5 ms·

Unfortunately, you'll see the American ideal of free speech quickly purged from the Internet as American companies shed their nationalism for profit. The EU doe

Unfortunately, you'll see the American ideal of free speech quickly purged from the Internet as American companies shed their nationalism for profit. The EU does not hold speech as dear as the US. As the EU gains more power, they'll pressure American firms to conform to their laws. Since the firms have EU headquarters, they will. If the American firms wore that mantle with pride (and paid the taxes that go with it), the EU could only ban them from having their sites accessible by EU citizens. Not even the EU would go so far as to do that. Sadly, Twitter et al traded their Constitution for coin.

Apocryphon 9y ago
It's arguable that the American ideal of free enterprise trumps free speech in this era- and such corporations have always had the right to police speech as they'd like. Private entities and all that. If you don't like it, perhaps you should support anti-monopolist policies.
- virmundi 9y ago
  I do support anti-monopolist policies. My favorite president is Teddy. The very fact that we are discussing the enterprise limiting speech does show it's arguable. I say it should be argued. Further, I say that comments such as yours, while I'm fine with you stating it, serves only to act as slight of hand that limits speech.
  - Apocryphon 9y ago
    We should aim to break up the ongoing dominance in tech by these ever-increasing conglomerates, either nationalize Twitter into a public utility, or break it so alternatives exist so people can switch to them. That may be the ideal world to strive for. In the current world, though, I find free speech arguments in this context to be alarmist because Twitter isn't the only channel for public discourse, and this specific case (shutting down jihadist accounts) seems like a less flagrant act of corporate censorship than, say, Apple banning iOS apps that warn civilians of drone attacks. It just seems like there are worthier incidents to get outraged about, but people like to choose certain targets of outrage because it suits their tastes. Hacker slacktivism is as annoying as any other kind.
abritinthebay 9y ago
Ever since Citizens United the American ideal of free speech has been quite, quite, dead.
alexasmyths 9y ago
No. I'll bet may salary that the folks at Twitter have no problem deleting ISIS accounts, and would do it irrespective of any impetus from the US Gov. And the Europeans are considerably more strict on this - they have severe surveillance laws. Sweden inspects every single packet coming in and out of Sweden. Also - consider the fact that Twitter bans accounts all the time for some really basic stuff. People have been banned for not much, the bar is not high.
orf 9y ago
Meh, as an EU citizen I think their balance of free speech is OK. Not as extreme as in the US, but that doesn't make it worse. The UK draws a sensible line without having it enshrined in any constitution. The right to forget is a great example. Sure, its "against the free speech of Google" but it's decidedly for the people being spoken about IMO.
- virmundi 9y ago
  Two things: 1) Google shouldn't have free speech since it is not a person. 2) The reason things get enshrined in the Constitution is to limit the ability of the government to get rid of it. The UK's non-constitutional, constitutional monarchy is a rather problematic thing if the monarchy ever wanted to exercise itself.
  - orf 9y ago
    1) Sure, but taken as a literal interpretation of the constitution they should, as they are a collection of people[1] 2) From a purely theoretical standpoint I agree, it does occupy an interesting place. If the monarchy ever did try to exercise any of its powers it possesses outside of delegation it would trigger a consisting crisis that would mean they would be immediately stripped of such powers. I mean, the Queen technically has all the powers of state and those are granted "at will" (air quotes) to the prime minister and other officials. If she ever woke up and decided to declare war, strip parliament of its authority or execute a few commoners what would happen? 1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Apocryphon 9y ago

It's arguable that the American ideal of free enterprise trumps free speech in this era- and such corporations have always had the right to police speech as they'd like. Private entities and all that. If you don't like it, perhaps you should support anti-monopolist policies.

virmundi 9y ago
I do support anti-monopolist policies. My favorite president is Teddy. The very fact that we are discussing the enterprise limiting speech does show it's arguable. I say it should be argued. Further, I say that comments such as yours, while I'm fine with you stating it, serves only to act as slight of hand that limits speech.
- Apocryphon 9y ago
  We should aim to break up the ongoing dominance in tech by these ever-increasing conglomerates, either nationalize Twitter into a public utility, or break it so alternatives exist so people can switch to them. That may be the ideal world to strive for. In the current world, though, I find free speech arguments in this context to be alarmist because Twitter isn't the only channel for public discourse, and this specific case (shutting down jihadist accounts) seems like a less flagrant act of corporate censorship than, say, Apple banning iOS apps that warn civilians of drone attacks. It just seems like there are worthier incidents to get outraged about, but people like to choose certain targets of outrage because it suits their tastes. Hacker slacktivism is as annoying as any other kind.

abritinthebay 9y ago

Ever since Citizens United the American ideal of free speech has been quite, quite, dead.

alexasmyths 9y ago

No. I'll bet may salary that the folks at Twitter have no problem deleting ISIS accounts, and would do it irrespective of any impetus from the US Gov. And the Europeans are considerably more strict on this - they have severe surveillance laws. Sweden inspects every single packet coming in and out of Sweden. Also - consider the fact that Twitter bans accounts all the time for some really basic stuff. People have been banned for not much, the bar is not high.

orf 9y ago

Meh, as an EU citizen I think their balance of free speech is OK. Not as extreme as in the US, but that doesn't make it worse. The UK draws a sensible line without having it enshrined in any constitution. The right to forget is a great example. Sure, its "against the free speech of Google" but it's decidedly for the people being spoken about IMO.

virmundi 9y ago
Two things: 1) Google shouldn't have free speech since it is not a person. 2) The reason things get enshrined in the Constitution is to limit the ability of the government to get rid of it. The UK's non-constitutional, constitutional monarchy is a rather problematic thing if the monarchy ever wanted to exercise itself.
- orf 9y ago
  1) Sure, but taken as a literal interpretation of the constitution they should, as they are a collection of people[1] 2) From a purely theoretical standpoint I agree, it does occupy an interesting place. If the monarchy ever did try to exercise any of its powers it possesses outside of delegation it would trigger a consisting crisis that would mean they would be immediately stripped of such powers. I mean, the Queen technically has all the powers of state and those are granted "at will" (air quotes) to the prime minister and other officials. If she ever woke up and decided to declare war, strip parliament of its authority or execute a few commoners what would happen? 1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood