5 ms·

Yes, that is how censorship works nowadays: you can put it online, but simply won't get it anywhere near a channel where any sizeable amount of people might see

Yes, that is how censorship works nowadays: you can put it online, but simply won't get it anywhere near a channel where any sizeable amount of people might see it.

jolux 11y ago
Freedom of speech isn't really the right to say what you want to a large group of people, it's the right to say what you want _period_ regardless of who's listening. It's your job to find an audience.
- xg15 11y ago
  That's an easy stance to take - I'm sure many oppressive regimes would be more than happy to permit that definition of "freedom of speech": You may say whatever you like, provided no one is there to hear it. Of course there is no right to an audience. But if the success or failue of finding an audience starts to depend on the goodwill of a few powerful gatekeepers (media/TV companies before and now apparently "platform" operators) then the right to free speech stops to really be worth very much.
  - bad_user 11y ago
    Freedom of speech in a liberal democracy comes packaged with the right for property. And your freedom of speech does not hold on other people's property. Not trying to defend Apple, but I find it interesting how many people on HN willingly embraced walled gardens. Thankfully the web is still there, still open and great.
    - themartorana 11y ago
      And monitored.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      We keep building spaces that we treat as public but aren't. That's a problem even if the individual actions are defensible.
  - urda 11y ago
    > That's an easy stance to take No that's the 100% correct stance to take. You are not forced to use Apple's products or their walled garden, and they are not required to grant you access. > I'm sure many oppressive regimes would be more than happy to permit that definition of "freedom of speech" Can we drop the hyperbole and focus on the discussion please?
    - themartorana 11y ago
      "...they are not required to grant you access." They're not granting me access, they're restricting my access to content they don't own. They have no real right to deny me access.
      - coderdude 11y ago
        They have no right to deny you access to their platform or to deny content from being distributed through their platform. Something about that sounds incorrect.
      - urda 11y ago
        What you described is not a right, and they are allowed to control what is or is not in their store. Whether you like it or not.
        coldtea 11y ago
        Well, a black man not being a slave wasn't his right in 1840 Georgia either. Staying in the same hotel as whites wasn't his right in 1950. It's always better to concentrate at what we think SHOULD be the right or what it's we consider ethical, than merely restating what happens to be the law, which can very easily be BS. And "whether we like it or not" plays a huge role in having laws changed -- that's where we should be starting from, not waving it away as if we're some kind of non-citizen slaves where things are just forced upon us.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >No that's the 100% correct stance to take. You are not forced to use Apple's products or their walled garden, and they are not required to grant you access. It doesn't matter if you're forced or not. In a world where the majority chooses to use them (for other reasons, e.g. convenience, features, price, etc), the company controlling what's broadcast on them is censorship, and has the same effects as censoring the publishing of a book had in 1700. If the majority had chosen those platforms with the EXPLICIT goal of avoiding your content that would be another thing.
  - code_sterling 11y ago
    You have the right to say anything you want, you do not have the right to say it in my home. I don't understand how there are so many people that don't understand FOS.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      They understand it perfectly - you're conflating the law (the government isn't allowed to prevent you from speaking) with the principle it's based on (restricting people's ability to speak is a backwards, repressive thing to do). Freedom of speech != the first amendment.
