Being cancelled is like trial by mob rule. They're not always right, but they take their anger out on the target all the same. Conversely, being convicted of most any crime in court will do the same. See how many people lose their careers over one instance of poor judgement and pay for it the test of their lives. In either case, "There but for the grace of God for I" should be a mantra we should all remind ourselves of when judging others.
I think one of the easiest ways to safeguard free speech online is, now bear with me, remove anonymity. Or, make it so that so long as you identify yourself, you can speak freely, but if you choose anonymity, what you say online will have to be screened before it can be seen by the general public.
That's just an awful idea, the only groups who advocate for this are non-tech savvy people (mostly old people) because there's a million things you don't consider because you simply don't understand the internet as well as you think. Where to even begin? 1. People live in countries where they don't even have free speech and internet may be restricted, you'd kill open communication for those less fortunate 2. Mass Surveillance. You're already monitored and give information out, but you'd be giving even more. You'd also be giving your IDs and very personal information over to these giant tech companies, tying your social media profiles to your identity means police and any government agency will very easily be able to look it up or those companies would tell them when contacted. 3. It will lead to more harm, if someone knows your full name and face they can potentially find out where you live, your place of work, it actually gives more weight to cancel culture which you oppose. People can harass and stalk you much better with that information, because having that information means they can get more. People have been murdered by someone they crossed online because they made them angry and they found out where they lived. This means doxing and swatting will be a lot more common
You should have me on your show Zach... What was meant to happen in this universe is happening all the time... No hard feelings... Just trying to point out everything for all to see... That tongue work needs to slow down some though.... It's too obvious. Keep it in your mouth!
I get publicly censored all the time I release top secret information and TH-cam does not want me to be viewed by anyone...it blocks people from seeing anything I post It is insane they do not want anyone to watch my channel... 💯💯💯 Freedom of speech doesn't exist! Yes I agree half or more are fake... You can tell I'm real... I have videos.
I think Zach should run for president rather then Yang lol. he seems like he has more courage to be more himself rather than becoming a politician like what Yang is doing. I loved the old Yang But it seems like the DNC killed that guy 😥
"certain topics, if i talk about them, the repercussions will be so negative that I will wish I had not done that so I will preemptively hold back. that's not really free speech then, right?" yes. it is. exercising freedom of speech comes with inviting criticism and harassment. i think i'm beginning to finally understand people like chou's perspective -- it's a broader interpretation of the first amendment to include freedom from criticism that crosses into harassment or bullying. couldn't agree less, but I finally think I understand the confusion. she wants to have her platform and her significant online following but not the trolls that come with the territory. it's an understandable thing to want, but the erosion of the first amendment that comes with this direction is the epitome of a slippery slope.
Freedom from criticism and freedom from harassment and trolls are different though. Criticism is generally based on an argument in good faith, but harassment and trolling aren’t.
@@Paul-ks7nx disagreeing with your choice of "consent" here, perhaps more accurate to say one "accepts" potential harassment when posting online. may seem like a meaningless distinction but i'd say one can accept a potential outcome may occur without necessarily permitting or consenting to it. don't get me wrong, online bullying/harassment/trolling (whatever you want to call it) is deplorable and will continue to be called out/discouraged. but yes, i'm saying the first amendment should grant a bully or troll the protection to be deplorable and say awful things to others without being censored or canceled, but only to a point. the first amendment already (understandably) does not protect things such as intentionally inciting a panic (screaming "bomb!" in a theater or airplane), or calling for violence (tweeting that people should show up armed at a given place/time to face off against protesters). so as we see the criteria for speech to lose its first amendment protection is essentially, "is this speech a deliberate intent to incite real-world panic or violence?" if you agree with chou from the above video, you may want to empower private companies to expand that loss of protection to cover cases of online bullying or harassment which are not aimed at inciting panic or violence, but rather are usually aimed at causing their target as much mental/emotional distress as possible. it's understandable, but also a significant erosion of the first amendment. tl;dr - if someone (or even a bunch of people) tweeted at you, "paul you've always been a worthless garbage and will surely die alone", that would be awful, but it shouldn't lose first amendment protection and merit censorship unless they were to go further and say, "someone should just kill you" or "you should just kill yourself" as the line of calling for real-world violence has been crossed. failing to make the above distinction seems highly problematic.
@@deekay13 totally agree with your distinction between "criticism" and "harassment/trolling" but would say the first amendment protects both categories, with a few noted exceptions. expanded upon these exceptions in my reply to Paul in this same thread.
Not too sensitive, but to ignorant to understand that there should be a separation between online vs real life. I don't believe that 100% will ever be possible, but a better interface could be made. Remember the source. There has been an interface between church and state for centuries. We could have one between the internet and reality.
