7 ms·

It's really not. You aren't entitled to an audience. Such bullshit. Put whatever you want up on your own website. I can't walk into SirusXMs office and demand

It's really not. You aren't entitled to an audience. Such bullshit. Put whatever you want up on your own website. I can't walk into SirusXMs office and demand that they give me a channel so my voice can be heard. I'm not entitled to my own TV station. I really wish one of these companies would just do something like ban Trump from Twitter so we can let the courts just put an end to this discussion. Getting banned from Twitter has nothing—nothing—to do with free speech. Nothing. Zero.

nilkn 8y ago
I appreciate your viewpoint, but this is largely not a response to anything in my post, just a restatement of your previous post.
- themagician 8y ago
  It is, because your talking about Twitter as if it's somehow analogous to a town square, and that's bullshit. It's not a public space and you have no rights to it or on it.
  - nilkn 8y ago
    I am advancing the notion that there may be a threshold beyond which sites like Twitter are in practice precisely digital public townsquares. I am aware of what the laws are right now -- we are discussing here a hypothetical change of precedent or law in the future to better reflect how Americans communicate in 2018 and beyond.
    - themagician 8y ago
      No, you are wrong. Using your own malformed analogy: The town square is the internet. Twitter is a private shop above subway station with a bunch of garbage that people like to buy. It's super busy. You can scream whatever you want in there, some people outside can hear you. You'll also probably get kicked out if you become obnoxious.
      - jackvalentine 8y ago
        The “privatising public spaces” issue isn’t just limited to the internet. To understand the point better the above poster is making you might be interested in reading about how private malls became our de facto “public” spaces. Legalese and dodgy analogies aside the above poster is focussing on the practical effects of these sites being so big and ‘default’.
        SimbaOnSteroids 8y ago
        On the other hand posting a dodgy opinion on facebook et al largely removes you from the social and physical consequences of saying things that are way outside of societal norms. When you're able to hide behind a screen the range of things you're willing to say increases as does your potential reach. I would argue it completely changes the context to which the ideas of free speech have been classically prescribed. Its worthy of discussion to question do the underlying ideals of free speech apply in this brave new world, or do we need to look at tweaking our ideals to fit the contexts in which we live. I don't have answers, nor would I ever suggest restricting free speech more, I'm just questioning does it make sense to apply it in this domain.
        jackvalentine 8y ago
        > On the other hand posting a dodgy opinion on facebook et al largely removes you from the social and physical consequences of saying things that are way outside of societal norms. I get what you're saying here, but the sheer number of idiots "fired for saying X on facebook" makes me think it's not true. It lowers the barrier for saying something and increases your audience reach... but also lowers the mental barrier for saying the wrong thing or someone hypersensitive hearing it. Have you ever investigated how speech is regulated in other countries? I'm Australian and we have a number of restrictions that make speech 'unfree' in the American sense. But I think they're appropriate and on the whole balanced well.
        themagician 8y ago
        I mean, these analogies are so bogus. Malls take up physical space that could be used for other things. They turn public land into private land in many places. They require enormous amounts of money to create. A website takes up no real space, doesn't take away from any kind of public good and effectively costs nothing to create. Anyone can create a website and have a voice and build an audience. Yeah, you don't get an audience and advertising for free. Sucks. Do you really want to advocate for a constitutional right to trolling and shitposting on someone else's website just because it's, "so big and default." CNN is pretty big and "default." If I send them an article, can I demand they publish it? FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH! Can I spam their comments with nonsense and then sue them if they ban me or delete them? FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- TheJoYo 8y ago
  Precisely what was going through my head as I read the reply. Good luck with this one, I'm out.
Amezarak 8y ago
So what happens when a domain registrar seizes your domain because they don't like your speech? (This has already happened.) What happens when your host and cdn shut you down? (This has already happened.) What happens when your isp shuts you down? (Only a matter of time.) Private companies control the Internet. If we decide social media doesn't constitute a commons, the same argument applies to the rest of the Internet. And so, like the gp said, your practical right are greatly curtailed. Moreover, you're giving Mark Zuckerberg immense, uncontrolled power over American discourse. Sure, he has to use his power carefully, but as long as he and other tech ceos do so, they've essentially become the gatekeepers of allowable thoughts.
- themagician 8y ago
  Like I said in the original post, we aren't talking about ICANN or domains. That's a different discussion—one worth having.
  - iamdave 8y ago
    Why is it different? How is it different? The behavior and impact isn't, is it? Can you give us something more than "it's not the same" because this response isn't wholly convincing.
    - themagician 8y ago
      How is it similar? I mean, we aren't even talking apples and oranges here. We are talking apples and toilet paper. One is public infrastructure run by a pseudo independent non-profit, the other a page on a private website. It's like the difference being banned from a city vs being banned from shitposting on the bulletin board in a Starbucks. Which, when we talk about free speech on FB and Twitter is really what we are talking about. Is there a constitutional right to shitposting and trolling on someone else's website? Like, really? Smh.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > It's like the difference being banned from a city vs being banned from shitposting on the bulletin board in a Starbucks. The problem is that Facebook isn't the size of a Starbucks. It isn't even the size of a city. It's the size of a hundred cities. There are more users of Facebook than citizens of the United States. It's like saying the US Congress can't impose censorship because you can just go to the EU and speak there instead. And if the EU censors the same things then you can just start your own country on a ship in international waters. And who is going to come to your ship, or even find out about it, if linking to it is prohibited in the places where people actually congregate? There is no town square equivalent where people have to walk past and can see you on their way to Facebook.

