4 ms·

The problem with this view of free speech is that the means of communication are privately owned: http://www.jonas-kyratzes.net/2014/04/26/free-speech-and-the-m

The problem with this view of free speech is that the means of communication are privately owned: http://www.jonas-kyratzes.net/2014/04/26/free-speech-and-the-means-of-communication/ http://www.jonas-kyratzes.net/2014/04/26/free-speech-and-the...

pixl97 10y ago
In the past when talking about free speech, it commonly meant talking on the street corners. Since the roads were public property the government could not censor you there. What we have occurring in the modern world would be the same if a city sold all of it's roads to a private company and told its citizens their are no longer public spaces.
- kinkdr 10y ago
  It is more like people wanting to live in that city because it is hip. They moved there although they knew it is privately owned and they had to put up with the owners rules(which includes in spying on them for his own profit). I cannot feel any sympathy for them.
  - pixl97 10y ago
    People are more apt to move to a city because there are jobs there. Much like facebook, before its time it was very difficult to communicate with a wide range of people reliably. Facebook gave a way for people to talk, and now they take it away and the peasants grow irritable.
    - wiz21 10y ago
      They didn't give that. They asked you to agree to their terms of services, eventually gave away some of you personal data in exchange for a, I admit it, practical mean of communication. But thy sure didn't give anything. That's what so many forget...
  - wiz21 10y ago
    100% agree with you. If one loves the facebook world, then he has to understand the facebook rules. Ignoring them is a mistake on the user side, not FB. And it follows that when 99% percent of the billion users will have just ignored the rules, then they will soon understand what it means. So they'll scream and ask governemnt to help them. Then the government will regulate 50% of facebook activities, and well, FB rules will be weakened a bit but officially enforced. People like me will say that society has one more problem, others will say that it's progress... And I'll be sad once again.

pixl97 10y ago

In the past when talking about free speech, it commonly meant talking on the street corners. Since the roads were public property the government could not censor you there. What we have occurring in the modern world would be the same if a city sold all of it's roads to a private company and told its citizens their are no longer public spaces.

kinkdr 10y ago
It is more like people wanting to live in that city because it is hip. They moved there although they knew it is privately owned and they had to put up with the owners rules(which includes in spying on them for his own profit). I cannot feel any sympathy for them.
- pixl97 10y ago
  People are more apt to move to a city because there are jobs there. Much like facebook, before its time it was very difficult to communicate with a wide range of people reliably. Facebook gave a way for people to talk, and now they take it away and the peasants grow irritable.
  - wiz21 10y ago
    They didn't give that. They asked you to agree to their terms of services, eventually gave away some of you personal data in exchange for a, I admit it, practical mean of communication. But thy sure didn't give anything. That's what so many forget...
- wiz21 10y ago
  100% agree with you. If one loves the facebook world, then he has to understand the facebook rules. Ignoring them is a mistake on the user side, not FB. And it follows that when 99% percent of the billion users will have just ignored the rules, then they will soon understand what it means. So they'll scream and ask governemnt to help them. Then the government will regulate 50% of facebook activities, and well, FB rules will be weakened a bit but officially enforced. People like me will say that society has one more problem, others will say that it's progress... And I'll be sad once again.