6 ms·

Here's where I addressed those concerns > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042314

aoeusnth1 9y ago
These snotty replies are so insufferable. No, you did not address his reply in your original comment.
- joelrunyon 9y ago
  Hey man, I'm not trying to be snotty. I'm trying to explain what the "free speech" side of the argument is. I'm not saying his is invalid, or that he didn't bring up point, but I'm stating why there is concern from those concerned with free speech and "de-platforming." I don't think asking for a debate is "snotty" or "insufferable", but if I am, please let me know where I'm wrong :)
  - aoeusnth1 9y ago
    Linking to your own comment without adding anything implies the you don't need to dignify their comment with a response. That's not asking for debate, it's actively avoiding a debate while implying their commment has no substance, and they have limited reading comprehension. That comes across as snotty and insufferable.
    - joelrunyon 9y ago
      I think it's actually starting a good discussion - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042903 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042903 You're welcome to join.
will_brown 9y ago
Unless I am mistaken that is the comment I replied to and it does not address the public vs private concern. Moreover, you are calling a private website a moral center for determining acceptable speech for exercising their right to censor their own website. To extend the idea, I noticed you have a personal website linked in your bio, are you under moral obligation to allow other people to post hate speech to your website or allow anyone to post anything to your website? Do you feel you have complete control over the content posted to your website or does that make you some sort of moral censor and dictator of acceptable speech? Edit: Your giving site may provide a better example, because presumably you feel you can pick a choose what charitable group(s) can join and receive funds through your platform, effectively limiting the speech of all the other programs you haven't allowed to join.
- joelrunyon 9y ago
  I understand where you're going, but the purpose of my site isn't to host multiple viewpoints from multiple people. The giving site is more of who we've partnered with - it's never been open to any & all charities. I think the issue specifically with the app store is that there are other players who could similarly violate the "hate speech" metric (telegram/whatsapp/twitter/etc), but Google doesn't take those down. That calls into question how consistent they are with their policing and what constitutes the "line." The larger argument I was trying to get at in the other comment was that there seems to be a few companies that are aggregating power over "speech" online. At some point, they start to either look monopolistic (and using their base to prevent other players from growing - see fb v snapchat), or start to seem more similar to utility companies (which are regulated to some extent). Should your electric company be able to shut you off because you attended a rally? Should your phone company be able to terminate your service? Maybe, maybe not, but the utility analogy seems apt (to me) for this scenario.
  - will_brown 9y ago
    >I think the issue specifically with the app store is that there are other players who could similarly violate the "hate speech" metric(telegram/whatsapp/twitter/etc), but Google doesn't take those down. That calls into question how consistent they are with their policing and what constitutes the "line." According to 1st amendment law, the remedy is to boycott the business, and truthfully it's the greatest tool people have to level the playing field, and it's seriously underleveraged especially in the internet age. However, the logic goes if you can't get the public to boycott a company, then your speech has basically failed in what's called the marketplace of ideas. So maybe while it's worth while to call attention to the power of these big companies and promote a boycott to keep them in check, you shouldn't be surprised when the boycott fails to gain momentum based them prohibiting hate speech, meaning find a clear cut example where they abused their power in a clearly controversial way where enough of the public will support the boycott to hurt the companies bottom line. As to your last paragraph, denial of service is not always protected or even speech for that matter. Another famous Supreme Court Case is Ollie's BBQ which prohibited African Americans from eating there, and that was found to be unconstitutional under the commerce clause. The commerce clause is kind of a running joke in law that gives the Federal Government the right to regulate everything on the basis of effecting interstate commerce, and while I of course agree with the result of the case, I despise the logic and use of the commerce clause. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung

aoeusnth1 9y ago

These snotty replies are so insufferable. No, you did not address his reply in your original comment.

joelrunyon 9y ago
Hey man, I'm not trying to be snotty. I'm trying to explain what the "free speech" side of the argument is. I'm not saying his is invalid, or that he didn't bring up point, but I'm stating why there is concern from those concerned with free speech and "de-platforming." I don't think asking for a debate is "snotty" or "insufferable", but if I am, please let me know where I'm wrong :)
- aoeusnth1 9y ago
  Linking to your own comment without adding anything implies the you don't need to dignify their comment with a response. That's not asking for debate, it's actively avoiding a debate while implying their commment has no substance, and they have limited reading comprehension. That comes across as snotty and insufferable.
  - joelrunyon 9y ago
    I think it's actually starting a good discussion - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042903 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15042903 You're welcome to join.

will_brown 9y ago

Unless I am mistaken that is the comment I replied to and it does not address the public vs private concern. Moreover, you are calling a private website a moral center for determining acceptable speech for exercising their right to censor their own website. To extend the idea, I noticed you have a personal website linked in your bio, are you under moral obligation to allow other people to post hate speech to your website or allow anyone to post anything to your website? Do you feel you have complete control over the content posted to your website or does that make you some sort of moral censor and dictator of acceptable speech? Edit: Your giving site may provide a better example, because presumably you feel you can pick a choose what charitable group(s) can join and receive funds through your platform, effectively limiting the speech of all the other programs you haven't allowed to join.

joelrunyon 9y ago
I understand where you're going, but the purpose of my site isn't to host multiple viewpoints from multiple people. The giving site is more of who we've partnered with - it's never been open to any & all charities. I think the issue specifically with the app store is that there are other players who could similarly violate the "hate speech" metric (telegram/whatsapp/twitter/etc), but Google doesn't take those down. That calls into question how consistent they are with their policing and what constitutes the "line." The larger argument I was trying to get at in the other comment was that there seems to be a few companies that are aggregating power over "speech" online. At some point, they start to either look monopolistic (and using their base to prevent other players from growing - see fb v snapchat), or start to seem more similar to utility companies (which are regulated to some extent). Should your electric company be able to shut you off because you attended a rally? Should your phone company be able to terminate your service? Maybe, maybe not, but the utility analogy seems apt (to me) for this scenario.
- will_brown 9y ago
  >I think the issue specifically with the app store is that there are other players who could similarly violate the "hate speech" metric(telegram/whatsapp/twitter/etc), but Google doesn't take those down. That calls into question how consistent they are with their policing and what constitutes the "line." According to 1st amendment law, the remedy is to boycott the business, and truthfully it's the greatest tool people have to level the playing field, and it's seriously underleveraged especially in the internet age. However, the logic goes if you can't get the public to boycott a company, then your speech has basically failed in what's called the marketplace of ideas. So maybe while it's worth while to call attention to the power of these big companies and promote a boycott to keep them in check, you shouldn't be surprised when the boycott fails to gain momentum based them prohibiting hate speech, meaning find a clear cut example where they abused their power in a clearly controversial way where enough of the public will support the boycott to hurt the companies bottom line. As to your last paragraph, denial of service is not always protected or even speech for that matter. Another famous Supreme Court Case is Ollie's BBQ which prohibited African Americans from eating there, and that was found to be unconstitutional under the commerce clause. The commerce clause is kind of a running joke in law that gives the Federal Government the right to regulate everything on the basis of effecting interstate commerce, and while I of course agree with the result of the case, I despise the logic and use of the commerce clause. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung