6 ms·

the entire internet is composed of private entities. following that logic there is practically no free speech on the internet.

by the8472 10y ago

grzm 10y ago
Another possible comparison: cities are composed of mostly private entities. The free speech limitations in private businesses are comparable to those on line. How does that play out? Is the comparison faulty? Honest question. I'd like to figure out a more real-world comparison that matches our intuitions.
- the8472 10y ago
  There are lots of public spaces available, maintained by the government. Some plazas are larger than all but the largest private gathering places.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Good point. Any ideas on how to create similar spaces online? And how they should be policed? Should we have some government created forums? I'd be concerned they'd succumb to the same issues we're discussing now. One idea that comes to mind is forbidding anonymous posts, but then again, anonymous speech is also protected.
    - sanswork 10y ago
      You create a website and post your thoughts on it.
leephillips 10y ago
I can exercise my right of free speech on my website. What do you mean?
- the8472 10y ago
  Hosters and DNS providers can kick you out. This doesn't happen often, but occasionally it does, without court order, when a customer becomes too inconvenient. Some don't even want to deal with DMCA notices, so even when they get fake ones they kick you out after a few.
  - leephillips 10y ago
    That's a good point - so even my own website is not as free as standing on the street corner and shouting. But if my hosting company did kick me out it might be (haven't checked) a breach of contract; and in any case I could be on a new host in a couple of hours.
- GabberBots 10y ago
  Your having a website assumes common carrier and net neutrality protections.
  - grzm 10y ago
    I hear this argument a lot. From what I've seen, it's clear that ISPs are common carriers. I haven't seen informed legal opinion that this extends to websites. I'd be very interested in learning of some. Do you have any?
    - GabberBots 10y ago
      If ISPs are not bound to CC laws and refuse to carry traffic from your web server, you don't really have much of a website, do you?
      - grzm 10y ago
        Yes. CC laws apply to ISPs. I haven't seen evidence that they apply to websites.
bhauer 10y ago
As someone who champions a re-decentralization of the Internet and remembers the era of peer to peer communications, I am saddened by the assumed centralization behind your statement.
- the8472 10y ago
  A decentralized internet still needs its pipes and some people will want to colo servers and not operate server farms from home. That means you still need to buy services from private entities. universal service obligations are not enshrined everywhere.
kyledrake 10y ago
Correct. "Free speech" as enshrined in the US Constitution is designed to prevent the government from making laws against free expression. Any interpretation applying "free speech protections" to private entities hosting other private entities on their private property is either ideological, or an intense misunderstanding of the law.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  I think reasonable people can agree that technology has paved the way for few exceptions which require special protections to free speech; i.e. Google should not be permitted by law to filter and censor search results for speech, no matter how disagreeable it is to you or the Google CEOs. Edit: In other words, no matter whether I like or dislike the 4chan community, an entire community of various forums such as that should not be filtered by Google.
  - kyledrake 10y ago
    > I think reasonable people can agree that technology has paved the way for few exceptions which require special protections to free speech Do you think it should have been unlawful for Reddit to ban Coontown? What would you think to be an appropriate punishment for this proposed crime? A fine? Jail time?
    - grzm 10y ago
      Before moving on to another site (which is a logical move to determine the bounds of the exceptions), what do you think of your parent's suggestion regarding Google? Easier to work from some point of common ground (if there is some).
      - wallace_f 10y ago
        Yea, I think there is a clear distinction. Google inhabits an arguably monopolistic or at least monopolistic-competitive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition) space. Google also arguably is approximating a public good. Search is free to use, and you actually have to rely on it and use it to compete in the modern marketplace for educational resources. There are many things we all rely on to compete and succeed. We need to drink water, and we need to be able to trust that the water is safe to drink. If a private company is in charge of water, they should be heavily regulated for that very reason. While you won't die without search engines, you obviously need to use them to reasonably compete for economic survival. Google has a majority market share, while Bing and Yahoo trail behind, but they could all easily collaborated with or without government to censor, and it would have extreme consequences for the possibility of free expression, giving these corporations a lot of power. Do we want private corporations to have this much power over free expression? They can also do this without announcing to you that they are currently filtering search results for political reasons (I would be most people don't realize they are already doing this).

the entire internet is composed of private entities. following that logic there is practically no free speech on the internet.

