I find "not weak and overweight" to be the least compelling way to frame it.
There are a lot of positive implications that become obvious when you say you want to be strong and lightweight. While "not weak" is a passive character judgement, "strong" is a constantly available opportunity.
I have spent my entire life frustrated with the reality that none of this advice actually works for me. This is because motivation was never my problem to begin with: my problem is "executive dysfunction", which is very counterproductively titled ADHD.
Well think of this: if you knew there was $100 million in a dufflebag of gold at the bottom of a pond, would you learn how to put on scuba gear and retrieve it?
Perhaps you don't have compelling enough reasons to do things.
1) you're talking about ADHD which is a disability. It's like asking someone with no legs if they could sprout legs if the reason was compelling enough. The answer is still no.
2) If you were to counter the above by saying that, if you were compelled enough you might devote a small fortune and a few years training yourself and researching how to develop and use bionic legs, we then run into problem no 2: exceptional incentives / circumstances are not scalable, and the logic cannot be applied to problems of daily routine.
Back when I was a med student, I was expected to attend a clinic which started at 9. Unfortunately the local bus always arrived at that stop at 9:05, and the line was known for its flakiness. The route was 1h and 5min long, and I was about an hour's walk away from the stop myself. So in order to be at the hospital at 8:05 instead of 9:05, I aimed for the 7am bus, meaning I woke up at 5:30 to get to it. Except the 7am bus never showed up. So I waited another hour and got the 8am one, which inevitably arrived at 9:05.
When I got to the clinic 5 minutes late and got told off, I explained what happened, and the consultant said exactly the same thing you said: if there was a pot of money waiting you'd have been on time.
Yes except there wasn't, and I have to be at clinic every day, there was no way of knowing the first bus would not show up, and I can't afford to wake up at 4:30 everyday to get two buses ahead of the 8am one, just because some idiot thinks an imaginary pot of guilt-trip money would have instantly solved the problem.
I have a similar issue, I can find motivation to start something but then it spirals into other things.
For $100 million I would probably just learn to put on the scuba gear but for instance my mind would go to "I should make my own scuba gear". So for a personal project I start on something and decide I need something else, so then I want to make a tool to help me make that thing and so on. I think it's probably related to a shorter attention span so I'm working on that.
Actually do it? That's a lot less certain than you would expect.
I would probably start. Since this hypothetical is a pretty simple one-off, I might even manage to generate enough executive functioning to follow through.
What I can tell you for certain is that I am still very excited to work on a custom keyboard project that I started 4 years ago. I have all the parts and equipment readily available at home, and plenty of free time. I have not worked on it at all over the past 4 years.
I do need a compelling reason to do something. I can't figure out how all these people get through what they do without wanting to jump out their office windows, to be honest.
Is it fun/interesting? Can I make it fun/interesting? Does it make me or save me money so I can do something fun/interesting?
If the answer is no to all of these questions, I'm going to have a bad time. Unfortunately, I'm that simple. I've gotten better at number two over the years, though.
Scuba diving sounds fun. I'd probably do it for less.
It's possible to make (via polyglot JS/HTML files[1]) apps that offer both a command-line interface that can be invoked with NodeJS (or other JS-ish runtime) or can be opened in the browser (via double-click, the browser's File Open dialog, or by just typing the file path into the location bar) if the right version of NodeJS isn't available (or for people who just don't want to give carte blanche to run outside the safety of the browser sandbox to programs downloaded from the internet, given the poor track record of NPM-based program creators/maintainers to stay on top of their dependencies).
A ton more programs, especially one-shot programs that operate on a single batch input (e.g. a directory of files) and then generate some output—like a ZIP copy of the files for your static site—should offer this but unfortunately don't. At best they'll put out an Electron app for cross-platform compatibility, but it doesn't sidestep the problem of granting overbroad capabilities to NPM modules (or the massive memory footprint). Then, in this case, there's Observable Desktop, which as a Mac-only app, falls short even of that mark.
Isn't the idea to write notes? I think constantly running a script to generate a static webpage would drive me insane. Isn't the whole point of a computational notebook to have some kind of integrated GUI?
have you taken a look at what the CLI is for? like you mentioned, it's pretty much just a build step! but there are some runtime things basked that are interesting [0]. i just have a watcher listening to file changes to trigger a rebuild. i have no need for real-time queries so just having the current state at build works for my purposes.
if you must know, the product i work on is primarily a data lake. we have our own query language -> i have a fork of the CLI w added support for parsing custom cells. i don't know of any alternatives that give me a notebook so easily!
> running a script to generate a static webpage would drive me insane
possibly web-brained take but i don't mind it much. builds are instant for me, network latency is the only thing i find myself waiting around on.
> Isn't the whole point of a computational notebook to have some kind of integrated GUI
well yea, pretty sure the entire point of the desktop app is to show what you can build atop the new api! this preview is meant to expand the capability of observable within your own custom web app. the original framework was too close to some of the frustrations you mentioned, so they're trying to make it more amorphous :)
I guess my point was that I don't really want my first interaction with a thing I'm casually curious about to be me building a custom web app on top of it. By making their GUI app Apple-only, they have lost my casual interest. I'm not sure what they gained by making that compromise.
This is the question that anti-cheat conveniently dodges.
The real problem is that "cheating" is practically undefinable. What players really need is moderation. There is no relevant difference, from a player's perspective, between playing against a cheater or playing against a legitimately skilled person. If someone is not fun to play with, then that needs to be managed somehow.
The most effective strategy is for players to moderate the servers they play on. This has recently become impossible, because game studios have chosen to monopolize server hosting while also abdicating the responsibility of moderation. Anti-cheat is nothing more than a lazy implementation of automated moderation.
There's a reason that Battlefield 4 is still going strong, while Battlefield One (which came out just after 4) is unplayable. That reason is player-hosted servers.
Moderation is a fine suggestion. This idea could actually be implemented in such a way that other player clients do detection and reporting behind the scenes. Suppose a ton of clients see one user violating rules of the physics engine. Automated reporting on that can be observed as a trend and a ban would make sense.
Having argued about this specific topic in the past, I agree that going so far as to do checks on player movement is difficult and even expensive if you're validating physics for every user.
What concerns me more is the increased risk of RCEs when developers skip fundamental security practices because "the anti-cheat handles it" for them.
If it's not a disability, then why can't I work on projects that I am excited to work on?
Sure, my ADHD experience is probably the impetus for most of those projects in the first place, but that doesn't help me get anything done, whether I want to or not.
It sounds like what really happened is that you found an appropriate amount/cadence of medication for your body. That's much more difficult than many realize, which is why each stimulant is sold with 5 different delivery methods: immediate release, capsule with drug dust coated in timed digestion substance, capsule with hole to pump via capillary action, skin patch, and the bonus prodrug lisdexamphetamine that metabolizes into amphetamine at the rate of digestion.
Yet this looks nothing like their reaction to SOPA and PIPA. They even explicitly state that Wikimedia is not against the legislation on the whole.
> The Wikimedia Foundation shares the UK government’s commitment to promoting online environments where everyone can safely participate. The organization is not bringing a general challenge to the OSA as a whole, nor to the existence of the Category 1 duties themselves. Rather, the legal challenge focuses solely on the new Categorisation Regulations that risk imposing Category 1 duties (the OSA’s most stringent obligations) on Wikipedia.
---
I personally find it rather frustrating that Wikimedia is suddenly so willing to bend over for fascists. Where did their conscience go?
The old generation of idealists grew up and we raised no one to replace them. I know because I'm in that emotionally and ideologically stunted generation.
A lot of 1990s tech optimists thought that people with awful opinions were the unfortunate victims of a lack of access to books and education; and the strict gatekeeping of broadcast media by the powerful.
