TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Free Speech Is in Trouble

135 点作者 RationalDino超过 1 年前

28 条评论

rezmason超过 1 年前
It&#x27;s wrong to equate people abandoning free speech with people not wanting to host people with specific stances at a venue.<p>Free speech isn&#x27;t about flinging the door open to everyone. It&#x27;s about not incarcerating them, and not preventing them from speaking at all.<p>In my opinion, the people who blast &quot;cancel culture&quot; are often the people who tacitly assume that they are welcome everywhere by default. That&#x27;s not anyone&#x27;s right. And you don&#x27;t infringe on someone&#x27;s right to say what they want just because you won&#x27;t sell them a megaphone.<p>What we&#x27;re seeing is a young generation of left-leaning people who are motivated to shift the Overton window back from the cliff, because they no longer assume (as older generations have) that adults can wield a megaphone responsibly.
评论 #38119400 未加载
评论 #38120041 未加载
评论 #38119778 未加载
评论 #38121540 未加载
评论 #38119749 未加载
评论 #38119593 未加载
评论 #38119260 未加载
评论 #38119708 未加载
评论 #38119462 未加载
评论 #38119290 未加载
评论 #38120397 未加载
评论 #38119537 未加载
评论 #38119167 未加载
评论 #38119246 未加载
评论 #38119982 未加载
评论 #38119276 未加载
评论 #38120719 未加载
评论 #38121202 未加载
steego超过 1 年前
Here’s my counter argument:<p>Since the popularization of the internet, we have experienced unprecedented levels of free speech that’s never been enjoyed throughout all history and the ability to broadcast the most offensive and unpopular ideas is still magnitudes more free than it was pre-internet.<p>Make no mistake, as much as people loved to talk about how they championed free speech in the 80s and early 90s, the reality was that ideas that would hardly be considered offensive today got you cancelled back then.<p>Sinead O’Conner tore up a picture of the pope and was shunned.<p>Absolute free speech has never been accepted in mainstream venues and I would argue the only thing that has changed over time is what type of speech is considered fashionable.<p>Honestly, I think the younger generation is not as protective of free speech simply because they have lived in a world where free speech has thrived to the point to where they’re sick of it.<p>Not only has it thrived, it’s boosted by ad-driven social media companies to antagonize engagement.<p>Back in my day the saying was, “if bleeds it leads”. We should update it to: “If it enrages, it engages.”<p>Am I off the mark? Am I missing a more important angle? Does anyone really think we have less free speech today?
评论 #38120415 未加载
评论 #38119978 未加载
评论 #38119679 未加载
评论 #38120332 未加载
wolframhempel超过 1 年前
I find, most discussions on &quot;wokeism&quot; stay too much on the surface level. There is a really interesting postmodern bit of epistemological philosophy underpinning the whole intellectual edifice.<p>Bear with me for a second:<p>Imagine I’m holding an apple in front of you. What do you see? “An Apple” - you answer. But how do you know? Seeing is just the act of light reflecting off an object and hitting the receptors at the back of your eyes. From there, your optical nerve transports a blurry and upside down set of individual RGB information. The rest is up to your brain.<p>And your brain is doing much more than just putting the pixels together into a shape.. It identifies that shape as “apple”. And it knows things about apples. They’re good for you. They are a common fruit. They’re inexpensive.<p>But here’s the thing: You didn’t invent the word “apple”. You didn’t discover that they’re healthy, common or cheap.<p>Instead, someone told you.<p>By teaching you the context to an apple, that person, school, institution or culture wields power. A power to shape your thinking and thereby your world view. And that power is what much of the culture war is about. That’s why so much of it is focused on speech.<p>Speech is violence. (And so is silence). Speech is dangerous (boy, is it ever). Speech has to be controlled.<p>You may disagree with the content the left wishes to fill the speech with. (I certainly do in many instances). But I believe they are fundamentally right about the underlying premise - and the leverage gained by winning the struggle about contextualisation.
