4 ms·

I have read many of the threads here, and I think it boils down to this: do businesses (NOT THE GOVERNMENT) have the right to choose what content and customers

by spydum 9y ago

I have read many of the threads here, and I think it boils down to this: do businesses (NOT THE GOVERNMENT) have the right to choose what content and customers they serve? Further, does it matter if they are a hosting provider? A network provider? A telephone provider? Can those providers cancel you if the company doesn't like what you say or are? This is tough: I honestly don't know if freedom of speech needs to be enforced by private companies. I think of freedom of speech is the problem here: companies have more influence over our conversations and the old protections are simply not adapting well.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jacquesm 9y ago
> do businesses (NOT THE GOVERNMENT) have the right to choose what content and customers they serve? Yes. This is why VISA was instrumental in the 'war on porn' and why every service provider ever has a provision in their contracts stating they can terminate your online presence at their discretion. That's a way for the industry to avoid becoming government regulated, as long as this self regulation takes care of the worst excesses companies will continue to be able to operate in relative freedom. The few times that local national law (such as in France and Germany) has butted up against companies trying to re-write the law in a more lenient way this has - predictably - failed. But as long as companies stay on the far side of that line they are free to draw more restrictive lines as they see fit with impunity so long as those lines do not affect the lives of so called 'protected classes' in a negative way and because of the item that triggers that class to be protected in the first place.
- spydum 9y ago
  Others have touched on this: the concept of a protected class seems odd when faced with the idea that all people are to be afforded equal protection under the law (14th amendment)
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    No, it isn't odd at all: societies are made up of people and people in large numbers do not always act in a way that protects those that are weaker or in smaller numbers so to avoid the tyranny of the majority protected classes exist in order to make sure that it is spelled out under what circumstances you can and can not discriminate against others. So yes, everybody is afforded equal protection under the law and protected classes exist to ensure that the majority can not hide behind their majority in order to legalize discriminatory practices. You are suggesting that being a member of a (protected) class now equates to having an advantage but this is not the case, it is to make sure that being a member of a certain class does not become a disadvantage.
    - samdoidge 9y ago
      > So yes, everybody is afforded equal protection under the law This is contradicted by 'protected classes'.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        Well, that's your interpretation. Mine is that protected classes exist to make sure their rights are not eroded so that they can be afforded equal protection under the law. Let me give you an example: In a country with 99% black people and 1% white people employers have a habit of selecting people 'just like themselves' which has resulted in the 1% being vastly over represented in the ranks of the un-employed. An enlightened segment of the legislative branch of government recognizes the unfairness of this and establishes a protection outlawing discrimination based on skin color and creates a protected class, the 'whites'. Of course some blacks will argue that this is in contradiction of everybody being equal before the law, however those people fail to appreciate that this is not an advantage being bestowed upon the whites, merely a lack of dis-advantage resulting in everybody now being equal before the law. Feel free to replace black and white with whatever groups you care about.
throwaway7312 9y ago
This is just the latest in a string of examples like this. The Christian bakers / gay wedding cakes is one example. But people being booted off services like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Patreon are others. We ought to have the right to exclude people from our own private spaces, our own private clubs, and our own private businesses (freedom of association). However, at what point (and at what scale) does our private club become so large it is a de facto public space? There does not seem to be any real precedent for discussions like this. The Internet has created an entirely new wrinkle in the debate around free speech and public places.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > The Internet has created an entirely new wrinkle in the debate around free speech and public places. No, absolutely nothing has changed. What has changed is that the internet has given every idiot out there a megaphone and a way to link up with other idiots at a moments notice and groups like the Neo Nazis love like minded company because there is safety for them in a crowd, a way to be part of the monster without having to stand up to scrutiny.
- bluthru 9y ago
  I think this is key. We're in new territory with the internet. Will we ever be at a point where a VoIP call is filtered because the service doesn't want to transmit what you're saying?
- gbarc888 9y ago
  The Christian bakers were sued and then forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because sexual orientation is a protected class. "Alt-right" or whatever Daily Stormer is, is not a protected class. "Political party" is a protected class, which puts Daily Stormer in a possibly fuzzy territory (I have never read Daily Stormer so I don't know if they count as a political publication).
  - syrrim 9y ago
    That's stupid. Why should I have anymore right to discriminate against people with red hair than people with black skin? If it's wrong, it's wrong no matter the group you do it to.
kelnos 9y ago
I think there should be two tests: 1) Does the reason for terminating a customer violate law that protects certain classes of people/orgs? If so, you can't do it. Obviously there are jurisdictional concerns here, but let's assume we can navigate them successfully, at least most of the time, without a messy court battle. 2) For any content, regardless of #1, does the customer have other choices besides you? If not, you can't do it. For the second point, I think that should be there to protect from a company arbitrarily imposing its values. My feeling is that if there's enough healthy competition (I won't define what "enough" is because I don't know, but hope that it could be definable), someone will host your content. And if no one wants to, that should be a pretty clear signal that you're so unbelievably far away from what the vast majority (or even the near unanimity) would consider acceptable that you really will want to rethink some things. If you are the only option, then likely you are a legally-regulated monopoly anyway and have some rules around needing to offer service blindly (rules imposed in exchange for that monopoly status).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dingo_bat 9y ago
Private companies certainly have the right to kick you of their service if they don't like you. However, everything that is legal is not right. And we should point it out and criticize such actions. Today it's Nazis, tomorrow it could be you.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
colllectorof 9y ago
The whole "Freedom of Speech" angle isn't really helpful here. I would phrase the question differently. From purely game-theoretical perspective, do you want companies that control large portions of our communication infrastructure make moral judgement calls regarding content passing through their servers and routers? Do you trust them to make the right moral judgements (however you define those) most of the time?
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > do you want companies that control large portions of our communication infrastructure make moral judgement calls regarding content passing through their servers and routers? If I open a bookstore, I'm not under any obligation to sell books promoting white nationalism. I choose my selection. So too can Cloudflare choose its business partners. There are alternative CDNs. Cloudflare isn't equivalent to broadband monopolies like Comcast. You can easily switch to another CDN. Plus, companies in general make moral judgements all the time. Deciding to start a medical services company vs. an educational services one can be a moral judgement.

