6 ms·

I find the analogy between free speech (which he has, literally can say whatever he wants) and a platform being obligated to distribute _everyone’s_ content biz

I find the analogy between free speech (which he has, literally can say whatever he wants) and a platform being obligated to distribute _everyone’s_ content bizarre. Does a newspaper publish everyone’s comments? If I call you and ask you to repeat what I say to ten friends will you do it? Alex jones’s right to talk garbage != his “faux-right” to have platforms publish it.

xupybd 8y ago
Very true, he has no right to use these platforms what so ever. But by allowing him to remain they are remaining impartial. If these large platforms make the free choice to remain impartial I think that improves freedom of speech. But you are correct the strict definition involves only the Governments involvement in speech.
mistermann 8y ago
> I find the analogy between free speech (which he has, literally can say whatever he wants) and a platform being obligated to distribute _everyone’s_ content bizarre I find it interesting how so many people are unable to stop their mind from automatically, and without their awareness, narrowing the very broad topic of the principle of free speech in general, to narrower and more specific topics like the first amendment, or obligation (by force!) to distribute unsavory ideas (neither of which were mentioned in the comment to which you are replying). Can we agree that the network effect has reduced the majority of public, mass online communication to a relatively small number of players, most of whom are owned and heavily staffed by people who don't tend to describe themselves as centrists on the political spectrum? Considering this, can you imagine any scenario where perhaps multiple silicon valley companies work in a coordinated fashion to de-platform someone of a political persuasion that they disagree with sometime in the future? I think we've seen large societies in the past get a little carried away when everyone starts thinking the same way, exposing their minds to only one flavor of opinions, and perhaps harming their ability to think critically. Some people might say we're living within that very scenario right now. No, this doesn't necessarily mean Alex Jones specifically has any redeeming qualities whatsoever, but can you at least see that there is at least something to be said for the general principle of free speech and diversity of ideas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction." EDIT: Downvoters, care to share the thinking behind your disagreement? Do you think I'm wrong in thinking that the principle of free speech exists independent of the first amendment, and can be discussed with or without the existence of force being exerted on publishing platforms? Is the very idea of a conversation with those whom you may not completely agree old fashioned or unrealistic?
- aplummer 8y ago
  (FYI I didn't downvote you because you gave a thought out answer, must be other people.) > ...most of whom are owned and heavily staffed by people who don't tend to describe themselves as centrists on the political spectrum? The tech companies are _significantly_ right wing on any spectrum including countries outside the USA. > Considering this, can you imagine any scenario where perhaps multiple silicon valley companies work in a coordinated fashion to de-platform someone of a political persuasion that they disagree with sometime in the future? If you are saying tech companies should be broken up, I don't have a strong opinion on it. If you are saying that they should be forced to promote conspiracy garbage - I disagree. > Considering this, can you imagine any scenario where perhaps multiple silicon valley companies work in a coordinated fashion to de-platform someone of a political persuasion that they disagree with sometime in the future? I hope so, ISIS uses social media. > I think we've seen large societies in the past get a little carried away when everyone starts thinking the same way. I disagree that is what is happening here - when Australia's chief scientists was questioned by a conspiracy theorist he said "I like to keep an open mind, but not so open my brains fall out". I think brains fall out delusional fear mongering should be suppressed (not by suppressing free speech, just by people sense checking and only promoting what they want) by the majority, particularly when it has real world impacts like AJ. You could argue the current state of the internet (lots of garbage conspiracies) is an effect of this being short-circuited. As well, I think your dogma towards "free speech at any cost" is an example of people getting carried away and thinking the same. Every other western country has free-ish but not free speech, however people are more free from fear and persecution in those places than in America. Consider that AJ is banned from visiting places where quality of life, political engagement, etc is higher than in the USA. Even if you disagree with my points, what about the company employees' free speech, don't they have the freedom to publish whatever _they_ like?
  - mistermann 8y ago
    > The tech companies are _significantly_ right wing on any spectrum including countries outside the USA. This seems like the absolute opposite of literally every single article I've ever read, I have not once heard a single person make this claim before. Am I misunderstanding something, are we not talking about the same thing? > If you are saying tech companies should be broken up I said nothing of the kind, the transcript of what I said is right there for your review. > If you are saying that they should be forced to promote conspiracy garbage - I disagree. Once again, I said nothing of the kind, the transcript of what I said is right there for your review. > I hope so, ISIS uses social media. Considering: a) https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." b) What I actually wrote ....does that seem like an appropriate response? > I disagree that is what is happening here I am referring to the possibility that if free speech in general is restricted to the point that large portions of the population rarely hear views that might conflict with their own, one possible result might be that they lose the ability to think critically, and perhaps the ability to hold the simplest of good faith conversations with those whose actual opinions may differ only slightly. > As well, I think your dogma towards "free speech at any cost" If I had actually said anything of the kind, I would agree with you. I asked some fairly reasonable questions that 10 years ago wouldn't have been considered controversial at all. I would hope that you and anyone else that comes across this exchange review the words I have written, and the words you have written in response, and try to think calmly and clearly about the nature of this situation. There is something very, very strange going on. As for free speech, if there's no longer anyone left who is able or willing to engage in an honest discussion, perhaps there's no point in even trying to defend the principle.
sadris 8y ago
> I find the analogy between free speech (which he has, literally can say whatever he wants) and a platform being obligated to distribute _everyone’s_ content bizarre. They can try to censor content published on their site. But they risk losing CDA 230 immunity; in which case they could be liable for everything their users post to their site. They would be liable for child porn, copyright infringement, etc. See 2007 9th circuit decision: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/05/15/0456916.pdf http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/05/15/04... Roommate is not immune for publishing materials as to which it is an “information content provider.” A content provider is “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3) (emphasis added). In other words, if Roommate passively publishes information provided by others, the CDA protects it from liability that would otherwise attach under state or federal law as a result of such publication. But if it is responsible, in whole or in part, for creating or developing the information, it becomes a content provider and is not entitled to CDA immunity. As we explained in Carafano, “an ‘interactive computer service’ qualifies for immunity so long as it does not also function as an ‘information content provider’ for the portion of the statement or publication at issue.”
timwis 8y ago
But newspapers are curated; twitter is not. A closer analogy to twitter is the Postal Service.