评论 #38119677 未加载
评论 #38119995 未加载
评论 #38119758 未加载
评论 #38119823 未加载
评论 #38119907 未加载
评论 #38119687 未加载
jsight超过 1 年前
I wish that the survey had gone deeper into the &quot;why&quot;. It seems that some of these responses may have been because of expectations of useless conflict and needless inflammatory speech.<p>That the participants were censoring people who presumably agree with them seems to hint very strongly at that.
评论 #38119312 未加载
评论 #38119970 未加载
sigmar超过 1 年前
&quot;Free speech&quot; seems pretty nebulous and ill-defined here. It&#x27;d be nice to see some objective measures be analyzed rather than the only data be student surveys (maybe a measurement of speaker viewpoint diversity over time?). and these survey are about what speakers should be allowed to make speeches hosted by the school... seems like a very specific aspect of campus speech.<p>For a different measure of how much free expression is allowed- maybe look at often people are killed for expressing controversial views. I&#x27;d invite anyone to contrast Nate&#x27;s article with the story of the Kent State students in the 1970s who were summarily executed by the US army for peaceful protests[1], is FIRE and Nate Silver really going to argue modern campuses &quot;free speech&quot; is in trouble now more than back then? Public protest seems like it should be much more protected (and relevant to the term &#x27;free speech&#x27;) than who-gets-what speaking fees.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Kent_State_shootings" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Kent_State_shootings</a>
Kye超过 1 年前
&gt;&gt; <i>&quot;C1. Transgender people have a mental disorder.&quot;</i><p>&gt;&gt; <i>&quot;C2. Abortion should be completely illegal.&quot;</i><p>&gt;&gt; <i>&quot;C3. Black Lives Matter is a hate group.&quot;</i><p>I really don&#x27;t understand people whose idea of free speech is &quot;tolerating&quot; yet another repeat of the same damned argument we&#x27;ve heard a million times over. We heard you. We weren&#x27;t convinced. Free speech is intact, we just want to move on. Try literally any other argument.<p>Come up on stage and say something novel or you&#x27;re wasting the students&#x27; time and the platform. You&#x27;re not a bold defender of free speech saying this stuff. You&#x27;re a hack. You&#x27;re no different from the street preacher screaming lines from Leviticus at me as I pass by.
评论 #38119605 未加载
评论 #38119874 未加载
评论 #38119811 未加载
评论 #38121526 未加载
kieranmaine超过 1 年前
This Lex Fridman interview with Greg Lukianoff, the CEO of FIRE organisation mentioned in the article, provides more useful information on the subject matter:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lexfridman.com&#x2F;greg-lukianoff&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lexfridman.com&#x2F;greg-lukianoff&#x2F;</a>
评论 #38119535 未加载
roflyear超过 1 年前
I have two issues with this: first, not wanting certain people on your college campus giving speeches, where you go to learn in a comfortable environment, doesn&#x27;t mean you don&#x27;t support free speech, it means you don&#x27;t want them there. Second, freedom of speech is not freedom of getting a platform to speak. You&#x27;re not entitled to a platform: you&#x27;re entitled to use the platform you have to speak your views. This is the equity&#x2F;equality argument, in my view.
评论 #38120334 未加载
beepbooptheory超过 1 年前
&gt; While I’ve somehow made it this far without using the words “Israel” or “Palestine”, recent international events have uncovered instances of hypocrisy too. I have no interest in refereeing every incident, but cases like this — in which editor-in-chief Michael Eisen was fired from the life sciences journal eLife for retweeting an Onion article that expressed sympathy with Palestinians — fall under any definition of “cancel culture”.<p>I appreciate the focus of the essay, but extremely strange to merely equate the current events at Harvard et al with &quot;cancel culture&quot;. When a train runs over my leg, it falls under any definition of an &quot;oopsie&quot;, but that doesn&#x27;t mean an &quot;oopsie&quot; quite exhausts the force and meaning of it.<p>Sure students are intolerant of certain speakers, but we at least got to square that with the apparent fact that when students (and teachers) find themselves on the &quot;wrong&quot; side of an event, they arent merely canceled, or barred from speaking, but harassed, threatened, arrested, and doxxed with apparently no recourse at all.<p>I think these students will certainly learn a lesson, but perhaps not the one Nate has in mind.