      - meddlepal 11y ago
        I'm sorry but your definition of FOS is radical. I think few people would agree that FOS means you can say anything anywhere at anytime.
      - felipeerias 11y ago
        The story talks about an European group trying to reach a global audience. I was making a more general point about how over-reliance on private platforms makes censorship much easier for governments and corporations everywhere. Why do you guys keep assuming that "the law" equals "US law as I understand it"?
    - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
      I've extended the "in my home" argument to "on my website" before--e.g. Reddit restricting what you can say on Reddit is not really censorship--but stretching "in my home" to mean "on the hardware which you purchased from me" seems like rather a different thing.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    Relevant: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centrali...
  - tajano 11y ago
    > You may say whatever you like, provided no one is there to hear it. Freedom of speech does not mean you are granted unmitigated control over the content a private medium, channel, or platform. For example, it doesn't imply that I can force the New York Times to publish this comment in their newspaper, nor can I force NBC to read this comment aloud on the nightly news. Similarly, I cannot force Apple to publish my content on their platform. In no way does this violate of my freedom of speech.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >Similarly, I cannot force Apple to publish my content on their platform. In no way does this violate of my freedom of speech. Only in the sense that this "freedom of speech" is codified in current law -- and that's specific to the US even, elsewhere can differ. Other countries for examples don't allow a shop owner discriminate as to who he choses to do business with (e.g. like that Colorado bakery that refused to sell to gay couples). I'd say it would be good for society if companies having mass business platforms were forced by law to not be allowed to censor anything not already censorable by law already (e.g. child pornography, libel etc).
krapp 11y ago
> but simply won't get it anywhere near a channel where any sizeable amount of people might see it. They have a youtube channel, with over three million views, which can be accessed from any device with a modern browser. Your definition of "censorship" seems to be an incredibly liberal one.
- themartorana 11y ago
  Censorship is actively preventing content from reaching people. It's not a liberal definition, it's a literal one.
  - krapp 11y ago
    By that definition, there is still no censorship happening here. Apple isn't preventing content from reaching anyone, because that content is still available through the youtube app on the same platform and any available web browser.
omaranto 11y ago
I thought YouTube was pretty popular nowadays, and you can watch the CCC videos there.
ISL 11y ago
Forcing someone to display someone else's content is also a form of oppression and censorship.
coldtea 11y ago
Was it any better 20 years ago though? I mean today a sole internet webpage/domain by the CCC might reach 10x as many people as it would back 20 years ago. Besides, even if it was available on Apple TV would many people care for it? It seems like some people don't just ask for distribution on those "closed gardens" (which CCC are denied, and I agree it would be better if they got), but they also fantasize that had they had said distribution it would also magically give them some huge audience. Not potential audience, mind you -- rather it's as if they think that merely being there they deserve/should/would be a success. Come to think of it, that's also the case with some people allowed in the closed gardens -- they lament that "hey, I made my app/content and got it there, where's my top 10 spot?". I guess those people can't understand than in a list of N places (the top 1000 most successful apps say), if the candidates are MxN (where M>1), then (M-1)*N of them won't make the list.

