3 ms·

At least for me, the freedoms enshrined in the bill of rights and other amendments are valuable not just as restrictions on government power, but as restriction

At least for me, the freedoms enshrined in the bill of rights and other amendments are valuable not just as restrictions on government power, but as restrictions on power. The more asymmetric the relationship between two parties, the more sensitive we become to exercises of power by the stronger party over the weaker one. I think that we do have a reasonable expectation that our employers and service providers won't interfere with our religious lives, that all employees and customers have equal rights and responsibilities, are entitled to due process during disputes, we have the right to not self-incriminate, to face our accusers, to defend ourselves against attack, to associate with whoever we please, and so on. When a dominant platform for communication starts to exercise its own authority over what can be communicated on their platform, I think its only natural that we consider it to be an unethical abuse of power. Property rights are not absolute. As one party becomes more and more dominant, I think it is appropriate that we recognize the asymmetry in the relationship and restrict that party's ability to exert power over others.

lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
The restrictions put on governmental power are proportional to the power we give the government. Your employer can't imprison you, collect taxes from you, send you off to war; pretending "social media add tech company" is in any way comparable doesn't add much to the conversation. You first have to give google the right to send you to jail, before you can demand due process from them (that's a dystopia I think no one wants, not even the tech CEOs). If you don't like the policies for Google, Facebook, others, make your own. Maybe like minded individuals will follow (most likely they won't). Once you no longer have this right then we can talk about censorship.
- brandmeyer 8y ago
  Power doesn't have to be absolute in order to be asymmetric. In turn, the restrictions imposed on an employer or service provider should be proportional to their dominance.
tptacek 8y ago
You can want the Bill of Rights to be "restrictions on power", but as a positive description of reality and of law, they are not that. In fact: the Constitution had to be amended to make those rights binding on State governments, and it's not perfectly legally clear that all of those rights have been so incorporated. The idea that they bind on Facebook is... aspirational.
- dctoedt 8y ago
  > is ... aspirational. I'm going to steal that phrase.
- brandmeyer 8y ago
  Its not a matter of what their legal status is. Its a matter of what drives our sense of whether some behavior is right or wrong. The Bill of Rights and later amendments enshrines the ideal that power should have limitations. Just because this ideal was first applied to government doesn't mean that we must stop there.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    I understand the point you're making, but the Bill of Rights is an odd document to use as your moral lodestar. It was designed for a particular purpose: to structure and constrain a new government. It isn't a manual on how people should conduct themselves, nor did its authors intend it as one. It leaves out things that manual would certainly include, and includes things it wouldn't.

lordCarbonFiber 8y ago

The restrictions put on governmental power are proportional to the power we give the government. Your employer can't imprison you, collect taxes from you, send you off to war; pretending "social media add tech company" is in any way comparable doesn't add much to the conversation. You first have to give google the right to send you to jail, before you can demand due process from them (that's a dystopia I think no one wants, not even the tech CEOs). If you don't like the policies for Google, Facebook, others, make your own. Maybe like minded individuals will follow (most likely they won't). Once you no longer have this right then we can talk about censorship.

brandmeyer 8y ago
Power doesn't have to be absolute in order to be asymmetric. In turn, the restrictions imposed on an employer or service provider should be proportional to their dominance.

tptacek 8y ago

You can want the Bill of Rights to be "restrictions on power", but as a positive description of reality and of law, they are not that. In fact: the Constitution had to be amended to make those rights binding on State governments, and it's not perfectly legally clear that all of those rights have been so incorporated. The idea that they bind on Facebook is... aspirational.

dctoedt 8y ago
> is ... aspirational. I'm going to steal that phrase.
brandmeyer 8y ago
Its not a matter of what their legal status is. Its a matter of what drives our sense of whether some behavior is right or wrong. The Bill of Rights and later amendments enshrines the ideal that power should have limitations. Just because this ideal was first applied to government doesn't mean that we must stop there.
- tptacek 8y ago
  I understand the point you're making, but the Bill of Rights is an odd document to use as your moral lodestar. It was designed for a particular purpose: to structure and constrain a new government. It isn't a manual on how people should conduct themselves, nor did its authors intend it as one. It leaves out things that manual would certainly include, and includes things it wouldn't.