3 ms·

I of course don't argue that Internet sites, like Twitter or the Google Play Store, are not private places. They are not public forums. But to me, the concerni

I of course don't argue that Internet sites, like Twitter or the Google Play Store, are not private places. They are not public forums. But to me, the concerning point, is that the Internet is quickly becoming a place with no public forums. And I don't mean public forum in the legal sense (though that is also true), but in the sense of a place where everyone is welcome, and where people of all sides are actually present. I think public forums are an important part of our society because they force exposure to other members of society and create shared experiences. I think a major part of protests, like occupy wallstreeet, BLM or the Women's March is to get people's attention by being in a public space. You can get your ideas out into the area and even the country on television. If we are all living in our little bubbles, how can we have dialog and solve problems? Conservatives will have their little bubble, liberals will have their little bubble, and there will be no interaction. Twitter used to be a place where you could hear any kind of thought. You could hear one side of the story from the president of the US and the other side from al qaeda. Not anymore. Now, it may not seem like a big deal as the people being kicked off are bigots. But are you sure your opinion will always be in the majority? Take for example the recent Google Memo, which was quickly labeled sexist by most media outlets. Conversation on HN the past weeks indicates many on HN disagree with that label. It's bigots today, but it might be "sexists" tomorrow. So, yes I agree corporations have no duty to maintain a public forum. But if all businesses choose not to be public forums, do you think that is a good thing?

will_brown 9y ago
Again as a business owner, yes, I value my right to prohibit others from taking over with their message. I tend to use the church example a lot, because conceptualize small towns where the church maybe the epicenter for the majority of the community, and what it would mean to have to allow hate speech inside these places of worship (say a temple having to allow neo nazi's in to promote their message in the middle of a service). I don't think it's good to ignore the law in this area, because it's developed over a hundred years and has considered facts you and I would never come up with in a million years and the logic is well thought out of nothing else, even if I disagree with certain decisions on free speech. As to the internet it's the closest thing to what is called the marketplace of ideas from 1st amendment law, because even the government can shut you otherwise protected speech down in real life public forums based on safety, permitting, etc... moreover, anyone can get a personal website, just like the OP has listed in his bio, and it's available 24/7, and as I mentioned direct to OP, just like I have no rights to post hate speech or any speech on his website, there is no absolute right to post anything anywhere else either, even here on HN where many of my posts that made the front page have been killed/taken down even when they didn't violate HN terms.
- jaredklewis 9y ago
  I am not advocating forcing businesses to become public forums, nor did I do so in my post above. I don't advocate government intervention as the solution to every societal ill, and definitely do not in this case. I am just asking the question, if all businesses choose to not be public forums (as in their right, which I do not dispute), is that good for society? Some would argue that all Internet platforms deciding to regulate speech is a positive because it removes hate speech, for example. I would argue that it is not good because it eliminates public spaces. The key thing about the public square is interaction with the public. If all that people wanted was free speech they would just go shout in the woods. And the Internet is becoming that. The liberals will shout with the liberals and the conservatives with the conservatives.
  - will_brown 9y ago
    >The key thing about the public square is interaction with the public. If all that people wanted was free speech they would just go shout in the woods. And the Internet is becoming that. Again anyone can create their own website, nothing is limiting the exercise of their protected speech and if the speech wins in the marketplace of ideas nothing can stop it, and history has shown when speech has won in the marketplace of ideas the people who try to stop it only magnify it. Showing my age a little but look the show Married with Children, it was going to be cancelled until the politicians tried to take it off the air and then it became a hit, or when politicians tried to ban 2 Live Crew's album and they went to the Supreme Court and won, it only promoted the album/speech more. If you have a good enough idea you publish on your own website, that simultaneously all the existing platforms prohibit they are likely going to be doing you a favor in terms of promotion of your idea and your platform(website), but if its a idea that fails in the marketplace of ideas don't expect much one way or another. As to the idea about shouting in the woods, that highlights my point just as much as yours. At some point Facebook.com was just empty woods, they bought it and made it what it is, it was never a public space, in fact in the beginning it was more restrictive limiting the people who could join to people with .edu email addresses, meaning at one point Facebook's platform was less public than it is today. And if they turned the switch back tomorrow, my opinion would be that it wouldn't be a loss of a public space because it never was a public space, it would still admittedly be a loss of some kind. Moreover, I am just not sure these internet platforms have the ability to eliminate public spaces because they were not and never have been public spaces. Nothing, about these platforms ever guaranteed an audience for anyone's speech, in fact they are all subject to disappearing tomorrow due to competition or simply going out of business. Also, I see many alternatives to publishing speech on the internet, admittedly it may be about the same as shouting in empty woods but again even facebook at onetime was empty woods and still may as well be for many content publishers.

