If you can't do things with words - i.e., your words have no perlocutionary effect - then your free speech means nothing. Miranda Fricker's stuff on epistemic injustice is relevant here.
Show this thread
Sounds good, but too simplistic. It's often the case that whether you are listened to or taken seriously is wrapped up in social forces well beyond your ability to influence. Think the Jim Crow era in the American south.https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/969878622684237824 …
-
-
-
Incidentally, this is why the idea free speech is merely the absence of govt interference is trite nonsense. If private institutions - eg, Google, Facebook - dominate the Habermasian public sphere, then being deprived access to their services is a free speech issue.
Show this thread -
If it turns out that you can't do things with words unless you have access to social media platforms, then not having access is a limit on your speech. If BLM were banned from Facebook, then that would be a free speech issue. This should be obvious.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Attention is a scarce and previous resource. How to allocate it justly hasn't been well thought-out yet. It is more complicated than other allocations because allocating it involves manipulating people's wills.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Celebrities and people wearing suits are often taken more seriously than they ought to be. Normal people are often ignored or scoffed at. Same with the young.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.