6 ms·

I can't upvote you enough. I've always likened Internet forums to having guests in my home. If I, as a forum owner, invite you into my home, you are expected to

I can't upvote you enough. I've always likened Internet forums to having guests in my home. If I, as a forum owner, invite you into my home, you are expected to abide by the house rules. If my house rules allow you to destroy the furniture, insult my other guests, and generally raise hell, I won't yell at you for it. But if my rules forbid such activity, I'm well within my rights to kick your ass out. Free speech has nothing to do with it; you chose to enter my realm, and in my realm I am the king. The only way freedom of speech enters into it, is if it's a government run forum. Last I checked, Reddit, Voat, Imzy, and others are not government sites, and there is no free speech violation if the forum owners decide to bounce a misbehaving person.

skybrian 10y ago
That's correct as far as the law is concerned. However, when you have a very large social network like Twitter, Facebook or Reddit, things get more complicated. A forum's owner has some say but a lot of the conflicts are at the boundaries between forums, or involve the common rules that everyone should follow. It's not a government but at this scale, the moderation starts to look more like privately run governance, something imposed from above onto a community rather part of the community itself.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  True that. Public utilities (traditionally pretty much anything with a network effect) require regulation; the government must get involved, and then governmental ethics ought to apply.
  - hsitz 10y ago
    There exists doctrine in constitutional law where its guarantees are deemed to apply even when the actor infringing the right is a private party. This can occur in cases where a private party is deemed to be a "state actor". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor I would suggest that even large social media organizations are not "state actors", so federal constitutional protections don't apply. Of course, states are free to enact laws on their own to guarantee free speech in social media, if they want. It's just not protected by U.S. Constitution, not a constitutional right. [As an editorial aside, I'm dismayed at the general low level of understanding of constitutional rights in the U.S., even among "well-educated" people.]
    - Nomentatus 10y ago
      I think this is a bit to one side of the question. Where government is doing the regulating, then surely the government itself is a state actor and must not infringe constitutional rights or be a party to same. You can argue it doesn't have any business calling anything a public utility, but that would be a different argument.
webwanderings 10y ago
Your argument is flawed. Your primary intention is to invite total strangers into your house. You then cannot force your rules on them, because they can naturally demand things. Edit: Besides, nobody opens up their houses for strangers. So it is a flawed comparison as well. You need to be honest with the premise. You are talking about an online community which is built for a purpose. Your purpose is two-fold. You want to be a nice contributor towards some ideal (nothing wrong with that). Your second purpose is to be self-sustaining (so you can continue your goals). Again, nothing wrong with that either. But none of this has anything to do with open and inviting house, or even strangers. But look at what your purpose does: it necessarily invites strangers. You then have consequence. You also know in your heart of heart, that if you do not invite strangers (let's also remember that we're talking about the online world), you will never be able to achieve your ideals. Because no matter how big your social circle may be, you cannot achieve your ideals through just the people you know.
- grzm 10y ago
  The invitation isn't to come in and do whatever you please. The invitation contains conditions. In the case of Imzy, one of them is to be nice. And the invitation doesn't necessarily mean you can stay as long as you want flouting the house rules. And the house rules can change if the owner decides the current ones need to change.
  - webwanderings 10y ago
    You are missing the point. Your secondary intention has no relevance because your primary intention is to "invite the strangers". When you invite strangers, you should expect anything.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Expecting anything doesn't mean putting up with everything.
      - webwanderings 10y ago

skybrian 10y ago

That's correct as far as the law is concerned. However, when you have a very large social network like Twitter, Facebook or Reddit, things get more complicated. A forum's owner has some say but a lot of the conflicts are at the boundaries between forums, or involve the common rules that everyone should follow. It's not a government but at this scale, the moderation starts to look more like privately run governance, something imposed from above onto a community rather part of the community itself.

Nomentatus 10y ago
True that. Public utilities (traditionally pretty much anything with a network effect) require regulation; the government must get involved, and then governmental ethics ought to apply.
- hsitz 10y ago
  There exists doctrine in constitutional law where its guarantees are deemed to apply even when the actor infringing the right is a private party. This can occur in cases where a private party is deemed to be a "state actor". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor I would suggest that even large social media organizations are not "state actors", so federal constitutional protections don't apply. Of course, states are free to enact laws on their own to guarantee free speech in social media, if they want. It's just not protected by U.S. Constitution, not a constitutional right. [As an editorial aside, I'm dismayed at the general low level of understanding of constitutional rights in the U.S., even among "well-educated" people.]
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    I think this is a bit to one side of the question. Where government is doing the regulating, then surely the government itself is a state actor and must not infringe constitutional rights or be a party to same. You can argue it doesn't have any business calling anything a public utility, but that would be a different argument.

webwanderings 10y ago

Your argument is flawed. Your primary intention is to invite total strangers into your house. You then cannot force your rules on them, because they can naturally demand things. Edit: Besides, nobody opens up their houses for strangers. So it is a flawed comparison as well. You need to be honest with the premise. You are talking about an online community which is built for a purpose. Your purpose is two-fold. You want to be a nice contributor towards some ideal (nothing wrong with that). Your second purpose is to be self-sustaining (so you can continue your goals). Again, nothing wrong with that either. But none of this has anything to do with open and inviting house, or even strangers. But look at what your purpose does: it necessarily invites strangers. You then have consequence. You also know in your heart of heart, that if you do not invite strangers (let's also remember that we're talking about the online world), you will never be able to achieve your ideals. Because no matter how big your social circle may be, you cannot achieve your ideals through just the people you know.

grzm 10y ago
The invitation isn't to come in and do whatever you please. The invitation contains conditions. In the case of Imzy, one of them is to be nice. And the invitation doesn't necessarily mean you can stay as long as you want flouting the house rules. And the house rules can change if the owner decides the current ones need to change.
- webwanderings 10y ago
  You are missing the point. Your secondary intention has no relevance because your primary intention is to "invite the strangers". When you invite strangers, you should expect anything.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Expecting anything doesn't mean putting up with everything.
    - webwanderings 10y ago