nilkn 8y ago

I appreciate your viewpoint, but this is largely not a response to anything in my post, just a restatement of your previous post.

themagician 8y ago
It is, because your talking about Twitter as if it's somehow analogous to a town square, and that's bullshit. It's not a public space and you have no rights to it or on it.
- nilkn 8y ago
  I am advancing the notion that there may be a threshold beyond which sites like Twitter are in practice precisely digital public townsquares. I am aware of what the laws are right now -- we are discussing here a hypothetical change of precedent or law in the future to better reflect how Americans communicate in 2018 and beyond.
  - themagician 8y ago
    No, you are wrong. Using your own malformed analogy: The town square is the internet. Twitter is a private shop above subway station with a bunch of garbage that people like to buy. It's super busy. You can scream whatever you want in there, some people outside can hear you. You'll also probably get kicked out if you become obnoxious.
    - jackvalentine 8y ago
      The “privatising public spaces” issue isn’t just limited to the internet. To understand the point better the above poster is making you might be interested in reading about how private malls became our de facto “public” spaces. Legalese and dodgy analogies aside the above poster is focussing on the practical effects of these sites being so big and ‘default’.
      - SimbaOnSteroids 8y ago
        On the other hand posting a dodgy opinion on facebook et al largely removes you from the social and physical consequences of saying things that are way outside of societal norms. When you're able to hide behind a screen the range of things you're willing to say increases as does your potential reach. I would argue it completely changes the context to which the ideas of free speech have been classically prescribed. Its worthy of discussion to question do the underlying ideals of free speech apply in this brave new world, or do we need to look at tweaking our ideals to fit the contexts in which we live. I don't have answers, nor would I ever suggest restricting free speech more, I'm just questioning does it make sense to apply it in this domain.
        jackvalentine 8y ago
        > On the other hand posting a dodgy opinion on facebook et al largely removes you from the social and physical consequences of saying things that are way outside of societal norms. I get what you're saying here, but the sheer number of idiots "fired for saying X on facebook" makes me think it's not true. It lowers the barrier for saying something and increases your audience reach... but also lowers the mental barrier for saying the wrong thing or someone hypersensitive hearing it. Have you ever investigated how speech is regulated in other countries? I'm Australian and we have a number of restrictions that make speech 'unfree' in the American sense. But I think they're appropriate and on the whole balanced well.
      - themagician 8y ago
        I mean, these analogies are so bogus. Malls take up physical space that could be used for other things. They turn public land into private land in many places. They require enormous amounts of money to create. A website takes up no real space, doesn't take away from any kind of public good and effectively costs nothing to create. Anyone can create a website and have a voice and build an audience. Yeah, you don't get an audience and advertising for free. Sucks. Do you really want to advocate for a constitutional right to trolling and shitposting on someone else's website just because it's, "so big and default." CNN is pretty big and "default." If I send them an article, can I demand they publish it? FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH! Can I spam their comments with nonsense and then sue them if they ban me or delete them? FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
TheJoYo 8y ago
Precisely what was going through my head as I read the reply. Good luck with this one, I'm out.

Amezarak 8y ago

So what happens when a domain registrar seizes your domain because they don't like your speech? (This has already happened.) What happens when your host and cdn shut you down? (This has already happened.) What happens when your isp shuts you down? (Only a matter of time.) Private companies control the Internet. If we decide social media doesn't constitute a commons, the same argument applies to the rest of the Internet. And so, like the gp said, your practical right are greatly curtailed. Moreover, you're giving Mark Zuckerberg immense, uncontrolled power over American discourse. Sure, he has to use his power carefully, but as long as he and other tech ceos do so, they've essentially become the gatekeepers of allowable thoughts.

themagician 8y ago
Like I said in the original post, we aren't talking about ICANN or domains. That's a different discussion—one worth having.
- iamdave 8y ago
  Why is it different? How is it different? The behavior and impact isn't, is it? Can you give us something more than "it's not the same" because this response isn't wholly convincing.
  - themagician 8y ago
    How is it similar? I mean, we aren't even talking apples and oranges here. We are talking apples and toilet paper. One is public infrastructure run by a pseudo independent non-profit, the other a page on a private website. It's like the difference being banned from a city vs being banned from shitposting on the bulletin board in a Starbucks. Which, when we talk about free speech on FB and Twitter is really what we are talking about. Is there a constitutional right to shitposting and trolling on someone else's website? Like, really? Smh.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > It's like the difference being banned from a city vs being banned from shitposting on the bulletin board in a Starbucks. The problem is that Facebook isn't the size of a Starbucks. It isn't even the size of a city. It's the size of a hundred cities. There are more users of Facebook than citizens of the United States. It's like saying the US Congress can't impose censorship because you can just go to the EU and speak there instead. And if the EU censors the same things then you can just start your own country on a ship in international waters. And who is going to come to your ship, or even find out about it, if linking to it is prohibited in the places where people actually congregate? There is no town square equivalent where people have to walk past and can see you on their way to Facebook.