by the8472 10y ago

the entire internet is composed of private entities. following that logic there is practically no free speech on the internet.

grzm 10y ago

Another possible comparison: cities are composed of mostly private entities. The free speech limitations in private businesses are comparable to those on line. How does that play out? Is the comparison faulty? Honest question. I'd like to figure out a more real-world comparison that matches our intuitions.

the8472 10y ago
There are lots of public spaces available, maintained by the government. Some plazas are larger than all but the largest private gathering places.
- grzm 10y ago
  Good point. Any ideas on how to create similar spaces online? And how they should be policed? Should we have some government created forums? I'd be concerned they'd succumb to the same issues we're discussing now. One idea that comes to mind is forbidding anonymous posts, but then again, anonymous speech is also protected.
  - sanswork 10y ago
    You create a website and post your thoughts on it.

leephillips 10y ago

I can exercise my right of free speech on my website. What do you mean?

the8472 10y ago
Hosters and DNS providers can kick you out. This doesn't happen often, but occasionally it does, without court order, when a customer becomes too inconvenient. Some don't even want to deal with DMCA notices, so even when they get fake ones they kick you out after a few.
- leephillips 10y ago
  That's a good point - so even my own website is not as free as standing on the street corner and shouting. But if my hosting company did kick me out it might be (haven't checked) a breach of contract; and in any case I could be on a new host in a couple of hours.
GabberBots 10y ago
Your having a website assumes common carrier and net neutrality protections.
- grzm 10y ago
  I hear this argument a lot. From what I've seen, it's clear that ISPs are common carriers. I haven't seen informed legal opinion that this extends to websites. I'd be very interested in learning of some. Do you have any?
  - GabberBots 10y ago
    If ISPs are not bound to CC laws and refuse to carry traffic from your web server, you don't really have much of a website, do you?
    - grzm 10y ago
      Yes. CC laws apply to ISPs. I haven't seen evidence that they apply to websites.

bhauer 10y ago

As someone who champions a re-decentralization of the Internet and remembers the era of peer to peer communications, I am saddened by the assumed centralization behind your statement.

the8472 10y ago
A decentralized internet still needs its pipes and some people will want to colo servers and not operate server farms from home. That means you still need to buy services from private entities. universal service obligations are not enshrined everywhere.

kyledrake 10y ago

Correct. "Free speech" as enshrined in the US Constitution is designed to prevent the government from making laws against free expression. Any interpretation applying "free speech protections" to private entities hosting other private entities on their private property is either ideological, or an intense misunderstanding of the law.

wallace_f 10y ago
I think reasonable people can agree that technology has paved the way for few exceptions which require special protections to free speech; i.e. Google should not be permitted by law to filter and censor search results for speech, no matter how disagreeable it is to you or the Google CEOs. Edit: In other words, no matter whether I like or dislike the 4chan community, an entire community of various forums such as that should not be filtered by Google.
- kyledrake 10y ago
  > I think reasonable people can agree that technology has paved the way for few exceptions which require special protections to free speech Do you think it should have been unlawful for Reddit to ban Coontown? What would you think to be an appropriate punishment for this proposed crime? A fine? Jail time?
  - grzm 10y ago
    Before moving on to another site (which is a logical move to determine the bounds of the exceptions), what do you think of your parent's suggestion regarding Google? Easier to work from some point of common ground (if there is some).
    - wallace_f 10y ago
      Yea, I think there is a clear distinction. Google inhabits an arguably monopolistic or at least monopolistic-competitive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition) space. Google also arguably is approximating a public good. Search is free to use, and you actually have to rely on it and use it to compete in the modern marketplace for educational resources. There are many things we all rely on to compete and succeed. We need to drink water, and we need to be able to trust that the water is safe to drink. If a private company is in charge of water, they should be heavily regulated for that very reason. While you won't die without search engines, you obviously need to use them to reasonably compete for economic survival. Google has a majority market share, while Bing and Yahoo trail behind, but they could all easily collaborated with or without government to censor, and it would have extreme consequences for the possibility of free expression, giving these corporations a lot of power. Do we want private corporations to have this much power over free expression? They can also do this without announcing to you that they are currently filtering search results for political reasons (I would be most people don't realize they are already doing this).