Jordan Peterson Announces Free Speech Platform ‘Thinkspot’

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Solver, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:42 AM.

  1. Solver macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #1
  2. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #2
    Nothing wrong with starting your own platform if you want control over what (or what can't) be said or done on it.

    The question's though are always going to be:

    How is he funding it. If it's truly free speech, and he even allows hate speech, or other intolerant speech on it, how will he deal with disgruntled investors or advertisers? it's one thing to say "free speech for everyone!" but when suddenly you are on the end of losing millions of possible dollars due to advertiser pullout, i think you'll see that "free speech" ideal starts to get chipped away at.
     
  3. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #3
    So is this like Gab or whatever that place was all the jilted alt-righters ended up?
     
  4. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #4
    Knew this was coming.....

    Please explain why you think 'Free Speech' = alt-righters
     
  5. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #5
    That's what usually happens in this type of case.

    those who aren't spewing hate/intolerance aren't going to leave current platforms. Which means those who are banned already are the ones likely to go.

    Happened with Reddit once too. Aftr a massive wave of banning of subreddits that violated rules (like no child porn, violence, calls to violence), these people went and created their own clone Reddit called "Voat". with the expectations that since it's "free speech" centric, that most redditors will move over.

    but that didn't happen. MOST redditors stayed on reddit because MOST people don't behave like *********s. Only those who behaved in manners to get their subreddits banned went over. This resulted in 90% of Voat being a "circlejerk" of hatred, intolerance and *******ry. Which has directly led to it NOT growing and not being popular amongst those outside of these small hate groups

    Same is likely to happen with Petterson's site. It might have noble ambitions. But the liklihood is that there's just not going to be a wealth of normal content as those who aren't already violating the main platforms rules arne't going to move.
     
  6. Solver thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #6
  7. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #7
    Oh man, the self selection paradigm at play here will ensure this thing is a cesspool.

    Can’t wait to see how this turns out 6 months from now.
     
  8. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #8
    I don’t. But I know those complaining the most about deplatforming are those on the alt-right so I’m assuming this is a platform for them.

    I’m assuming though when he says without censorship he means within the law. So he will he censoring say, child porn or death threats. I’m curious though will this be like Twitter, Facebook? Or something completely different?
    --- Post Merged, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:58 AM ---
    What does this mean? Who decides what’s thoughtful?
     
  9. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #9
    What many of these "free speechers" don't understand, is that they're free to be loudmouthed beligerant and hateful all they want. They just don't have the right to do it on someone else's dime. Nor are they free from the consequences of that speech from other free peoples.

    it's also amusing that most of these "Free speechers" will scream and yell about their right to protest and say what they want. But at the same time tell you that you protesting them shouldn't be allowed.

    I believe in free speech. But don't confuse those of us who believe in it and support it, with those who would use free speech as a shield to say and do horrendous things to others.
     
  10. Solver thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #10
    The answer is in the topic link,
    “The only other major rule on comments he mentioned was that they need to be thoughtful. Rather than suggesting that some opinions are “off limits,” Peterson said they will have a minimum required length so one has to put thought into what they write.”
     
  11. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #11
    Hmm...expanding the character limit on Twitter didn’t produce more thoughtful comments. I would also argue that thoughtfulness can’t be determined by the length of the comment.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:22 AM ---
    I think all social media platforms need to relax a bit. Look at all the crap celebrities deal with just because they’re celebrities. Stand in line at the supermarket checkout and there’s one magazine after another spewing vile gossip, most of which is fake news, about celebrities. And there’s next to nothing they can do about it because these publications couch their stuff in a way where they can get away with it. So if someone on YouTube is making fun of a gay Vox reporter does that really need to be taken down? Or do people learn to ignore or laugh at it. If it’s not inciting violence I’d say grow some thicker skin and ignore it.
     
  12. appleisking macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    #12
    This will turn into a cesspool for Nazis, nothing more. But hey finally someone actually does what they're supposed to do instead of complaining.
     
  13. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #13
    Perfect!
     
  14. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #14
    I think you are missing some facts.

    First: As for those rags at the lineup at the grocery. Should a celebrity feel like what is being published is untruthful, those celeb's have every ability to sue as there are already existing slander and libel laws that prevent such thing. Whether or not they choose to is a different matter, but we have already seen succesfull lawsuits against those rags by celebrities. The most notable is Hulk Hogan Vs Gawker.

    As for your second comment about mocking of gay people, I would caution warning using such an example. Firs,t Youtube and Vox are private entities and if they have strict no homophobia or comments that can be homophobic, than they are free to do with the content as they wish and delete offending remarks. As for "does that really need to be taken down". yes. Abso-****ing-Lutely yes. We talk about equality and giving everyone as equal and fair treatment as possible. Making fun of gay people is as far from that as you can get and youtube, vox, etc have every right to remove content from their private platform that they feel does that.

    and your "laugh at it" or "ignore it" isn't valid, as if you truly believe in free nation where all peoples are created equally, you would stand up for those who are being persecuted and mistreated for who they are. not just telling people to "laugh" or "ignore" it.
     
  15. Solver thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #15
    My money says you are wrong.
     
  16. appleisking macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    #16
    He's talking about the Steven Crowder controversy, which wasn't about making fun of someone for being gay but rather making fun of a gay person. Or is that not allowed? Are gay people protected from being made fun of in a way straight people aren't?
     
  17. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #17
    Honestly, depends on what you're doing

    are you making fun of someone, who just so happens to be gay, on the basis of something he said/did?

    or are you making fun of someone, who just so happens to be gay, on the basis that they're gay.
     
  18. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #18
    Not really because they're public figures...

    If I remember correctly, that involved stolen material and blackmail.

    Then you just killed comedy in general because 90% of the times, comedy is insulting. There are a plethora of videos of people making fun of whites. Should they be banned? How about those who stereotype Asians and Italians?
     
  19. hawkeye_a macrumors 65816

    hawkeye_a

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    #19
    I heard Dr.Peterson and Dave Rubin talk about it last year. Good on them for doing something about it and hope they're successful.

    Can't wait for the equivalent alternative to YouTube.
     
  20. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #20
    yes :p

    I look heavily down on comedians who rely on racial or prejudicial stereotypes in order to get a laugh.

    I do not support them, endorse them nor give them any money. Comedians like Russell Peters to me are the lowest of low as they rely on these racial stereotypes as their only form of comedy.
     
  21. appleisking macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    #21
    See post #18 from Yaxo. 90% of comedy is making fun of people. Stephen Colbert made a homophobic comment about Trump and Putin, should his show be removed?
     
  22. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #22
    I might need a rfresher, because while they're public figures, they have (or should have) the same access ot the same legal means as everyone else to defend their name and fortunes. If this is not the case, than there is something seriously, HORRENDOUSLY broken in the US justice system where one must give up their rights because their famous.
     
  23. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #23
    I am pretty confident that then virtually no comedian would be left ... :eek: Even Borat, considered by many a classic (And it's actually a smart comedy movie) makes fun of gays.
     
  24. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #24
    Blowjobs aren't homophobic :p

    girls give them to you know ;) Colbert's comment wasn't using homophobia as the target of the joke but using a sexual act to portray subserviance.
     
  25. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #25
    Public figures have a slightly different set of rules. I am not sure how the definition of public figure will change in the youtube era...

    Just a quick read (very incomplete):
    https://libelandslander.uslegal.com/fault/public-officials-and-public-figures/
     

Share This Page

120 June 13, 2019