Maybe I'm just too much of a simpleton; to me it doesn't really matter if I agree with what someone is saying or not. I still think they have the right to think it or say it. I do not agree that any infringement of agency should ever be allowed, one way or the other. Once debated topics dribble into name calling and social crucifixion, I'm out.
I don't think anyone is calling for people not to speak - just for platforms and publishers to have more consideration over who they allow their amplification to be applied to.
Definitely a worthwhile read. The authors make some important points, but I disagree with the assertion that the motivation behind the Harper's letter was a selfish one perpetuated by the signatories' fear for their own power and influence. From that letter:
The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation.
Maybe I'm just not seeing the "coded language" but it seems pretty clear to me that the Harper's letter was expressing a concern of a chilling effect on intellectual debate. It's not about who gets amplified by what platform, which is an important but unrelated issue, it's about being ostracized and labeled some flavor of deplorable for expressing wrongthink.
In case you don't get to the linked article one of the core problems it identifies is that society saying 'these ideas are bad' is not at all the same as an oppressive government saying 'these people can't speak' and that is indeed an important distinction. Especially because there are so many other factors that make it difficult for particular classes of people to speak outside of Twitter call-outs. That said, I highly recommend the Atlantic article.
Maybe I'm just too much of a simpleton; to me it doesn't really matter if I agree with what someone is saying or not. I still think they have the right to think it or say it. I do not agree that any infringement of agency should ever be allowed, one way or the other. Once debated topics dribble into name calling and social crucifixion, I'm out.
I don't think anyone is calling for people not to speak - just for platforms and publishers to have more consideration over who they allow their amplification to be applied to.
I didn't really think of it like that. Good point.
Definitely a worthwhile read. The authors make some important points, but I disagree with the assertion that the motivation behind the Harper's letter was a selfish one perpetuated by the signatories' fear for their own power and influence. From that letter:
Maybe I'm just not seeing the "coded language" but it seems pretty clear to me that the Harper's letter was expressing a concern of a chilling effect on intellectual debate. It's not about who gets amplified by what platform, which is an important but unrelated issue, it's about being ostracized and labeled some flavor of deplorable for expressing wrongthink.
In case you don't get to the linked article one of the core problems it identifies is that society saying 'these ideas are bad' is not at all the same as an oppressive government saying 'these people can't speak' and that is indeed an important distinction. Especially because there are so many other factors that make it difficult for particular classes of people to speak outside of Twitter call-outs. That said, I highly recommend the Atlantic article.
It's interesting that you choose this quote. There's an analysis at The Atlantic which specifically points out that quote for how it makes these two issues blurred towards equality, when they are very much not the same thing. Check out - https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/07/harpers-letter-free-speech/614080/
A well-thought-out, exhaustive, necessary response. I applaud the authors and signatories.