apienx超过 1 年前
Globally, free speech is alive and kicking. Free speech is improving in China, India, Africa, etc. Slowly but surely.<p>In Europe, there are setbacks. Burn enough embassies and the pragmatic Scandinavians will eventually ask you to stop burning a certain book.<p>For the US, it’s well protected by the first amendment to the constitution. The youth is just particularly sensitive to accusations of racism and such. College students have taboo topics because they’re not very sophisticated (yet). It’s easy - even for Ivy-educated folks - to conflate an ethnic group with a religious one. Or a “race” with a culture. Their views will hopefully change with time.<p>The real threat to freedoms is the appetite for security. And the best way to protect it is to stop being so easily terrorised.
tchock23超过 1 年前
I&#x27;d like to see a qualitative component that digs into the &quot;why&quot; behind some of the survey results referenced in the post.<p>For example, there could be &quot;other&quot; reasons why a student wouldn&#x27;t want a controversial figure on campus like, &quot;it&#x27;s disruptive to my studies.&quot; I&#x27;d also like to know where the survey question options came from.<p>Not to dismiss the results by nitpicking, but with survey research findings the devil is in the details of how the data was collected. I&#x27;ve seen too many organizations use biased surveys to produce inflammatory headlines that they know will get them clicks&#x2F;funding.<p>(Source: 20+ years experience in the research industry).
lispisok超过 1 年前
Most of his points are about young people and universities. I dont think there has been a change in the intrinsic properties to those groups as he mentions.<p>What has happened, and people are gonna think I&#x27;m a crazy Fox News boomer for saying, and gonna get downvoted by very left learning HN for...is the left is now the mainstream and the right is now the counterculture. We&#x27;re basically in the inverse of 2003 America. I am not making political judgements I am stating facts.<p>Look at how every large organization boasts about their commitment to diversity and supporting LGTBQ+. Every big corp, including ones like Lockheed Martin, K-12 education, higher education, the military even. I know people are going to try and counter bringing up recent anti-abortion legislation and other laws but having a majority in some local legislation is not enough to be the mainstream. You have to control more than that and the left controls just about everything else.<p>Most discussions around free speech talk about deplatfomring and &quot;canceling&quot;. Those two strategies are only effective for the side that controls the platforms which is the mainstream. The counterculture cannot deplatform somebody because they do not have control over the platform. It&#x27;s always the counterculture that complain about lack of free speech and the mainstream who say things like &quot;you are not entitled to a megaphone&quot; and &quot;freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences&quot;<p>Universities and college students used to be hotbeds of counterculture because the right was the mainstream and college students are overwhelmingly left leaning. Today college students are all about deplatforming because they are on the side that gets to deplatform people instead of the side that struggles for megaphone access.
MaineFreeSpeech超过 1 年前
Donors to universities have way too much power. I went to do a free speech at my university and it ended with the university administrator reaching out to the major university donor. Ultimately, I&#x27;m facing a threatened SLAPP suit. I would appreciate it if people would sign and share my petition because I hope FIRE wins and I can continue to exercise my free speech. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.change.org&#x2F;p&#x2F;good-healthcare-workers-need-your-help" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.change.org&#x2F;p&#x2F;good-healthcare-workers-need-your-h...</a>
verve_rat超过 1 年前
The whole article is premised on the idea that students should want to debate ideas in the great intellectual marketplace. But that&#x27;s not what universities are for anymore.<p>We spent the last 30 or more years turning universities into vocational schools and act surprised that students don&#x27;t want to spend tens or even hundreds of thousands of their money to engage in exhausting controversy?<p>I&#x27;d assume most students want to get a degree and start getting paid. No matter if you are left or right leaning, a culture war in your back garden is a distraction from that.
评论 #38120938 未加载
jrh3超过 1 年前
An article about free speech was &quot;flagged&quot; and hidden seems weird.
jzb超过 1 年前
Oh, awesome - Nate is tackling the fact that Republicans are banning books and trying to re-write history &#x2F; forbid the teaching of history in schools. &lt;reads article&gt; oh. Guess not.
评论 #38119755 未加载
tamimio超过 1 年前
There’s nothing as “free speech”, it will always be limited by laws that made by some lobbyists, ironically, the biggest threat to democracy is democracy itself.
pie_flavor超过 1 年前
Part of the problem is that nobody knows what they believe. You learn in school three facts: free speech is &quot;liberal&quot;, free speech is &quot;good&quot;, and the Democratic Party is &quot;liberal&quot; (Nate avoids this word for exactly that reason, and notes as much in TFA). So, a lot of people (subconsciously, without realizing it) make the following computations:<p>&quot;I am good.&quot; + &quot;Free speech is good.&quot; = &quot;I am pro-free-speech.&quot;<p>&quot;Democrats are liberal.&quot; + &quot;Free speech is liberal.&quot; = &quot;Democrats are pro-free-speech.&quot;, + &quot;I am a Democrat.&quot; = &quot;I am pro-free-speech.&quot;<p>And then never actually check, internally, &quot;do I support the idea of people I disagree with speaking their honest opinions out loud?&quot; or whether they identify with that famous quote &quot;I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it&quot;.<p>There&#x27;s various strategies of retreat, from misidentifying particular ideas as &quot;intolerance&quot; so one can misapply Popper&#x27;s quote about the paradox of tolerance (see also &quot;hate speech&quot;), to being legalistic about it and denying that it&#x27;s nothing without social norms too, to talking about deplatforming speakers as a form of free speech too (still forcibly silencing rather than counterarguing!), and you can see a dozen examples right on this page. All of them, I believe, have the same root: genuinely believing oneself to be pro-free-speech, caused by saturation of an American society that values being pro-free-speech, but without ever actually being convinced of the merits of free speech.<p>And I think it has spread <i>precisely because</i> it&#x27;s invisible unless poked; you don&#x27;t need to convince someone of the merits of free speech if they already believe it, and so a lot less convincing has gone on than needs to.
评论 #38121775 未加载
narinxas超过 1 年前
this speech, now recorded as a podcast, or otherwise published in a digital medium is now become a revenue source.<p>it all hinges on the impossibility of freely copying this (or that) content.<p>If you want it, you must pay the content creator through the platform (which takes a cut) using payment-processor (which takes a cut) which causes taxes (the government&#x27;s cut)<p>this in my weird stranged mind is deeply tied to this situation: that we won&#x27;t own the place we live in, or that we will only be able to rent it (housing as a <i>subscription</i> service) is part of this.<p>because what we will be permitted to own are these &quot;digital asssets&quot; we create using social-media-cretaion tools (e.g. instagram, tiktok). free as in beer? free as in liberty?? these are secondary concerns to the logic of the networked marketplaces and the aggregator platforms.<p>some more &quot;examples&quot;: your meme that you made went viral in &quot;touristic destination&quot; so now you can afford a visit to there!<p>or a more dysptoic &quot;reach 100 views to afford chicken dinner. reach 1000 views! and you&#x27;ll get a kobe beef deluxe dinner!!&quot;<p>I sure hope this remains an ellusive dystopic idea that never actually comes to pass
waterheater超过 1 年前
The multicultural element of American universities is a major background element and will shape the long-term outlook on free speech in academia. In aggregate, I&#x27;ve seen and heard far more clearly racist comments from foreign students toward Black Americans than from American students. These attitudes will not dissipate overnight.<p>In my wholly personal opinion, the distinct issue with &quot;White liberal American&quot; students and free speech stems from self-segregation. A human being is the product of their environment. In dichotomous contrast to their antiracist stances, &quot;White liberal&quot; parents tend to live among and socialize almost exclusively with other White liberals, which causes kids to prefer an in-group, tribal mentality and never develop the personality skills to exist outside your ideological tribe. If kids are raised in such an environment, conflict among other groups will create significant discomfort for them. There are many ways to raise your kids to have a liberal mentality without turning them into a shadow-scared ideologue.