This new multi-media technology was going to give everyone on the planet access to a complete free university education, thousands of books, and would prevent the likes of Chinese state-run media suppressing knowledge about Tienanmen Square.
And after they receive this marvellous free education, all the communists and nazis and religious nutjobs will realise they were wrong and we were right. We won't need any censorship though, in our enlightenment-style marketplace of ideas, rational argument is all that's needed to send bad ideas packing, and the educated audience will have no trouble seeing through fallacies and trickery.
Also the greater education will mean everyone can get better jobs and make more money, and with this trade with China we're just ramping up they'll see our brilliant democratic system, and peacefully adopt it. The recently fallen Soviet Union is of course going to do the same, and it's going to go really well. We'll all live happily ever after.
This Bill Clinton chap has a federal budget surplus, now we're not spending all that money on the cold war, so we'll get that national debt paid off in no time too.
You may be able to figure out why this particular brand of optimism isn't so fashionable these days.
I wouldn’t say that optimism and idealism are no longer fashionable, but instead that original optimism (however true) was blinded by it’s own lack of knowledge. We should still be perusing optimist/idealist outcomes but not the ones from another era.
To be fair, we have lots of things that people in the '90 were just hoping for (in medicine, tech, average world wealth, etc), but sure we didn't get all the maximalist/idealist results.
Also, I think tech optimists might have a tendency to ignore how slow changes actually happen (thinking of how many times we got promised self driving cars or fusion).
My impression is that the covid pandemic had a huge psychological impact on everybody which resulted in anger and fear surfacing at all levels, with bad implications (emotion based decision making, aggressiveness, conflict). No clue if this is real or if it is how it will play out on the long term...
>but sure we didn't get all the maximalist/idealist results.
Yes. The techis mostly there, and a few decades later it's readily available and cheap enough to be almost universally available. But you can't make a horse drink. The old guard may have underestimated the power of a cult and this attraction to authoritarianism. I didn't believe it either some decade ago. But seeing it before my eyes shows the folly of man.
COVID was definitely an accelerator for all these bad traits to come out of the woodwork. It could have been any economic downfall, but a global pandemic requiring a simple behavior to not die really showed this odd. If "wear a mask or you'll die" can't convince some people, I'm not sure what can.
Economic infantilisation and the new productised and externalised way of being brought upon by social media. We were an autopilot society that thought it had no need to restate values or keep innovating. The things that used to matter like community bonds and values dont matter literally because we cant see them in an instagram post and they may as well not exist-
plus the media and public sphere dysfunction we see through the fact that we haven't seen any new celebrities or public intellectuals elected in the past 10 years, telling people ideas don't get you anywhere.
This will only get worse as we are at the end of progression of this culture and cultural consensus has split between educated legacy media and uneducated young new media which develops its own often incorrect assumptions about the world- like about mental illness assumptions. It's cultural ouroboros- we're destroying parts of ourselves because they've grown too different. We need a new way forward and a new culture of contentment that champions the human.
If you've been paying attention to the subtext in news stories for the past couple of years you may have some idea why this is happening.
>If you've been paying attention to the subtext in news stories for the past couple of years you may have some idea why this is happening.
Maybe I'm a bit dramatic here, but the subtext I seem to get is that "legacy media is dying out and we're not going to cede power easily. Even if we burn the country down with us."
There's no graceful transfer to the next generation like usual (or perhaps, there never was a graceful transfer to begin with). It has this apocalyptic feeling where the old guard wants to do any and everything they want and don't care what happens after they are gone. Not every boomer, but it's the generation with those people in power.
It's a fire sale on american imperialism, capital and cultural dominance, and everyone wants in. American leadership is geriatric and asleep at the wheel and the dementia vote is dangerous. Everyone sees this as the free for all it is.
There will always be those who seek to create order from chaos for their own benefit. We're seeing multiple groups trying to emotionally stunt this next generation and sow social discord. These are the same groups that have blackmail on the current sitting. China is more of a military threat but russia is far more of a cultural threat because they understand the west, which is nothing to joke about. Hungary is obviously also influential, due to their constant meetings in the us and hungary with the heritage foundation, and their help in formulating the presidential transition project.
Our blue "friend" in the middle east is just as malicious, easily scorned and has a passion for retaliation.
Apathy and fatalism is ascendant in western leadership, just look at the culture behind davos and modern american tech start ups. Mass hardcore group sex parties of the wealthy and influential(davos and openai), designer drugs, an underlying humour on selling out the world and killing it with climate change. They don't care about the atomization of the individual or the sancitity of him either.
We need to identify the new poles of power to understand the currents that shape our world if we are to have any hope in fighting them.
>I personally find it rather frustrating that Wikimedia is suddenly so willing to bend over for fascists. Where did their conscience go?
I absolutely abhor the "Kids these days" sort of argument, but it does seem the case that we lowered the barrier of entry sufficiently in the tech sector that people who simply dont give a shit, or actively want to harm our values, now outnumber us greatly.
What has happened previously was we would rally around corporations and institutions that would generally work in our best interests. But the people driving those social goods in those entities are now the villains.
Not to mention all the mergers and acquisitions.
In Australia, during the internet filter debate, we had both a not for profit entity spending money on advertising, but also decently sized ISP's like iiNet working publicly against the problem. The not for profit was funded by industry, something that never happened again. And iiNet is now owned by TPG who also used to have a social conscience but have been hammered into the dust by the (completely non technical, and completely asinine bane of the internets existence and literal satan) ACCC and have no fight left in them for anything. When Teoh leaves or sells TPG, it will probably never fight a good fight ever again.
Its the same everywhere. We cant expect people to fight for freedom when the legislation just gets renamed and relaunched again after the next crisis comes out in the media. We lost internet filtration after christchurch, for absolutely no justifiable reason. And we lost the Access and Assistance fight despite having half the global tech industry tell our government to suck eggs.
The only real solution is to prep the next generation to fight back as best as possible, to help them ignore the doomsayers and help the right humans into the right places to deal with this shit.
Hey hey hey.. hold on, wait a minuet. What did you just say about the ACCC. Those guys make sure we have good warranties and cracking down on scams. They are the good guys protecting us from the scammers and cooperate greed.
> we lowered the barrier of entry sufficiently in the tech sector that people who simply dont give a shit, or actively want to harm our values, now outnumber us greatly.
I don't think it's a matter of number but activity. There are numerous ways that entities with no morals can make huge amounts of money by exploiting people online (via weaknesses in human psychology adapted for hunting on a savannah), both children and adults. It's hard to make money doing the opposite.
I share your general frustration, but as an unabashed Wikimedia glazer, I have some potential answers:
1. They lost this legal challenge, so perhaps their UK lawyers (barristers?) knew that much broader claim would be even less likely to work and advised them against it. Just because they didn't challenge the overall law in court doesn't mean they wouldn't challenge it in a political sense.
2. The Protests against SOPA and PIPA[1] were in response to overreach by capitalists, and as such drew support from many capitalists with opposing interests (e.g. Google, Craigslist, Flickr, Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter, Wordpress, etc.). Certainly Reddit et al have similar general concerns with having to implement ID systems as they did about policing content for IP violations, but the biggest impact will be on minors, which AFAIK are far from the most popular advertising demo. Certainly some adult users will be put off by the hassle and/or insult, but how many, and for how long?
3. Wikimedia is a US-based organization, and the two major organizers of the 2012 protests--Fight for the Future[2] and the Electronic Frontier Foundation[3]--are US-focused as well. The EFF does have a blog post about these UK laws, but AFAICT no history of bringing legal and/or protest action there. This dovetails nicely with the previous point, while we're at it: the US spends $300B on digital ads every year, whereas the UK only spends $40B[4]. The per-capita spends are closer ($870/p v. $567/p), but the fact remains: the US is the lifeblood of these companies in a way that the UK is not.
