6 ms·

There they go again, the big nanny corporations. They are part of the social fabric of our society. The same rules of freedom of speech should apply there. Say

by SCHiM 9y ago

There they go again, the big nanny corporations. They are part of the social fabric of our society. The same rules of freedom of speech should apply there. Saying that they have a right to censor their platform is OK, if this was the case from the outset. As it is, once these platforms were free and unrestricted. It's only after they grew big, are became protected by network effects that allows them to do stuff like this. This is censorship plain and simple, it's disgusting, risk-averse behavior that displays a debasing obedience to safe money and corporate interests. I don't know exactly why this angers me so much, party because it is a bait & switch like I said above. Party because it futile, users will simply go somewhere else. Partly because much of the content that I like to watch and learn about these days is probably on some goody two-shoe's shit list. I despise that they get to decide these things on platforms that have profited to much from an unrestricted and free Internet and online culture. They are hating the players, not the game.

aninhumer 9y ago
>The same rules of freedom of speech should apply there. If you want freedom of speech to apply in privately controlled media, you would have to compel them to distribute content they do not agree with, which is itself a violation of freedom of speech. And this is the problem with a simplistic idea like "Freedom of Speech". It is not possible for everyone to hear everyone else's point of view, so some speech will always be restricted. Therefore, our society inevitably makes decisions about which speech to amplify and which to silence, and just because that decision is not being made directly by government, does not mean it is not being made. In practice when people complain about censorship, what they mean is that these implicit decisions are not being made in a way that they like. And in saying this, I'm not trying to imply that their criticisms are wrong, or that they're being disingenuous or malicious in trying to change those decisions. I'm saying this to reframe the debate, because framing it as if access to speech can only be controlled by intentional malicious restriction prevents us from questioning the ways in which society already controls access to speech. The most common way speech is restricted is economic. The rich can afford to amplify their speech, and the poor cannot. We have historically accepted this without question as an economic reality, but then the rise of social media gave us a glimpse of a world where economic restrictions are not as big a factor, and so when these restrictions start to re-assert themselves we question them. People call it "censorship" and demand "free speech", because this is the most pervasive set of ideas we have to understand this dissonance, but the reality is we are always censored, and speech is never truly free, and unless we accept that, we will not be able to ask real questions about what kind of societal discourse we truly value.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > If you want freedom of speech to apply in privately controlled media, you would have to compel them to distribute content they do not agree with, which is itself a violation of freedom of speech. People can advocate for social norms and different ethical frameworks without advocating for legal or regulatory changes. > ...speech is never truly free, and unless we accept that, we will not be able to ask real questions about what kind of societal discourse we truly value. They are called ideals because we cannot perfect reality, not because they are unimportant. There's nothing wrong with forming consensus about how things should work and then only doing what is reasonable to force that vision on each other. I don't see what part of that gets in the way of asking "real questions".
  - aninhumer 9y ago
    >People can advocate for social norms and different ethical frameworks without advocating for legal or regulatory changes. Yes, but unless you're considering some means of achieving those social norms, even if that's just social pressure, it's unlikely to change anything. And when people do actually advocate means of changing the norms of discourse, people who don't like the proposed changes will call it censorship. >They are called ideals because we cannot perfect reality, not because they are unimportant. There's nothing wrong with forming consensus about how things should work I agree. The point I'm trying to make is that in practice "Freedom of Speech" is not actually a very coherent ideal. If we just mean the government should not directly intervene to prevent speech, that's a reasonable ideal, and relatively few people actually disagree with that. But when people try to consider other ways in which speech is controlled, they still call it "Freedom of Speech", even when arguing for contradictory things. And I'm arguing that the reason for these contradictions is that the debate tends to be framed in terms identifying speech restrictions and acting to remove them, rather than asking broader questions about the inevitable ways in which speech is amplified or silenced, and how we should structure discourse within those limitations.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      > "Freedom of Speech" is not actually a very coherent ideal. Sure it is. The ideal is that better ideas, not power, are the best response to ideas someone doesn't like. But there are certainly exceptions where power is needed to counter acutely harmful speech like "don't yell fire in a crowded theater" and "don't post stolen passwords". Governments and corporations just have different interests and different amounts and kinds of power. So we have different norms and rules for what governments and corporations ought to do. But the general principle is the same.

by SCHiM 9y ago

aninhumer 9y ago

>The same rules of freedom of speech should apply there. If you want freedom of speech to apply in privately controlled media, you would have to compel them to distribute content they do not agree with, which is itself a violation of freedom of speech. And this is the problem with a simplistic idea like "Freedom of Speech". It is not possible for everyone to hear everyone else's point of view, so some speech will always be restricted. Therefore, our society inevitably makes decisions about which speech to amplify and which to silence, and just because that decision is not being made directly by government, does not mean it is not being made. In practice when people complain about censorship, what they mean is that these implicit decisions are not being made in a way that they like. And in saying this, I'm not trying to imply that their criticisms are wrong, or that they're being disingenuous or malicious in trying to change those decisions. I'm saying this to reframe the debate, because framing it as if access to speech can only be controlled by intentional malicious restriction prevents us from questioning the ways in which society already controls access to speech. The most common way speech is restricted is economic. The rich can afford to amplify their speech, and the poor cannot. We have historically accepted this without question as an economic reality, but then the rise of social media gave us a glimpse of a world where economic restrictions are not as big a factor, and so when these restrictions start to re-assert themselves we question them. People call it "censorship" and demand "free speech", because this is the most pervasive set of ideas we have to understand this dissonance, but the reality is we are always censored, and speech is never truly free, and unless we accept that, we will not be able to ask real questions about what kind of societal discourse we truly value.

humanrebar 9y ago
> If you want freedom of speech to apply in privately controlled media, you would have to compel them to distribute content they do not agree with, which is itself a violation of freedom of speech. People can advocate for social norms and different ethical frameworks without advocating for legal or regulatory changes. > ...speech is never truly free, and unless we accept that, we will not be able to ask real questions about what kind of societal discourse we truly value. They are called ideals because we cannot perfect reality, not because they are unimportant. There's nothing wrong with forming consensus about how things should work and then only doing what is reasonable to force that vision on each other. I don't see what part of that gets in the way of asking "real questions".
- aninhumer 9y ago
  >People can advocate for social norms and different ethical frameworks without advocating for legal or regulatory changes. Yes, but unless you're considering some means of achieving those social norms, even if that's just social pressure, it's unlikely to change anything. And when people do actually advocate means of changing the norms of discourse, people who don't like the proposed changes will call it censorship. >They are called ideals because we cannot perfect reality, not because they are unimportant. There's nothing wrong with forming consensus about how things should work I agree. The point I'm trying to make is that in practice "Freedom of Speech" is not actually a very coherent ideal. If we just mean the government should not directly intervene to prevent speech, that's a reasonable ideal, and relatively few people actually disagree with that. But when people try to consider other ways in which speech is controlled, they still call it "Freedom of Speech", even when arguing for contradictory things. And I'm arguing that the reason for these contradictions is that the debate tends to be framed in terms identifying speech restrictions and acting to remove them, rather than asking broader questions about the inevitable ways in which speech is amplified or silenced, and how we should structure discourse within those limitations.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > "Freedom of Speech" is not actually a very coherent ideal. Sure it is. The ideal is that better ideas, not power, are the best response to ideas someone doesn't like. But there are certainly exceptions where power is needed to counter acutely harmful speech like "don't yell fire in a crowded theater" and "don't post stolen passwords". Governments and corporations just have different interests and different amounts and kinds of power. So we have different norms and rules for what governments and corporations ought to do. But the general principle is the same.