mempko超过 1 年前
Nate Silver is maybe not aware about the left&#x27;s view on this. The left recognizes the Paradox of Tolerance.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Paradox_of_tolerance" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Paradox_of_tolerance</a><p>I would argue this survey shows evidence of the opposite, that there is more support for free speech on the left.<p>It&#x27;s fairly clear that the right is not genuine about free speech because in reality it&#x27;s the right that is actually banning books and access to information in the US right now, not the left.<p>Basic principle of the Paradox of Tolerance is simple. If you let bigots talk, you will get more bigotry and in the end a less free society.<p>The iron of the right talking against &#x27;cancel culture&#x27; is that the decisions to actually not let people speak, or get people to lose their jobs are done by right-leaning people. Those that run the large institutions that are doing cancelling, like corporations, are run largely by right leaning, business minded, people.<p>They wanted extreme private property rights, well that&#x27;s how you get &#x27;cancel culture&#x27;. Truly ironic that when businesses respond to markets (again run by right-minded folks), it&#x27;s the right that is complaining today.
评论 #38119837 未加载
评论 #38119802 未加载
PartiallyTyped超过 1 年前
&gt; College students aren’t very enthusiastic about free speech. In particular, that’s true for liberal or left-wing students, who are at best inconsistent in their support of free speech and have very little tolerance for controversial speech they disagree with.<p>First, citations needed, second, talk about ad-homs.<p>People simply don&#x27;t want to see hate-speech, and they are allowed to not want to see bigotry and vitriol. People understand that &quot;free speech&quot; that devolves into hate-speech results in stochastic terrorism as well. If only somebody could do about those [bad] leftists!<p>The biggest irony of all, is that all proponents of free speech only care about their capacity to exercise judgement and have access to the megaphone. See Elon banning speech that insults&#x2F;humiliates or otherwise disagrees with. See truth-social banning all speech regarding abortions&#x2F;RvW, etc.<p>Free-speech is to protect you from the government. That doesn&#x27;t mean we, the people should have to see, accept, or entertain vitriol and hate-speech. We the people are passing our judgement, and we the people don&#x27;t want to see it.<p>If you break the social contract, you pay the consequences. If you can&#x27;t behave like an adult and decide to break the social contract, you face the consequences. It&#x27;s time to grow up.
评论 #38119983 未加载
评论 #38119703 未加载
评论 #38119376 未加载
feoren超过 1 年前
An alternative hypothesis is that C1 and C3, and to a lesser extent C2, are essentially untenable positions that are only ever espoused in bad-faith by trolls and people with ulterior motives. Nate Silver says they seem &quot;slightly spicier&quot;, to him, but perhaps what he&#x27;s really detecting is that they are simply not evidence-based positions that anyone debates in good-faith. The idea that C1 and C3 are simply untenable positions, never held in good faith, certainly resonates with me; C2 less so, but I could understand why people think that. Meanwhile, L1 through L3 do not have that flavor at all; they sound like arguments that could actually be debated with facts.<p>If that were true, we have a rather simpler story: about 60% to 70% of people would happily invite debate about whatever, as long as it is in good faith. Liberals essentially do not believe C1 through C3 are good-faith arguments, while conservatives do. Even this 60% to 70% number is a bit lower than I&#x27;d like to see, but perhaps 30% of people don&#x27;t think Universities should play the role of public forum at all?<p>I just don&#x27;t think you can draw strong conclusions from this without actually analyzing the content of C1 - C3 and L1 - L3, and my intuition about them suggests a very different interpretation. C1 and C3 both have a strong flavor of a certain group of people essentially having <i>no right to exist</i>, or at least deserving of a lesser existence. Asking transgender people to debate whether or not they have a mental disorder, in the name of free speech, is essentially stating that they constantly must argue for their right to exist. Rejecting C1 as a valid argument is essentially stating that transgender people do have an unequivocal right to exist, and do not need to constantly argue for their own existence until the end of time. Nate Silver does not even mention the possibility that the Cs are inherently more flawed positions than the Ls, and that is a mistake.
