8 ms·

The approach they are using right now, and very successfully, is to force the large companies to censor for them. Internally to the company they will say "this

The approach they are using right now, and very successfully, is to force the large companies to censor for them. Internally to the company they will say "this and this and this should be deleted". They accuse anyone that disagrees of creating a hostile work environment (illegal per anti-discrimination laws). Without anyone left to disagree, they can get basically all they ask for. They then disingeniously say "this is the decision of a private company, free speech only applies to the government" even though they were the ones that forced the company's hand. Complete censorship is not possible with this strategy, because there will always be other ways to get the speech out, but it may well be censored from as large a percentage of people as in a dictatorship.

simonh 9y ago
How is the government forcing large companies to censor? I've not come across any instances of this. Pressure maybe, but there's a world of difference between pressure and force. See Apple's refusal to assist in decrypting the contents of their phones. Personally I agree with the ACLU position on this, but also believe that privately owned publishing platforms should be free to establish their own policies on what they will or will not carry. That's their right as private entities. Excepting explicit regulation such as common carrier. I don't think anyone is saying it would be OK for the phone companies to cut off KKK members phone service.
- jopsen 9y ago
  Agree... but cloudflare was basically arguing that they should be considered something like "common carrier" because very few companies have the technology and network to build DDoS resistant websites. I don't know how true that is, but if so... it stands to reason that free speech on the internet could be in danger. But who knows, maybe we'll get better DDoS protection technology in the future :)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- leereeves 9y ago
  > Personally I agree with the ACLU position on this, but also believe that privately owned publishing platforms should be free to establish their own policies on what they will or will not carry. That's their right as private entities. Are you opposed to net neutrality, then? If not, why the different standard for ISPs vs other tech oligopolies?
  - hanbura 9y ago
    Not OP, but I think publishing platforms should be able to decide policies who to carry, infrastructure companies on the other hand should at most differentiate by usage patterns, never by ideology. I count ISPs clearly in the infrastructure category, same with cloudflare, domain providers and AWS.
    - leereeves 9y ago
      Personally, I think there is a difference between publishing companies that develop their own content and social media companies that only provide a mechanism for others to communicate. I'd count the latter among the infrastructure companies.
      - simonh 9y ago
        I wouldn't. Even just the design of the tools they provide to facilitate communication influence what content can be created and how it is created. How can Facebook be a common carrier when it has age restrictions on accounts and makes choices about what languages and scripts it supports? If it were a common carrier, it would be unable to filter or limit the dustribution of pornography, for example. Should the be coerced by legislation to drop all such restrictions? If they should then what about private forums and bulletin boards? They provide essentially the same kinds of service? I just don't see how that approach is at all tennable.
        leereeves 9y ago
        Every platform limits the content based on the design of the tools. Being a common carrier wouldn't mean Facebook would be forced to support particular scripts any more than the phone company was required to develop video calls. If there are some restrictions we want as a society, like age or porn, those could be made exceptions. Regarding private forums, I'd distinguish between forums that seek to serve 99% of people and those that serve less than 1%. The first are public; the latter are private. Facebook is just the last platform in a stack of platforms people use to communicate. Why would Facebook be allowed to restrict content while those who provide the services Facebook is built on wouldn't?
- alacombe 9y ago
  > How is the government forcing large companies to censor ? Title IX and broadly written anti-discrimination regulations.
  - simonh 9y ago
    We're taking about private companies. Title IX only applies to federally funded services. Federal agencies anti-discrimination policies are a completely different subject.

simonh 9y ago

How is the government forcing large companies to censor? I've not come across any instances of this. Pressure maybe, but there's a world of difference between pressure and force. See Apple's refusal to assist in decrypting the contents of their phones. Personally I agree with the ACLU position on this, but also believe that privately owned publishing platforms should be free to establish their own policies on what they will or will not carry. That's their right as private entities. Excepting explicit regulation such as common carrier. I don't think anyone is saying it would be OK for the phone companies to cut off KKK members phone service.

jopsen 9y ago
Agree... but cloudflare was basically arguing that they should be considered something like "common carrier" because very few companies have the technology and network to build DDoS resistant websites. I don't know how true that is, but if so... it stands to reason that free speech on the internet could be in danger. But who knows, maybe we'll get better DDoS protection technology in the future :)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
leereeves 9y ago
> Personally I agree with the ACLU position on this, but also believe that privately owned publishing platforms should be free to establish their own policies on what they will or will not carry. That's their right as private entities. Are you opposed to net neutrality, then? If not, why the different standard for ISPs vs other tech oligopolies?
- hanbura 9y ago
  Not OP, but I think publishing platforms should be able to decide policies who to carry, infrastructure companies on the other hand should at most differentiate by usage patterns, never by ideology. I count ISPs clearly in the infrastructure category, same with cloudflare, domain providers and AWS.
  - leereeves 9y ago
    Personally, I think there is a difference between publishing companies that develop their own content and social media companies that only provide a mechanism for others to communicate. I'd count the latter among the infrastructure companies.
    - simonh 9y ago
      I wouldn't. Even just the design of the tools they provide to facilitate communication influence what content can be created and how it is created. How can Facebook be a common carrier when it has age restrictions on accounts and makes choices about what languages and scripts it supports? If it were a common carrier, it would be unable to filter or limit the dustribution of pornography, for example. Should the be coerced by legislation to drop all such restrictions? If they should then what about private forums and bulletin boards? They provide essentially the same kinds of service? I just don't see how that approach is at all tennable.
      - leereeves 9y ago
        Every platform limits the content based on the design of the tools. Being a common carrier wouldn't mean Facebook would be forced to support particular scripts any more than the phone company was required to develop video calls. If there are some restrictions we want as a society, like age or porn, those could be made exceptions. Regarding private forums, I'd distinguish between forums that seek to serve 99% of people and those that serve less than 1%. The first are public; the latter are private. Facebook is just the last platform in a stack of platforms people use to communicate. Why would Facebook be allowed to restrict content while those who provide the services Facebook is built on wouldn't?
alacombe 9y ago
> How is the government forcing large companies to censor ? Title IX and broadly written anti-discrimination regulations.
- simonh 9y ago
  We're taking about private companies. Title IX only applies to federally funded services. Federal agencies anti-discrimination policies are a completely different subject.