Her giggling while mentioning "DMs" and not knowing what's going on...this is why I will never date a woman with a social media presence or allow my wife on social media. Too extreme, you might think? You say I'll be alone forever? I'm OK with that. 👌 Better to live a life in solitude than with a duplicitous woman.
@@shinryusaiha In the past, relationships were built based on shared physical proximity and trust was built up, over time, based on DIRECT OBSERVATION. Now we can't do that. Also, you were only competing against your own tribe members for sexual access. Not anymore - now the entire world is fair game. And the reasons we live in homes and have sex in bedrooms and not out in public is an evolved human response known as "mate-guarding". You're right - I do have problems. Everything about this diseased culture feels like a problem to me. The solution is to starve and excise the cancer and share the knowledge. ✌
@@JeffCaplan313 i respect your perspective, and I think you'll find there are plenty of women (albeit probably a minority of those under 40 at this point) that share your thoughts on maintaining an online following being incompatible with protecting a monogamous relationship.
@@VVei55 🙏 Sooner or later, much more of society at-large will grapple with and recognize this fact. It'll be too late to change anything by then. Probably too late, now. But the older women get, the more they'll get it.
I get publicly censored all the time I release top secret information and TH-cam does not want me to be viewed by anyone...it blocks people from seeing anything I post It is insane they do not want anyone to watch my channel... 💯💯💯 Freedom of speech doesn't exist!
They smell great, am I right? oooops, have you ever been close enough to smell one? From your previous post you carry yourself like an incel, so I thought to ask.
You ignore the topic of conversation within the video and, are entirely fixated on ... well.... total bullshit. *Much like those doing the canceling in our "cancel culture."*
@@notrandom2 Once upon a time. Feminism canceled men. MGTOW cancels women. No one is happy. I get it. "Treat me like a King and I'll treat you like my Queen. But if you want to play the game, then I'll show you how it's played."
Being cancelled is like trial by mob rule. They're not always right, but they take their anger out on the target all the same. Conversely, being convicted of most any crime in court will do the same. See how many people lose their careers over one instance of poor judgement and pay for it the test of their lives. In either case, "There but for the grace of God for I" should be a mantra we should all remind ourselves of when judging others.
I think one of the easiest ways to safeguard free speech online is, now bear with me, remove anonymity. Or, make it so that so long as you identify yourself, you can speak freely, but if you choose anonymity, what you say online will have to be screened before it can be seen by the general public.
what you describe may be inevitable as we all know that the VAST majority of online harassment is done anonymously.
That's just an awful idea, the only groups who advocate for this are non-tech savvy people (mostly old people) because there's a million things you don't consider because you simply don't understand the internet as well as you think. Where to even begin?
1. People live in countries where they don't even have free speech and internet may be restricted, you'd kill open communication for those less fortunate
2. Mass Surveillance. You're already monitored and give information out, but you'd be giving even more. You'd also be giving your IDs and very personal information over to these giant tech companies, tying your social media profiles to your identity means police and any government agency will very easily be able to look it up or those companies would tell them when contacted.
3. It will lead to more harm, if someone knows your full name and face they can potentially find out where you live, your place of work, it actually gives more weight to cancel culture which you oppose. People can harass and stalk you much better with that information, because having that information means they can get more. People have been murdered by someone they crossed online because they made them angry and they found out where they lived. This means doxing and swatting will be a lot more common
This is one of the most important topics of all time!!!
You should have me on your show Zach... What was meant to happen in this universe is happening all the time... No hard feelings... Just trying to point out everything for all to see... That tongue work needs to slow down some though.... It's too obvious. Keep it in your mouth!
Yeah have us on!
We want on!
Let us all on!
Fureel! Letem on💯
Half of all online accounts are fake. So it's easy to stand up and say something stupid
Agreed! And, much of this behavior has translated to poor behavior in real life.
unthinkable today, but the concept of online anonymity (especially on social media) could go the way of the dinosaur in our lifetimes. believe it.
I get publicly censored all the time I release top secret information and TH-cam does not want me to be viewed by anyone...it blocks people from seeing anything I post It is insane they do not want anyone to watch my channel... 💯💯💯 Freedom of speech doesn't exist! Yes I agree half or more are fake... You can tell I'm real... I have videos.
I think Zach should run for president rather then Yang lol. he seems like he has more courage to be more himself rather than becoming a politician like what Yang is doing. I loved the old Yang But it seems like the DNC killed that guy 😥
zach can be hilmself exactly because he's NOT running for anything.
Zach is the one coaching yang on how to be. It has nothing to do with courage.
that's a massive vent behind tracy
"certain topics, if i talk about them, the repercussions will be so negative that I will wish I had not done that so I will preemptively hold back. that's not really free speech then, right?"
yes. it is. exercising freedom of speech comes with inviting criticism and harassment. i think i'm beginning to finally understand people like chou's perspective -- it's a broader interpretation of the first amendment to include freedom from criticism that crosses into harassment or bullying. couldn't agree less, but I finally think I understand the confusion. she wants to have her platform and her significant online following but not the trolls that come with the territory. it's an understandable thing to want, but the erosion of the first amendment that comes with this direction is the epitome of a slippery slope.
"freedom from criticisms". Excellent point.
Free speech does come with criticism, but to say that youre consenting to potential harassment anytime you say something is disgusting.
Freedom from criticism and freedom from harassment and trolls are different though. Criticism is generally based on an argument in good faith, but harassment and trolling aren’t.
@@Paul-ks7nx disagreeing with your choice of "consent" here, perhaps more accurate to say one "accepts" potential harassment when posting online. may seem like a meaningless distinction but i'd say one can accept a potential outcome may occur without necessarily permitting or consenting to it. don't get me wrong, online bullying/harassment/trolling (whatever you want to call it) is deplorable and will continue to be called out/discouraged. but yes, i'm saying the first amendment should grant a bully or troll the protection to be deplorable and say awful things to others without being censored or canceled, but only to a point.
the first amendment already (understandably) does not protect things such as intentionally inciting a panic (screaming "bomb!" in a theater or airplane), or calling for violence (tweeting that people should show up armed at a given place/time to face off against protesters). so as we see the criteria for speech to lose its first amendment protection is essentially, "is this speech a deliberate intent to incite real-world panic or violence?"
if you agree with chou from the above video, you may want to empower private companies to expand that loss of protection to cover cases of online bullying or harassment which are not aimed at inciting panic or violence, but rather are usually aimed at causing their target as much mental/emotional distress as possible. it's understandable, but also a significant erosion of the first amendment.
tl;dr - if someone (or even a bunch of people) tweeted at you, "paul you've always been a worthless garbage and will surely die alone", that would be awful, but it shouldn't lose first amendment protection and merit censorship unless they were to go further and say, "someone should just kill you" or "you should just kill yourself" as the line of calling for real-world violence has been crossed. failing to make the above distinction seems highly problematic.
@@deekay13 totally agree with your distinction between "criticism" and "harassment/trolling" but would say the first amendment protects both categories, with a few noted exceptions. expanded upon these exceptions in my reply to Paul in this same thread.
Not too sensitive, but to ignorant to understand that there should be a separation between online vs real life. I don't believe that 100% will ever be possible, but a better interface could be made. Remember the source. There has been an interface between church and state for centuries. We could have one between the internet and reality.
Her giggling while mentioning "DMs" and not knowing what's going on...this is why I will never date a woman with a social media presence or allow my wife on social media.
Too extreme, you might think? You say I'll be alone forever? I'm OK with that. 👌 Better to live a life in solitude than with a duplicitous woman.
@@shinryusaiha In the past, relationships were built based on shared physical proximity and trust was built up, over time, based on DIRECT OBSERVATION. Now we can't do that. Also, you were only competing against your own tribe members for sexual access. Not anymore - now the entire world is fair game. And the reasons we live in homes and have sex in bedrooms and not out in public is an evolved human response known as "mate-guarding".
You're right - I do have problems. Everything about this diseased culture feels like a problem to me. The solution is to starve and excise the cancer and share the knowledge. ✌
All good buddy, I don't think they would date you either.
@@JeffCaplan313 i respect your perspective, and I think you'll find there are plenty of women (albeit probably a minority of those under 40 at this point) that share your thoughts on maintaining an online following being incompatible with protecting a monogamous relationship.
@@VVei55 🙏
Sooner or later, much more of society at-large will grapple with and recognize this fact. It'll be too late to change anything by then. Probably too late, now. But the older women get, the more they'll get it.
I get publicly censored all the time I release top secret information and TH-cam does not want me to be viewed by anyone...it blocks people from seeing anything I post It is insane they do not want anyone to watch my channel... 💯💯💯 Freedom of speech doesn't exist!
Women.
They smell great, am I right?
oooops, have you ever been close enough to smell one? From your previous post you carry yourself like an incel, so I thought to ask.
You ignore the topic of conversation within the video and, are entirely fixated on ... well.... total bullshit. *Much like those doing the canceling in our "cancel culture."*
@@notrandom2 Once upon a time.
Feminism canceled men.
MGTOW cancels women.
No one is happy. I get it.
"Treat me like a King and I'll treat you like my Queen. But if you want to play the game, then I'll show you how it's played."
no... YOU. YOU are not happy. It's obvious you don't know what you want. Do you want a cancel culture? Or do you want to exacerbate one?
@@notrandom2 As I said, "I'll show you how it is played."
Let's play a #lovegame 😘 🤭
Americas founding