4 ms·

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

by 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!
    - jackvalentine 8y ago
      I think you'll find I never advocated for anything, but I am interested in discussing the topic in good faith and finding the real limits and practical implementations - not some fantasy absolutist purism. There doesn't need to be a conclusion from that conversation like you think there does.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by nilkn 8y ago

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!
  - jackvalentine 8y ago
    I think you'll find I never advocated for anything, but I am interested in discussing the topic in good faith and finding the real limits and practical implementations - not some fantasy absolutist purism. There doesn't need to be a conclusion from that conversation like you think there does.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]