will_brown 9y ago

Again as a business owner, yes, I value my right to prohibit others from taking over with their message. I tend to use the church example a lot, because conceptualize small towns where the church maybe the epicenter for the majority of the community, and what it would mean to have to allow hate speech inside these places of worship (say a temple having to allow neo nazi's in to promote their message in the middle of a service). I don't think it's good to ignore the law in this area, because it's developed over a hundred years and has considered facts you and I would never come up with in a million years and the logic is well thought out of nothing else, even if I disagree with certain decisions on free speech. As to the internet it's the closest thing to what is called the marketplace of ideas from 1st amendment law, because even the government can shut you otherwise protected speech down in real life public forums based on safety, permitting, etc... moreover, anyone can get a personal website, just like the OP has listed in his bio, and it's available 24/7, and as I mentioned direct to OP, just like I have no rights to post hate speech or any speech on his website, there is no absolute right to post anything anywhere else either, even here on HN where many of my posts that made the front page have been killed/taken down even when they didn't violate HN terms.

jaredklewis 9y ago
I am not advocating forcing businesses to become public forums, nor did I do so in my post above. I don't advocate government intervention as the solution to every societal ill, and definitely do not in this case. I am just asking the question, if all businesses choose to not be public forums (as in their right, which I do not dispute), is that good for society? Some would argue that all Internet platforms deciding to regulate speech is a positive because it removes hate speech, for example. I would argue that it is not good because it eliminates public spaces. The key thing about the public square is interaction with the public. If all that people wanted was free speech they would just go shout in the woods. And the Internet is becoming that. The liberals will shout with the liberals and the conservatives with the conservatives.
- will_brown 9y ago
  >The key thing about the public square is interaction with the public. If all that people wanted was free speech they would just go shout in the woods. And the Internet is becoming that. Again anyone can create their own website, nothing is limiting the exercise of their protected speech and if the speech wins in the marketplace of ideas nothing can stop it, and history has shown when speech has won in the marketplace of ideas the people who try to stop it only magnify it. Showing my age a little but look the show Married with Children, it was going to be cancelled until the politicians tried to take it off the air and then it became a hit, or when politicians tried to ban 2 Live Crew's album and they went to the Supreme Court and won, it only promoted the album/speech more. If you have a good enough idea you publish on your own website, that simultaneously all the existing platforms prohibit they are likely going to be doing you a favor in terms of promotion of your idea and your platform(website), but if its a idea that fails in the marketplace of ideas don't expect much one way or another. As to the idea about shouting in the woods, that highlights my point just as much as yours. At some point Facebook.com was just empty woods, they bought it and made it what it is, it was never a public space, in fact in the beginning it was more restrictive limiting the people who could join to people with .edu email addresses, meaning at one point Facebook's platform was less public than it is today. And if they turned the switch back tomorrow, my opinion would be that it wouldn't be a loss of a public space because it never was a public space, it would still admittedly be a loss of some kind. Moreover, I am just not sure these internet platforms have the ability to eliminate public spaces because they were not and never have been public spaces. Nothing, about these platforms ever guaranteed an audience for anyone's speech, in fact they are all subject to disappearing tomorrow due to competition or simply going out of business. Also, I see many alternatives to publishing speech on the internet, admittedly it may be about the same as shouting in empty woods but again even facebook at onetime was empty woods and still may as well be for many content publishers.