4. More fundamentally, I strongly suspect that "big business is trying to ruin the internet by hoarding their property" is an easier sell for the average voter than "big government is trying to ruin the internet by protecting children from adult content". We can call it fascism all we like, but at the end of the day, people do seem concerned about children accessing adult content. IMHO YouTube brainrot content farms are a much bigger threat to children than porn, but I'm not a parent.
The final point is perhaps weakened by the ongoing AI debates, where there's suddenly a ton of support for the "we're protecting artists!" arguments employed in 2012. Still, I think the general shape of things is clear: Wikimedia stood in solidarity with many others in 2012, and now stands relatively alone.
> Just because they didn't challenge the overall law in court doesn't mean they wouldn't challenge it in a political sense.
That's my point, though. This is the perfect opportunity to do so, and they aren't doing it. Instead, they are picking the smallest possible battle they can. That decision alone makes waves.
> Certainly Reddit et al have similar general concerns with having to implement ID systems as they did about policing content for IP violations, but the biggest impact will be on minors.
That's ridiculous. ID systems endanger everyone, particularly the adults who participate. This issue isn't isolated from capitalism. These ID systems must be implemented and managed by corporations, whose greatest incentive is to collect and monetize data.
> We can call it fascism all we like, but at the end of the day, people do seem concerned about children accessing adult content.
The think-of-the-children argument is the oldest trick in the book. You are seriously asking me to take it at face value? No thank you.
> More fundamentally, I strongly suspect that "big business is trying to ruin the internet by hoarding their property" is an easier sell for the average voter than "big government is trying to ruin the internet by protecting children from adult content".
If people really are blind to the change that has happened right in front of them, then we should be spelling it out at every opportunity. This is my biggest concern with how Wikimedia is behaving: they are in a significant position politically, and are abdicating this crucial responsibility.
Some of it is probably about the scope of UK judicial review. Acts of Parliament are absolutely exempt from being struck down. The closest you can get is a "declaration of incompatibility" that a bill is incapable of being read in such a way as complying with the European Convention on Human Rights. If at all possible the courts will gloss and/or interpret hard to come up with a compliant reading. And an incompatibility declaration just suggests Parliament looks again: it doesn't invalidate a law by itself.
Executive acts, on the other hand, can be annulled or overturned reasonably straightforwardly, and this includes the regulations that flesh out the details of Acts of Parliament (which are executive instruments even when they need Parliamentary approval).
In short, judicial review is a practical remedy for a particular decision. "These regulations may unreasonably burden my speech" is potentially justiciable. "This Act could be used to do grave evil" isn't. If an act can be implemented in a Convention compatible way then the courts will assume it will until shown otherwise.
The consequences can look something like the report of this judgement. Yes, it looks like the regulations could harm Wikipedia in ways that might not be Convention compatible. But because interpretation and enforcement is in the hands of Ofcom, it's not yet clear. If they are, Wikipedia have been (essentially) invited to come back. But the regulations are not void ab inito.
Thanks for the detailed answers! Again, I share at least some of your underlying concern, and don't want that to be overshadowed. That said, some responses:
This is the perfect opportunity to do so, and they aren't doing it. Instead, they are picking the smallest possible battle they can.
It looks like they've written three articles "strongly" opposing the "tremendous threat" posed by this bill: two when it was being considered[1,2] and another after it passed[3]. Yes, these articles are focused on the impact of the bill on Wikimedia's projects, but I think that's clearly a rhetorical strategy to garner some credibility from the notoriously-stuffy UK legislature. "Foreign nonprofit thinks your bill is bad in general" isn't exactly a position of authority to speak from (if you're thinking like a politician).