xupybd 8y ago

Very true, he has no right to use these platforms what so ever. But by allowing him to remain they are remaining impartial. If these large platforms make the free choice to remain impartial I think that improves freedom of speech. But you are correct the strict definition involves only the Governments involvement in speech.

mistermann 8y ago

> I find the analogy between free speech (which he has, literally can say whatever he wants) and a platform being obligated to distribute _everyone’s_ content bizarre I find it interesting how so many people are unable to stop their mind from automatically, and without their awareness, narrowing the very broad topic of the principle of free speech in general, to narrower and more specific topics like the first amendment, or obligation (by force!) to distribute unsavory ideas (neither of which were mentioned in the comment to which you are replying). Can we agree that the network effect has reduced the majority of public, mass online communication to a relatively small number of players, most of whom are owned and heavily staffed by people who don't tend to describe themselves as centrists on the political spectrum? Considering this, can you imagine any scenario where perhaps multiple silicon valley companies work in a coordinated fashion to de-platform someone of a political persuasion that they disagree with sometime in the future? I think we've seen large societies in the past get a little carried away when everyone starts thinking the same way, exposing their minds to only one flavor of opinions, and perhaps harming their ability to think critically. Some people might say we're living within that very scenario right now. No, this doesn't necessarily mean Alex Jones specifically has any redeeming qualities whatsoever, but can you at least see that there is at least something to be said for the general principle of free speech and diversity of ideas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction." EDIT: Downvoters, care to share the thinking behind your disagreement? Do you think I'm wrong in thinking that the principle of free speech exists independent of the first amendment, and can be discussed with or without the existence of force being exerted on publishing platforms? Is the very idea of a conversation with those whom you may not completely agree old fashioned or unrealistic?