by spydum 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jacquesm 9y ago

> do businesses (NOT THE GOVERNMENT) have the right to choose what content and customers they serve? Yes. This is why VISA was instrumental in the 'war on porn' and why every service provider ever has a provision in their contracts stating they can terminate your online presence at their discretion. That's a way for the industry to avoid becoming government regulated, as long as this self regulation takes care of the worst excesses companies will continue to be able to operate in relative freedom. The few times that local national law (such as in France and Germany) has butted up against companies trying to re-write the law in a more lenient way this has - predictably - failed. But as long as companies stay on the far side of that line they are free to draw more restrictive lines as they see fit with impunity so long as those lines do not affect the lives of so called 'protected classes' in a negative way and because of the item that triggers that class to be protected in the first place.

spydum 9y ago
Others have touched on this: the concept of a protected class seems odd when faced with the idea that all people are to be afforded equal protection under the law (14th amendment)
- jacquesm 9y ago
  No, it isn't odd at all: societies are made up of people and people in large numbers do not always act in a way that protects those that are weaker or in smaller numbers so to avoid the tyranny of the majority protected classes exist in order to make sure that it is spelled out under what circumstances you can and can not discriminate against others. So yes, everybody is afforded equal protection under the law and protected classes exist to ensure that the majority can not hide behind their majority in order to legalize discriminatory practices. You are suggesting that being a member of a (protected) class now equates to having an advantage but this is not the case, it is to make sure that being a member of a certain class does not become a disadvantage.
  - samdoidge 9y ago
    > So yes, everybody is afforded equal protection under the law This is contradicted by 'protected classes'.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      Well, that's your interpretation. Mine is that protected classes exist to make sure their rights are not eroded so that they can be afforded equal protection under the law. Let me give you an example: In a country with 99% black people and 1% white people employers have a habit of selecting people 'just like themselves' which has resulted in the 1% being vastly over represented in the ranks of the un-employed. An enlightened segment of the legislative branch of government recognizes the unfairness of this and establishes a protection outlawing discrimination based on skin color and creates a protected class, the 'whites'. Of course some blacks will argue that this is in contradiction of everybody being equal before the law, however those people fail to appreciate that this is not an advantage being bestowed upon the whites, merely a lack of dis-advantage resulting in everybody now being equal before the law. Feel free to replace black and white with whatever groups you care about.