More recently, they've proposed the "Wikipedia test" to the public and to lawmakers (such as at the 2024 UN General Assembly[6]) that pretty clearly implicates this bill. The test reads as such: Before passing regulations, legislators should ask themselves whether their proposed laws would make it easier or harder for people to read, contribute to, and/or trust a project like Wikipedia.
That's ridiculous. ID systems endanger everyone, particularly the adults who participate.
I was more making a point about why social media companies aren't involved than justifying that choice for them on a moral level. I suspect you have stronger beliefs than I about the relative danger of your name being tied to (small subsets of-)your online activity, but regardless, Wikimedia agrees, writing in 2023 that the bill "only protects a select group of individuals, while likely exposing others to restrictions of their human rights, such as the right to privacy and freedom of expression."
The think-of-the-children argument is the oldest trick in the book. You are seriously asking me to take it at face value? No thank you.
It's still a valid argument. Again I wasn't really endorsing any position there, but I do think that in general the government should try to protect children. The only way I could imagine you disagreeing with that broad mandate is if you're a strong libertarian in general?
This is my biggest concern with how Wikimedia is behaving: they are in a significant position politically, and are abdicating this crucial responsibility.
This, I think, is the fundamental disagreement: I just don't see them as being in that significant of a position. Given today's news I wouldn't be surprised to see them throw up a banner on the Wikipedia homepage and/or do a solo one-day blackout reminiscient of 2012, but even those drastic measures are pretty small beans.
The real nuclear option--blocking the UK from accessing Wikimedia sites--would certainly garner some attention, but it would cost them greatly in terms of good will, energy, and raw output from their (presumably quite significant) UK editor base. And when would it end? If the UK government chooses to ignore them, wouldn't it feel weird for Wikipedia to be blocked for years in the UK but remain accessible in brutal autocracies worldwide?
In the end, this feels like a job for UK voters, not international encyclopedias. I appreciate the solidarity they've shown already, but implying that they are weak for "abdicating [their] crucial responsibility" seems like a step too far.
The UK spent the last weekend arresting hundreds of people for holding up signs with the words "Palestine Action" on them, while ignoring people marching around and giving Hitler salutes.
Anyone expecting sanity from the UK on this topic is being somewhat optimistic.
To reiterate - this is not about protecting kids. If it was about protecting kids it would be trivial to set up a blacklist of the most popular porn sites that need ID as a first step, and worry about other sites - like Wikipedia - later.
This is about setting up a mechanism for mass surveillance of future dissent.
The "think of the kids" argument is a Trojan horse - a standard and predictable populist appeal to protective emotions.
> It's still a valid argument. Again I wasn't really endorsing any position there, but I do think that in general the government should try to protect children. The only way I could imagine you disagreeing with that broad mandate is if you're a strong libertarian in general?
My point is that it is not a strong argument. It isn't an argument at all! Instead, "think of the children" is a thoughtless appeal to emotion. The irony is that my position comes from actually thinking of the children. Censorship does not help children at all. Instead, it degrades well moderated platforms, which incentivizes children into interacting with poorly moderated platforms.
> I just don't see them as being in that significant of a position.
That's incredible to me. What website could possibly be more important to laypeople? Maybe YouTube or Facebook, I suppose, but neither of those could begin to replace Wikipedia.
> The real nuclear option--blocking the UK from accessing Wikimedia sites--would certainly garner some attention.
That's an understatement. Everyone would notice. Even more interestingly, it would illustrate to everyone the absurdity of internet censorship: everyone would immediately learn a workaround, because it's impossible to actually censor the internet.
Linking from right-wing organizations does not make the facts presented in the articles less true… you should critique the content of the articles, not their origin.
Brandolini's Law is relevant. If we havs to carefully point-by-point critique every point our opponent makes, while they get to use ChatGPT to write nonsense at fifty times human reading speed, we lose.
