worryists/denialists are the real problem.
I'm not sure how to call them out without engaging in the same games they play themselves.
There are groups doing great work though, like the FSU in the UK.
_petronius
I think this is confusing two things, intentionally:
1. Free speech in the public sphere includes the right of people offended by your speech to express that they are offended (to speak back). People like Toby Young (founder of the FSU), and those who decry "cancel culture" do not like this, but it is part of what constitutes genuine free expression.
2. Free speech against the government, which the government should not be allowed to punish people for, to enable a pluralistic and democratic society. E.g. someone like Mahmoud Khalil who was recently arrested for his political views on Palestine (in violation of both the principles of free speech and his rights as a green card holder).
People angry about #1 (arguing) tend to conflate it with #2 (genuine censorship), and accuse people who accuse those approximately equal (or less) in power than them as equivalent to draconian speech-controllers. People angry about #2 are pointing out a genuine power imbalance, and the damage to democratic society.
Elon Musk embodies this perfectly: he argues in favor of free speech when people tell him his opinions are objectionable, but actively censors speech on Twitter that he doesn't like. In one situation, he simply wants people to receive his speech without speaking back, in another, he wants to stifle discussion.
Speech is not a unidirectional activity. In order for it to be valuable and protected, the act of speaking in public is the act of listening to criticisms of what you say.
llamaimperative
To add some nuance about the US’s 1st Amendment: it is not just speech against the government that is protected. It is that all speech is protected from the government.
The government also is not allowed to imprison you or threaten you for speech about another private party, for example.
suraci
pro-palestinian protestors were arrested under biden admin too, does it mean there's 'limited' free speech at the biden era?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/2000-people-arrested-na...
i mean, how much free it should be to be free speech, how far it can be 'limited' but still is free speech
I'm not defending for trump or elon musk, in case you want to know it
Bolwin
Yes absolutely. The free speech of pro-palestine protestors has been restricted since the start
llamaimperative
You actually think there’s no difference between Department of Homeland Security’s federal agents and a local municipal (or sometimes even campus) police force arresting someone?
Arresting someone for a crime is obviously not a problem, and generally protestors commit all sorts of minor nuisance civil violations for which they get arrested, booked, and released — all of which must be done without regard to the content of the speech being exercised during the violation. Deploying federal officers to go hunt down specific individuals and then disappearing them across state lines and modifying their immigration status without due process is absolutely unequivocally in a totally different league.
Trump has specifically said he’s going after people for the content of their speech. This is illegal and is totally different from what happened under Biden.
nindalf
Randall Munroe explained freedom of speech better than I could - https://xkcd.com/1357/
You seem to be invoking the tired old trope of "both sides bad". But they're not. The government pardoning rioters and punishing law firms is not the same as individuals saying "you know what, fuck Roseanne Barr, I don't want to watch her show anymore."
You're tying yourself in knots to establish a false equivalence between the two. But it's clear as day that they're not.
scandox
Can you not see how what that XKCD says which sounds so reasonable and innocuous will look to the people on the receiving end: that they are being shamed by an aggressive, vocal minority because of the views they sincerely hold? That this intolerance or deplatorming or whatever it gets called is likely to start as mere people not liking what you say and end in burning? Maybe both sides aren't as bad as each other but they're sure as blind as each other.
kolektiv
What do you propose as an alternative? That people should have listen to/host a certain percentage of unpopular views regardless of will? There is nothing stopping you creating your own platform, or finding one where you're welcome - if that fails to get much traction, it's probably because your message isn't very popular, and the people opposed to it perhaps weren't a minority.
What is it that you should do with, let's say, Nazis? Should the rest of society not make it clear that they consider them abhorrent?
null
> A couple of weeks ago, students asked we keep the discussions, but stop recording the class. They worried about any record of their words that might be viewed as criticism of the current administration, and somehow weaponized against them.
Kudos to the students who were not only aware of this general risk (not just under the current regime, but in many societies), and acted to improve their situation.
Next, they should look at how they're under almost ubiquitous technological surveillance, with little-to-no protections. And now there's emerging "AI" methods to automate harvesting insights from the ubiquitous surveillance fire hoses, and also to automate actions to suppress enemies of the regime. And if you look around, at the pace we're going, it's very easy to believe this will start happening within a year. Maybe they'll decide that one of the best defenses for national security that could happen right now is to cut off the surveillance data wherever possible.