throwaway7312 9y ago

This is just the latest in a string of examples like this. The Christian bakers / gay wedding cakes is one example. But people being booted off services like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Patreon are others. We ought to have the right to exclude people from our own private spaces, our own private clubs, and our own private businesses (freedom of association). However, at what point (and at what scale) does our private club become so large it is a de facto public space? There does not seem to be any real precedent for discussions like this. The Internet has created an entirely new wrinkle in the debate around free speech and public places.

jacquesm 9y ago
> The Internet has created an entirely new wrinkle in the debate around free speech and public places. No, absolutely nothing has changed. What has changed is that the internet has given every idiot out there a megaphone and a way to link up with other idiots at a moments notice and groups like the Neo Nazis love like minded company because there is safety for them in a crowd, a way to be part of the monster without having to stand up to scrutiny.
bluthru 9y ago
I think this is key. We're in new territory with the internet. Will we ever be at a point where a VoIP call is filtered because the service doesn't want to transmit what you're saying?
gbarc888 9y ago
The Christian bakers were sued and then forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because sexual orientation is a protected class. "Alt-right" or whatever Daily Stormer is, is not a protected class. "Political party" is a protected class, which puts Daily Stormer in a possibly fuzzy territory (I have never read Daily Stormer so I don't know if they count as a political publication).
- syrrim 9y ago
  That's stupid. Why should I have anymore right to discriminate against people with red hair than people with black skin? If it's wrong, it's wrong no matter the group you do it to.

kelnos 9y ago

I think there should be two tests: 1) Does the reason for terminating a customer violate law that protects certain classes of people/orgs? If so, you can't do it. Obviously there are jurisdictional concerns here, but let's assume we can navigate them successfully, at least most of the time, without a messy court battle. 2) For any content, regardless of #1, does the customer have other choices besides you? If not, you can't do it. For the second point, I think that should be there to protect from a company arbitrarily imposing its values. My feeling is that if there's enough healthy competition (I won't define what "enough" is because I don't know, but hope that it could be definable), someone will host your content. And if no one wants to, that should be a pretty clear signal that you're so unbelievably far away from what the vast majority (or even the near unanimity) would consider acceptable that you really will want to rethink some things. If you are the only option, then likely you are a legally-regulated monopoly anyway and have some rules around needing to offer service blindly (rules imposed in exchange for that monopoly status).

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dingo_bat 9y ago

Private companies certainly have the right to kick you of their service if they don't like you. However, everything that is legal is not right. And we should point it out and criticize such actions. Today it's Nazis, tomorrow it could be you.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

colllectorof 9y ago

The whole "Freedom of Speech" angle isn't really helpful here. I would phrase the question differently. From purely game-theoretical perspective, do you want companies that control large portions of our communication infrastructure make moral judgement calls regarding content passing through their servers and routers? Do you trust them to make the right moral judgements (however you define those) most of the time?

unityByFreedom 9y ago
> do you want companies that control large portions of our communication infrastructure make moral judgement calls regarding content passing through their servers and routers? If I open a bookstore, I'm not under any obligation to sell books promoting white nationalism. I choose my selection. So too can Cloudflare choose its business partners. There are alternative CDNs. Cloudflare isn't equivalent to broadband monopolies like Comcast. You can easily switch to another CDN. Plus, companies in general make moral judgements all the time. Deciding to start a medical services company vs. an educational services one can be a moral judgement.