4 ms·

> The solution is to require all hosting and domain companies to act as utilities, and require neutrality in regards to any content that's legal. They're not pr

by 394549 8y ago

> The solution is to require all hosting and domain companies to act as utilities, and require neutrality in regards to any content that's legal. They're not private forums or homes, they're the internet equivalent to the electricity company or the water company. They're the internet equivalent to a phone service provider or ISP. Exactly this. When the First Amendment was authored, I don't think it was even conceivable that any organization besides a government or state church could effectively censor speech at scale. Now that we have "private" organizations that effectively have that power, it's perhaps time that the law be updated to reflect that change in facts and preserve people's right to free expression. The internet shouldn't be another Zuccotti Park.

CM30 8y ago
When the First Amendment was authored, I suspect people thought public property was going to be where the largest audience was, with the town hall and park and square and what not being the main platform for discussion. Reaching the crowd meant going out with a handbell or standing on a box passing out pamphlets. Stopping the government from arresting someone advertising in the town square was more important than stopping a shop from kicking out a customer they didn't like. But that's not the case now. The platforms hosting your work are privately owned, the large community websites/social networks/whatever with millions or billions of users are privately owned, and a larger portion of real life locations people frequent are privately owned too. The way society is going seems to be making the amendment less and less relevant as time goes on.
- DanAndersen 8y ago
  >The way society is going seems to be making the amendment less and less relevant as time goes on. Exactly. As society moves more and more online, it moves more and more into a virtual territory that is owned at every level by corporate entities who grant no rights to their users. If we're not careful, we could end up with a strange cyber-feudal arrangement. The "it's their platform" argument seems strange to me when you start getting into the question of corporations beyond a certain size or monopoly. In the 1700s I'm sure there was a lot of arguing that certain kinds of protest were groundless because this is "the King's land." It took a re-examination of what the boundaries should be before that changed.
- betterunix2 8y ago
  Sorry, but you seem to be confusing "the right to speak" with "the right to be heard." Your right to speak freely is not lost simply because the town square is empty and everyone is inside private clubs that will not allow you in.
kevinmchugh 8y ago
Some of the same people who voted for the First Amendment very shortly thereafter authored the Alien and Sedition Acts. It was certainly much more expensive to distribute writing in 1800 than it is today. It would be much easier to stop a person from printing.

by 394549 8y ago

CM30 8y ago

When the First Amendment was authored, I suspect people thought public property was going to be where the largest audience was, with the town hall and park and square and what not being the main platform for discussion. Reaching the crowd meant going out with a handbell or standing on a box passing out pamphlets. Stopping the government from arresting someone advertising in the town square was more important than stopping a shop from kicking out a customer they didn't like. But that's not the case now. The platforms hosting your work are privately owned, the large community websites/social networks/whatever with millions or billions of users are privately owned, and a larger portion of real life locations people frequent are privately owned too. The way society is going seems to be making the amendment less and less relevant as time goes on.

DanAndersen 8y ago
>The way society is going seems to be making the amendment less and less relevant as time goes on. Exactly. As society moves more and more online, it moves more and more into a virtual territory that is owned at every level by corporate entities who grant no rights to their users. If we're not careful, we could end up with a strange cyber-feudal arrangement. The "it's their platform" argument seems strange to me when you start getting into the question of corporations beyond a certain size or monopoly. In the 1700s I'm sure there was a lot of arguing that certain kinds of protest were groundless because this is "the King's land." It took a re-examination of what the boundaries should be before that changed.
betterunix2 8y ago
Sorry, but you seem to be confusing "the right to speak" with "the right to be heard." Your right to speak freely is not lost simply because the town square is empty and everyone is inside private clubs that will not allow you in.

kevinmchugh 8y ago

Some of the same people who voted for the First Amendment very shortly thereafter authored the Alien and Sedition Acts. It was certainly much more expensive to distribute writing in 1800 than it is today. It would be much easier to stop a person from printing.