Why is alignment necessary? In our system compromise is the typical alignment sought where no single view dominates the decisions or direction. With enforced alignment no compromise is more than not necessary it’s not possible. That’s the dysfunction of the present because there’s a perception that holding office entails enforcing alignment, and opposing voices not only need not be heard but are forcefully silenced. However the system we have in the US doesn’t allow for that, and explicably, it’s even more dysfunctional than normal. Sooner or later they have to stop and compromise, over throw the system, or be removed. That’s precisely how it’s designed to work.
So, you shouldn’t be silenced, your opinions should be heard, and to the extent they’re reasonable, they should be considered proportional to your ability to influence. The more to which this is prevented or ignored the more unstable the system is.
There’s a difference between forced alignment and rejection of falsehoods. On each of these the response to the questions were investigations in the public space, especially vaccines, but through various processes. This is the opposite of forced alignment - this is deliberately considering opposing views. That doesn’t mean a decision isn’t eventually reached, and the fact we are relitigating all of these year over year even on verifiable facts shows there is no forcing of alignment by the system. I think people don’t realize what forced alignment looks like - that’s Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Xi China, North Korea, etc, where dissent is not tolerated, not allowed, and alignment is forced.
Well, HN isn’t a part of the system I refer to, the system is the constitutional republic under the bill of rights. And you’ll notice as forced alignment is attempted in our system it gets litigated and often fails. The policy system is generally deliberative requiring input and consideration at minimum. Everything is reviewed by many layers of judicial review for fairness, and every six years the entire executive and legislative branch could undergo a total revolution. What i think is false is considered but isn’t by mandate so, no matter who I am - president, senator, HN poster. What is considered true today can be repudiated tomorrow.
I deserve words and actions to align. If people say they believe in free speech, then don't throttle posting rates. What i want is Honest, logical decision making, from a foundation of facts. What I get is tyranny.
If you think free speech is important, then don't flag posts as trolling.
What you say is free speech is important as long as it doesn't disrupt MY community.
Free speech is important unless I label you a troll.
They are not contradictory. Publicly labeling someone a troll is indisputably speech. You mistake the situation as someone denying you your rights, but really you are just failing to recognize the same rights for that person or group.
The communities that are presumably excluding you are exercising their freedom of association.
You may not (indeed, seem not to) realize, but freedom of association is understood to be part of the set of freedoms generally known as freedom of speech/expression.
It's the freedom of people, collectively or individually, to associate with certain others, or not to associate with them.
You are reckoning with the consequences of how you've chosen to exercise your rights, but you have not been denied them. No one is obligated to include you (in the context of public discourse).
Bullshit. I have the right to free association, too. I am not required to let you interact with me; I can block you on Twitter just as I can lock you out of my house.