To work around this, when a bullshit-producing organization is cited, it's proper to ask for an alternative citation from an organization that produces mostly non-bullshit. If it truly isn't bullshit content, there should be many, so cite one.
It's just spam filtering. I don't reply to "forward this to ten people you know or suffer eternal damnation" but my ignorance doesn't mean they're right. If you put important content in an email starting with "Dear Sir or Madam, I have a business proposal, I am a Nigerian prince" that's on you and the fact that I ignore your email doesn't mean I agree with whatever you wrote in the email.
Except that in this particular case these were not bullshit articles. I had time to read them and I agree with them. You should read the articles before calling them names….
If they are not bullshit content, then please prove it by citing the same content from a not bullshit source. There should be plenty.
In other words, if your email really isn't a Nigerian prince scam, why did you choose to begin it with the words "I have a business proposal for you - you see, I am a Nigerian prince"?
> Except that in this particular case these were not bullshit articles.
They are, though. I had time to read them, too, and agree with the "bullshit" assessment. Each relies on the deeply bad-faith idea (in each case, from people/groups all quietly permitting much more significant First Amendment violations go unchallenged, like the President extorting law firms and colleges for millions of dollars) that the ACLU must take up every case that comes their way. That has never been the case; if the Heritage foundation wants that, they can step in and help fund.
A good portion of the ACLU's job is to determine which cases will meaningfully advance civil rights; which cases will lead to precedent or outcomes that support their goals.
Pretty telling what speech on the left and the right looks like.
For the left, it's:
> Eugene Debs, for example, was sentenced to 10 years in prison under the Espionage Act after he spoke at a rally for peaceful workers telling them they were “fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder”... Likewise, in 1919, Schenck v. U.S., the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a Socialist Party member after he sent anti-war leaflets to men across the country.
For the right, it's:
> It will not defend the First Amendment rights of pro-life pregnancy centers [...to trick desparate women into receiving useless propaganda instead of the medical care they were seeking] or small religious businesses [...to deny service based on rank bigotry]. It no longer defends religious freedom [...to deny adoptions to LGBT couples[1], to fire employees for receiving or abetting an abortion[2], and to perjure yourself in a senate hearing about your intention to make legal rulings on the basis of religion[3]], although it once did. And in a leaked internal memo, the ACLU takes the position that free speech denigrating “marginalized groups” should not be defended.
If you're ever in a position to write "marginalized groups" in scare-quotes, perhaps that should be a wakeup call...
P.S. It doesn't help that your links are to 1) a libertarian thinktank founded to oppose the New Deal, 2) the Heritage Foundation and 3) an opinion piece by Alan Dershowitz. The first is extremely biased, and the latter two are just plain bad-faith.
The next time somebody says the phrase "Fire in a crowded theater" to support free speech restrictions, remind them that this phrase comes from Schenck vs US (argued 1919), which was about whether you have the right to distribute antiwar pamphlets.
At issue was whether antiwar speech can constitutionally be punished as espionage, which can be a capital crime under US law, punishable by death.
Whether you're allowed to to speak in ways that Congress considers too close to 'creating a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress has power to prevent'. Whether you could criminalize speech deemed disloyal or detrimental to the war effort.
Woodrow Wilson was the 28th president of the United States, serving from 1913 to 1921, and among other things, his administration dramatically expanded the precedential authority of the federal government in authoritarian directions, particularly with regards to things like surveillance and censorship. The Sedition Act of 1918 "broadened the scope of prohibited speech to include any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the U.S. government, flag, or military", and the Espionage Act of 1917 "made it illegal to interfere with the military, obstruct recruitment, or convey information that could harm the U.S. or aid its enemies. "
It took the Warren and Burger courts of the 60's/70's to reel this back in and re-establish many of the Constitutional rights you were taught about. It's unclear whether the pendulum will swing back the other way precedentially, but doubtless Trump would prefer carte blanche to target dissidents.
