5 ms·

To play the devils advocate, where does this stop? Do you deny them any sort of public space where they can communicate with each other?

by DavidHm 10y ago

Scirra_Tom 10y ago
Are you comfortable denying the KKK a public place where they can communicate with each other? Where do you draw the line?
- robotresearcher 10y ago
  They can burn crosses on their lawn, and not on mine. Pretty straightforward. There are plenty of right-wing web sites.
  - Scirra_Tom 10y ago
    I'm struggling to understand the point your making?
    - robotresearcher 10y ago
      Reddit is not denying the KKK a public forum. They are denying Reddit's privately-owned forum to the KKK. Reddit has no power to stop the KKK from saying whatever they want. But they are under no legal or moral obligation to provide a forum for it. The KKK can spin up a website and say whatever they want.
burkaman 10y ago
Sure, if they want a space they can make their own. Nobody has the right for other people to host their speech, that's purely an earned privilege.
- problems 10y ago
  So does that apply to say server providers like OVH or proxies like CloudFlare? What about DNS providers? What about domain registrars? TLD owners? ICANN? Are they not allowed to host certain speech either without being deemed "socially irresponsible"? Or is there some level of removal beyond which it's okay? If you've decided they're not allowed to use the internet now, is it okay to rent them spaces? sell them land? There's no good, definite ending point to this. Which is why companies like Black Lotus, CloudFlare and OVH just get it done. I don't fault them for it at all, in fact I trust them more to keep me online if some controversy is ever stirred in my direction.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    The definite ending point is government. The government cannot do anything to restrict anyone's speech. Private organizations can do whatever they want. I don't think they should take that to an extreme, but I think they can. I don't think it's ethical for a private company to censor everyone they don't like, but they should have that right. In terms of ethics, you're right that there's no definite ending point. Private companies should do what they feel is right, and not try to force themselves to allow full freedom of speech.
    - problems 10y ago
      I agree that they can and even have the right to, but it's more of a "should they be considered socially irresponsible for allowing it in any way, shape or form" question than about what they can or must do. Personally I don't fault them for allowing it as long as they're sufficiently distant from it themselves and protect their employees from abuse to a reasonable degree.
      - burkaman 10y ago
        Oh ok, well I think I just edited my comment to basically agree with you. There is no well-defined line here, it's as subjective as most moral questions. I just don't think private companies should feel any obligation to allow everything because of freedom of speech. The constitution is supposed to be a last resort, not a set of universal guidelines.
corysama 10y ago
I have great respect for moot's statement that he created 4chan partly because he thought "people need a place to be wrong". As in, people need a place to experiment with ideas that are controversial or even downright stupid with being afraid. 4chan and Something Awful provided that. I think it's healthy for the world to have a few places cordoned off to be primordial slimepools/cesspits. But, I wouldn't given anyone a hard time for trying very hard to not be one of those places. For example, I think a big part of the continuing high signal/noise ratio at HN is it's tradition of downvoting sarcasm, memes, jokes, fluff, "nice post!" and other low-signal comments. As HN has grown, this has been slipping. But, it us already lasted much longer than I expected.
- scruple 10y ago
  If you subscribe to the notion of "containment boards" (I personally do) then places like /b/, /pol/, and parts of SA, etc..., are absolutely essential places for the Internet at-large to operate unhindered by their presence.

To play the devils advocate, where does this stop? Do you deny them any sort of public space where they can communicate with each other?

by DavidHm 10y ago

To play the devils advocate, where does this stop? Do you deny them any sort of public space where they can communicate with each other?

Scirra_Tom 10y ago

Are you comfortable denying the KKK a public place where they can communicate with each other? Where do you draw the line?

robotresearcher 10y ago
They can burn crosses on their lawn, and not on mine. Pretty straightforward. There are plenty of right-wing web sites.
- Scirra_Tom 10y ago
  I'm struggling to understand the point your making?
  - robotresearcher 10y ago
    Reddit is not denying the KKK a public forum. They are denying Reddit's privately-owned forum to the KKK. Reddit has no power to stop the KKK from saying whatever they want. But they are under no legal or moral obligation to provide a forum for it. The KKK can spin up a website and say whatever they want.

burkaman 10y ago

Sure, if they want a space they can make their own. Nobody has the right for other people to host their speech, that's purely an earned privilege.

problems 10y ago
So does that apply to say server providers like OVH or proxies like CloudFlare? What about DNS providers? What about domain registrars? TLD owners? ICANN? Are they not allowed to host certain speech either without being deemed "socially irresponsible"? Or is there some level of removal beyond which it's okay? If you've decided they're not allowed to use the internet now, is it okay to rent them spaces? sell them land? There's no good, definite ending point to this. Which is why companies like Black Lotus, CloudFlare and OVH just get it done. I don't fault them for it at all, in fact I trust them more to keep me online if some controversy is ever stirred in my direction.
- burkaman 10y ago
  The definite ending point is government. The government cannot do anything to restrict anyone's speech. Private organizations can do whatever they want. I don't think they should take that to an extreme, but I think they can. I don't think it's ethical for a private company to censor everyone they don't like, but they should have that right. In terms of ethics, you're right that there's no definite ending point. Private companies should do what they feel is right, and not try to force themselves to allow full freedom of speech.
  - problems 10y ago
    I agree that they can and even have the right to, but it's more of a "should they be considered socially irresponsible for allowing it in any way, shape or form" question than about what they can or must do. Personally I don't fault them for allowing it as long as they're sufficiently distant from it themselves and protect their employees from abuse to a reasonable degree.
    - burkaman 10y ago
      Oh ok, well I think I just edited my comment to basically agree with you. There is no well-defined line here, it's as subjective as most moral questions. I just don't think private companies should feel any obligation to allow everything because of freedom of speech. The constitution is supposed to be a last resort, not a set of universal guidelines.

corysama 10y ago

I have great respect for moot's statement that he created 4chan partly because he thought "people need a place to be wrong". As in, people need a place to experiment with ideas that are controversial or even downright stupid with being afraid. 4chan and Something Awful provided that. I think it's healthy for the world to have a few places cordoned off to be primordial slimepools/cesspits. But, I wouldn't given anyone a hard time for trying very hard to not be one of those places. For example, I think a big part of the continuing high signal/noise ratio at HN is it's tradition of downvoting sarcasm, memes, jokes, fluff, "nice post!" and other low-signal comments. As HN has grown, this has been slipping. But, it us already lasted much longer than I expected.

scruple 10y ago
If you subscribe to the notion of "containment boards" (I personally do) then places like /b/, /pol/, and parts of SA, etc..., are absolutely essential places for the Internet at-large to operate unhindered by their presence.