aplummer 8y ago
(FYI I didn't downvote you because you gave a thought out answer, must be other people.) > ...most of whom are owned and heavily staffed by people who don't tend to describe themselves as centrists on the political spectrum? The tech companies are _significantly_ right wing on any spectrum including countries outside the USA. > Considering this, can you imagine any scenario where perhaps multiple silicon valley companies work in a coordinated fashion to de-platform someone of a political persuasion that they disagree with sometime in the future? If you are saying tech companies should be broken up, I don't have a strong opinion on it. If you are saying that they should be forced to promote conspiracy garbage - I disagree. > Considering this, can you imagine any scenario where perhaps multiple silicon valley companies work in a coordinated fashion to de-platform someone of a political persuasion that they disagree with sometime in the future? I hope so, ISIS uses social media. > I think we've seen large societies in the past get a little carried away when everyone starts thinking the same way. I disagree that is what is happening here - when Australia's chief scientists was questioned by a conspiracy theorist he said "I like to keep an open mind, but not so open my brains fall out". I think brains fall out delusional fear mongering should be suppressed (not by suppressing free speech, just by people sense checking and only promoting what they want) by the majority, particularly when it has real world impacts like AJ. You could argue the current state of the internet (lots of garbage conspiracies) is an effect of this being short-circuited. As well, I think your dogma towards "free speech at any cost" is an example of people getting carried away and thinking the same. Every other western country has free-ish but not free speech, however people are more free from fear and persecution in those places than in America. Consider that AJ is banned from visiting places where quality of life, political engagement, etc is higher than in the USA. Even if you disagree with my points, what about the company employees' free speech, don't they have the freedom to publish whatever _they_ like?
- mistermann 8y ago
  > The tech companies are _significantly_ right wing on any spectrum including countries outside the USA. This seems like the absolute opposite of literally every single article I've ever read, I have not once heard a single person make this claim before. Am I misunderstanding something, are we not talking about the same thing? > If you are saying tech companies should be broken up I said nothing of the kind, the transcript of what I said is right there for your review. > If you are saying that they should be forced to promote conspiracy garbage - I disagree. Once again, I said nothing of the kind, the transcript of what I said is right there for your review. > I hope so, ISIS uses social media. Considering: a) https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." b) What I actually wrote ....does that seem like an appropriate response? > I disagree that is what is happening here I am referring to the possibility that if free speech in general is restricted to the point that large portions of the population rarely hear views that might conflict with their own, one possible result might be that they lose the ability to think critically, and perhaps the ability to hold the simplest of good faith conversations with those whose actual opinions may differ only slightly. > As well, I think your dogma towards "free speech at any cost" If I had actually said anything of the kind, I would agree with you. I asked some fairly reasonable questions that 10 years ago wouldn't have been considered controversial at all. I would hope that you and anyone else that comes across this exchange review the words I have written, and the words you have written in response, and try to think calmly and clearly about the nature of this situation. There is something very, very strange going on. As for free speech, if there's no longer anyone left who is able or willing to engage in an honest discussion, perhaps there's no point in even trying to defend the principle.

sadris 8y ago

> I find the analogy between free speech (which he has, literally can say whatever he wants) and a platform being obligated to distribute _everyone’s_ content bizarre. They can try to censor content published on their site. But they risk losing CDA 230 immunity; in which case they could be liable for everything their users post to their site. They would be liable for child porn, copyright infringement, etc. See 2007 9th circuit decision: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/05/15/0456916.pdf http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/05/15/04... Roommate is not immune for publishing materials as to which it is an “information content provider.” A content provider is “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3) (emphasis added). In other words, if Roommate passively publishes information provided by others, the CDA protects it from liability that would otherwise attach under state or federal law as a result of such publication. But if it is responsible, in whole or in part, for creating or developing the information, it becomes a content provider and is not entitled to CDA immunity. As we explained in Carafano, “an ‘interactive computer service’ qualifies for immunity so long as it does not also function as an ‘information content provider’ for the portion of the statement or publication at issue.”

timwis 8y ago

But newspapers are curated; twitter is not. A closer analogy to twitter is the Postal Service.