Neither the left or the right wants anything. People inside each group do. This is an important distinction that pundits love to invert.
I have a very hard time taking any of your sources seriously, particularly when it comes to any categorization of "the left".
FEE is a conservative libertarian think tank. Heritage Foundation is the most infamous conservative think tank. Alan Dershowitz is most famous for defending Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump, and Jeffrey Epstein, and decided to leave the Democratic party as soon as it showed signs of becoming a bit less Zionist.
These are prime examples of pundits who love to frame the "the left" as a singular cohesive boogeyman. You may not intentionally be picking on the left, but the sources you have cited make a living picking on a version of "the left" that they invented.
I am so much not willing to listen to what heritage specifically has to say on the topic. Could you pick less hypocritical and less eager to lie resources to "definitely not pick up on left totally both side"? Heritage foundation literally where Project 2025 was created and published.
Also, I definitely love the track record of "the measure of free speech is your willingness to defend nazi and never use words to support the left":
> To be sure, the ACLU will still occasionally take a high profile case involving a Nazi or Klan member who has been denied freedom of speech, though there are now some on the board who would oppose supporting such right-wing extremists. But the core mission of the ACLU — and its financial priority — is to promote its left-wing agenda in litigation, in public commentary and, now, in elections. If you want to know the reason for this shift, [...]
Yeah, their litmus test is always willingness to defend nazi AND not have left like opinions. If you are aligned with right wing specifically, you are fine. Just dont you dare to have left like opinions. Total neutral.
Sure, here are some liberal leaning sources saying things you might not like if you believe these things, including vile things said by extremist groups, should be censored:
Please note: I 100% abhor white supremacy and any kind of racism. But you can and should defend the right to free speech without agreeing with that speech.
We need to support the speech of all groups we detest - baby eaters, satanists, polygamists, racists, sexists, murderers, capitalists, Marxists, televangelists, etc. - in order to champion free speech for all. Once that freedom disappears, it won't come back. Then the systems of censorship and oppression will be used against us.
I'm LGBT. I know what it was like to grow up when my "lifestyle" was taboo. I know how easily and quickly society can change. I don't want to ever have my freedom removed or to be put into a box.
If you're uneasy about this, remember that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from judgement. If you say something disgusting, you'll lose credibility and business from most people. Crowds already effectively censor. But we don't need the government or public squares becoming thought police and building automated systems to muzzle and detain us. Once those systems get built, we're done for.
> We need to support the speech of all groups we detest - baby eaters, satanists, polygamists, racists, sexists, murderers, capitalists, Marxists, televangelists, etc. - in order to champion free speech for all.
Except that, in practice the defense of self styled free speech advocates did not extended to left, gay, radical feminists, progressives anyone not far right.
In what world is NY times left leaning.
> If you're uneasy about this, remember that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from judgement.
Somehow that part did applied to only selected groups. Criticising right and conservatives was treated as grave danger to free speech by the self styled free speech advocates.
The big crisis of free speech is never about speech rights of anyone left of center. Literally even now.
> Except that, in practice the defense of self styled free speech advocates did not extended to left, gay, radical feminists, progressives anyone not far right.
Yes, the wealthy and their supporters, a.k.a. the right... the segment of the rest of us who knows about this ideological divide, a.k.a. the left... and the rest of the rest of us who don't take sides.
These words do mean things. The left is the ideology of supporting less tall power hierarchies, and the right is the ideology of supporting taller power hierarchies. Wealthy left-wing people don't stay wealthy for long, hence almost all wealthy people are right-wing.
Note a common misconception - in the American context, note the Democrats are not left. Trying to contort the definition of left to make the Democrat party fit the definition muddies the meaning severely. However many left-wing Americans do vote for the Democrat party, because game theory makes it the optimal vote if you're left-wing.
There are a lot of positive implications that become obvious when you say you want to be strong and lightweight. While "not weak" is a passive character judgement, "strong" is a constantly available opportunity.