progne超过 1 年前
I think it&#x27;s a simple power inversion. Conservatives banned liberal speech so liberals advocated free speech. Now liberals ban conservative speech so conservatives advocate free speech. Does it have to be more complicated than that?<p>Sure it&#x27;s hypocrisy, but it&#x27;s also simple self preservation to prefer more freedom when out of power and more control when in power. I don&#x27;t know of evidence that this effect is stronger for one side or the other.
评论 #38119384 未加载
torginus超过 1 年前
Is it just me or is the &#x27;culture war&#x27; sort of winding down, as in most people have moved on and are no longer that invested in &#x27;sticking it to the other side&#x27;?
评论 #38119360 未加载
评论 #38119574 未加载
评论 #38119443 未加载
评论 #38119722 未加载
teddyh超过 1 年前
Disclaimer: I am not a US citizen or resident, and I am only idly pontificating.<p>As I see it, free speech is – and has always been – one of the simple rallying calls of the underdog, and has therefore not really been part of older civilizations, and those civilizations which are still ruled by the same old class&#x2F;rules&#x2F;traditions still do not emphasize free speech as something important. But I think most countries at some point had a somewhat clean divide where older traditional regimes gave way to modern more-or-less democratic ones, and since the democratic factions were the underdogs, free speech was incorporated into the new founding principles of those countries. This was <i>especially</i> clear in the USA, but has evolved further there. The conservative US citizens – the “right” – have, since then, had free speech as one of their Important Core Tenets, and since they were in power for much of US history, it was cemented. Especially, since the opposition, the “left” (being the underdog) <i>also</i> liked free speech (since they want to criticize the ruling powers), free speech was a very popular and politically safe position for everybody, no matter what side.<p>(This can be contrasted to other countries where a democratic revolution has happened, but where free speech was not (for whatever reason) very strongly incorporated into its new founding principles. This allowed conservatives of those countries to mostly be skeptical of free speech, and the oppositions being only mostly in favor of it.)<p>But something odd then happened in the US. The left, having been pushed too far by something or other (Trump being the usual cited example), began to reason that since the “right” had free speech as a value, the “left” were free to <i>oppose</i> it. This is where I believe the new trend of what has been called “cancel culture” comes from. The “right”, seeing this, and since the ”right” was in power (de jure or de facto), saw no reason to keep free speech as a core value, since free speech is, as I said, mostly a tool for the underdog. Therefore, US “right” <i>also</i> began dropping free speech as a core value. And therefore <i>nobody</i> in the US today really values free speech. This is a <i>complete reversal</i> from the US of some – not very long – time ago.<p>Another way to view this is that both the “right” and the “left” today have changed from seeing themselves as underdogs, and now see themselves as “temporarily embarrassed rulers” (to paraphrase a famous saying commonly attributed to John Steinbeck), and so both sides feel free to call for censorship, believing that they will never (at least for long) be on the losing side.<p>(Some ”right”-minded people try to square the incongruity (of still having free speech as a written core value) by painting themselves as underdogs, thus allowing themselves to value free speech. But since the ”right” are also conservatives, which by definition stands for old traditional power, this rarely looks plausible. The “left”-minded people who do the same merely look old-fashioned, but those people are not very influential anymore.)
评论 #38122305 未加载
zingababba超过 1 年前
Privileged kids gonna privilege
morelisp超过 1 年前
Students aren&#x27;t dumb. They know when FIRE comes around asking &quot;Do you support free speech?&quot; they don&#x27;t really mean a robust set of first amendment rights but &quot;Should your lecture halls be flooded by C-tier conservative talking heads fighting for Thiel bucks?&quot;
评论 #38119510 未加载