Yes, that is how censorship works nowadays: you can put it online, but simply won't get it anywhere near a channel where any sizeable amount of people might see it.

jolux 11y ago

Freedom of speech isn't really the right to say what you want to a large group of people, it's the right to say what you want _period_ regardless of who's listening. It's your job to find an audience.

xg15 11y ago
That's an easy stance to take - I'm sure many oppressive regimes would be more than happy to permit that definition of "freedom of speech": You may say whatever you like, provided no one is there to hear it. Of course there is no right to an audience. But if the success or failue of finding an audience starts to depend on the goodwill of a few powerful gatekeepers (media/TV companies before and now apparently "platform" operators) then the right to free speech stops to really be worth very much.
- bad_user 11y ago
  Freedom of speech in a liberal democracy comes packaged with the right for property. And your freedom of speech does not hold on other people's property. Not trying to defend Apple, but I find it interesting how many people on HN willingly embraced walled gardens. Thankfully the web is still there, still open and great.
  - themartorana 11y ago
    And monitored.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    We keep building spaces that we treat as public but aren't. That's a problem even if the individual actions are defensible.
- urda 11y ago
  > That's an easy stance to take No that's the 100% correct stance to take. You are not forced to use Apple's products or their walled garden, and they are not required to grant you access. > I'm sure many oppressive regimes would be more than happy to permit that definition of "freedom of speech" Can we drop the hyperbole and focus on the discussion please?
  - themartorana 11y ago
    "...they are not required to grant you access." They're not granting me access, they're restricting my access to content they don't own. They have no real right to deny me access.
    - coderdude 11y ago
      They have no right to deny you access to their platform or to deny content from being distributed through their platform. Something about that sounds incorrect.
    - urda 11y ago
      What you described is not a right, and they are allowed to control what is or is not in their store. Whether you like it or not.
      - coldtea 11y ago
        Well, a black man not being a slave wasn't his right in 1840 Georgia either. Staying in the same hotel as whites wasn't his right in 1950. It's always better to concentrate at what we think SHOULD be the right or what it's we consider ethical, than merely restating what happens to be the law, which can very easily be BS. And "whether we like it or not" plays a huge role in having laws changed -- that's where we should be starting from, not waving it away as if we're some kind of non-citizen slaves where things are just forced upon us.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >No that's the 100% correct stance to take. You are not forced to use Apple's products or their walled garden, and they are not required to grant you access. It doesn't matter if you're forced or not. In a world where the majority chooses to use them (for other reasons, e.g. convenience, features, price, etc), the company controlling what's broadcast on them is censorship, and has the same effects as censoring the publishing of a book had in 1700. If the majority had chosen those platforms with the EXPLICIT goal of avoiding your content that would be another thing.
- code_sterling 11y ago
  You have the right to say anything you want, you do not have the right to say it in my home. I don't understand how there are so many people that don't understand FOS.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    They understand it perfectly - you're conflating the law (the government isn't allowed to prevent you from speaking) with the principle it's based on (restricting people's ability to speak is a backwards, repressive thing to do). Freedom of speech != the first amendment.
    - meddlepal 11y ago
      I'm sorry but your definition of FOS is radical. I think few people would agree that FOS means you can say anything anywhere at anytime.
    - felipeerias 11y ago
      The story talks about an European group trying to reach a global audience. I was making a more general point about how over-reliance on private platforms makes censorship much easier for governments and corporations everywhere. Why do you guys keep assuming that "the law" equals "US law as I understand it"?
  - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
    I've extended the "in my home" argument to "on my website" before--e.g. Reddit restricting what you can say on Reddit is not really censorship--but stretching "in my home" to mean "on the hardware which you purchased from me" seems like rather a different thing.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  Relevant: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centrali...
- tajano 11y ago
  > You may say whatever you like, provided no one is there to hear it. Freedom of speech does not mean you are granted unmitigated control over the content a private medium, channel, or platform. For example, it doesn't imply that I can force the New York Times to publish this comment in their newspaper, nor can I force NBC to read this comment aloud on the nightly news. Similarly, I cannot force Apple to publish my content on their platform. In no way does this violate of my freedom of speech.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >Similarly, I cannot force Apple to publish my content on their platform. In no way does this violate of my freedom of speech. Only in the sense that this "freedom of speech" is codified in current law -- and that's specific to the US even, elsewhere can differ. Other countries for examples don't allow a shop owner discriminate as to who he choses to do business with (e.g. like that Colorado bakery that refused to sell to gay couples). I'd say it would be good for society if companies having mass business platforms were forced by law to not be allowed to censor anything not already censorable by law already (e.g. child pornography, libel etc).

krapp 11y ago

> but simply won't get it anywhere near a channel where any sizeable amount of people might see it. They have a youtube channel, with over three million views, which can be accessed from any device with a modern browser. Your definition of "censorship" seems to be an incredibly liberal one.

themartorana 11y ago
Censorship is actively preventing content from reaching people. It's not a liberal definition, it's a literal one.
- krapp 11y ago
  By that definition, there is still no censorship happening here. Apple isn't preventing content from reaching anyone, because that content is still available through the youtube app on the same platform and any available web browser.

omaranto 11y ago

I thought YouTube was pretty popular nowadays, and you can watch the CCC videos there.

ISL 11y ago

Forcing someone to display someone else's content is also a form of oppression and censorship.

coldtea 11y ago

Was it any better 20 years ago though? I mean today a sole internet webpage/domain by the CCC might reach 10x as many people as it would back 20 years ago. Besides, even if it was available on Apple TV would many people care for it? It seems like some people don't just ask for distribution on those "closed gardens" (which CCC are denied, and I agree it would be better if they got), but they also fantasize that had they had said distribution it would also magically give them some huge audience. Not potential audience, mind you -- rather it's as if they think that merely being there they deserve/should/would be a success. Come to think of it, that's also the case with some people allowed in the closed gardens -- they lament that "hey, I made my app/content and got it there, where's my top 10 spot?". I guess those people can't understand than in a list of N places (the top 1000 most successful apps say), if the candidates are MxN (where M>1), then (M-1)*N of them won't make the list.