4 ms·

Correct. "Free speech" as enshrined in the US Constitution is designed to prevent the government from making laws against free expression. Any interpretation a

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).
      - grzm 10y ago
        You're replying to kyledrake, correct?
        wallace_f 10y ago
        To both. I was just expounding on the distinction I see b/w reddit and Google -- the point was trying to make was that I don't think it's completely appropriate to make Google analogous to reddit.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    Of course not. Everybody relies on Google (or at least, 1 of Google, bing or yahoo) and an argument can be made that they should be regulate because if they do not operate in good faith that can have severe consequences (i.e. effectively eliminating dissenting opinion). Private companies being regulated in the best interest of the public good is nothing new, Sinclairs The Jungle was written in 1906, technology changes but human nature has not and we should adapt regulation to new technology if we're interested in the public's welfare and future.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  As someone who tried to compete with Google in search, I'm all for Google being permitted to filter anything they like; it's only censorship when a government forces or encourages them to do it. I'm also all for Google having an editorial opinion.... I have my own, and if you like mine better than Google, so be it. This is the way that free speech has always worked in the US; if you own a printing press, you can print what you like.

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).
    - grzm 10y ago
      You're replying to kyledrake, correct?
      - wallace_f 10y ago
        To both. I was just expounding on the distinction I see b/w reddit and Google -- the point was trying to make was that I don't think it's completely appropriate to make Google analogous to reddit.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- wallace_f 10y ago
  Of course not. Everybody relies on Google (or at least, 1 of Google, bing or yahoo) and an argument can be made that they should be regulate because if they do not operate in good faith that can have severe consequences (i.e. effectively eliminating dissenting opinion). Private companies being regulated in the best interest of the public good is nothing new, Sinclairs The Jungle was written in 1906, technology changes but human nature has not and we should adapt regulation to new technology if we're interested in the public's welfare and future.
greglindahl 10y ago
As someone who tried to compete with Google in search, I'm all for Google being permitted to filter anything they like; it's only censorship when a government forces or encourages them to do it. I'm also all for Google having an editorial opinion.... I have my own, and if you like mine better than Google, so be it. This is the way that free speech has always worked in the US; if you own a printing press, you can print what you like.