4 ms·

The rebelious streak in me has been seeking out and reading so-called “banned books”— books that were at one point banned by a community for some reason or anot

The rebelious streak in me has been seeking out and reading so-called “banned books”— books that were at one point banned by a community for some reason or another— since I was a teen. Many of these are classics that ran afoul of norms or the party line at some point, somewhere. The problem isn’t that the voices of hate are being banned. The problem is that the mechanisms used to lower the volume on or silence hate speech can lower the volume or silence any other form or speech. This is why the US enshrined free speech as the first amendment of the constitution. Technical means of defying censorship, like this one, help to preserve that right.

richrichardsson 8y ago
Are you under the impression that it's the government running Twitter or any other online forum? I really don't understand why people are having issues understanding that a private enterprise is free to censor as they see fit.
- prophesi 8y ago
  I think the issue arises with how powerful these social media platforms are. If your Twitter/FB/etc accounts get shadow banned, you now essentially have no voice on the internet.
  - dvtrn 8y ago
    Some people (not the one typing this comment) are absolutely fine with that too, it seems. "This is objectionable to me, therefore, no one should be allowed to consume or be exposed to it." That's what bothers this particular commentor (me).
  - checkyoursudo 8y ago
    I don't use Facebook, and I only log into Twitter once every couple of months or more rarely than that. I don't use any other of the super-popular social networks (I guess I have a linkedin profile that I haven't logged into in 5 or more years.) My own access habits are in practice similar to one who is banned or suspended regularly. I have never felt like I essentially have no voice on the internet. I understand that if some popular person with lots of followers gets banned then it seems like they would risk losing a lot of their audience that they may rely on for income etc etc etc, but that's hardly the reality of the average 10/100/1000-followers user, is it? Just because the big social networks are really big doesn't mean that they are the only places you can find a way to have a voice on the web. I don't mean to diminish your feelings if you feel that way. If you love twitter or fb or whatever and you get kicked out, then I certainly get that would be hard. But there are other places on the web. Lots of other places. Maybe some alternative places let you have even more of a voice precisely because they're smaller and it takes less to cut through the noise.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    They are certainly influential, but so are talk radio and the news media, should those platforms also be forced to broadcast content they disagree with? I don't see any differences between Facebook and any other private businesses that have built media platforms.
- c22 8y ago
  I don't think this is a very charitable reading. Your parent didn't make any claims as to Twitter's legal rights.
  - richrichardsson 8y ago
    > This is why the US enshrined free speech as the first amendment of the constitution. You're right, it wasn't very charitable, I took it quite literally, and that means the 1st amendment has absolutely no bearing on preserving the right of one person when that is trampling on the publishers rights. > Technical means of defying censorship, like this one, help to preserve that right. I did miss the nuance there because I get angry that there appears to me an impression in the general populace that the 1st amendment applies everywhere and gives people carte blanche to say whatever they please without consequence.
- pgm8705 8y ago
  I don't think anyone has a problem understanding that these are private companies and that they are well within their rights to censor whatever they see fit. What is concerning is that these particular companies are the main platforms used nowadays for conveying ideas and expressing thought, and there are no alternatives that offer the same level of reach. Sure, you can put your video up on another hosting platform. Nobody is going to find it like they would on YouTube.
  - richrichardsson 8y ago
    Then why mention the 1st amendment? In order to disseminate ideas widely authors have always been at the mercy of editors, publishers and distributors. It's an impossible situation because if you force someone to publish something they find objectionable then you've stripped them of their own rights just so some arsehole can write shit about Jews/Muslims/Gays/Blacks/insert minority here.
- white-flame 8y ago
  The problem is that private enterprise is becoming the centralized controller of both personal and "public square" communications, being a ubiquitously editorializing middle man of common case and important speech. This is completely different than, and carries higher stakes than the role that telecoms, hosting companies, and publishers have played in the past.
- aeorgnoieang 8y ago
  'Free speech' isn't strictly a legal ideal.
  - iamdave 8y ago
    It isn't, but for a good number of people it certainly does appear to be a more comforting approach to stop short of making any sort of ethical claims about the 'free speech' question because it means getting what they want: uncomfortable ideas punted into the closet.

richrichardsson 8y ago

Are you under the impression that it's the government running Twitter or any other online forum? I really don't understand why people are having issues understanding that a private enterprise is free to censor as they see fit.

prophesi 8y ago
I think the issue arises with how powerful these social media platforms are. If your Twitter/FB/etc accounts get shadow banned, you now essentially have no voice on the internet.
- dvtrn 8y ago
  Some people (not the one typing this comment) are absolutely fine with that too, it seems. "This is objectionable to me, therefore, no one should be allowed to consume or be exposed to it." That's what bothers this particular commentor (me).
- checkyoursudo 8y ago
  I don't use Facebook, and I only log into Twitter once every couple of months or more rarely than that. I don't use any other of the super-popular social networks (I guess I have a linkedin profile that I haven't logged into in 5 or more years.) My own access habits are in practice similar to one who is banned or suspended regularly. I have never felt like I essentially have no voice on the internet. I understand that if some popular person with lots of followers gets banned then it seems like they would risk losing a lot of their audience that they may rely on for income etc etc etc, but that's hardly the reality of the average 10/100/1000-followers user, is it? Just because the big social networks are really big doesn't mean that they are the only places you can find a way to have a voice on the web. I don't mean to diminish your feelings if you feel that way. If you love twitter or fb or whatever and you get kicked out, then I certainly get that would be hard. But there are other places on the web. Lots of other places. Maybe some alternative places let you have even more of a voice precisely because they're smaller and it takes less to cut through the noise.
- root_axis 8y ago
  They are certainly influential, but so are talk radio and the news media, should those platforms also be forced to broadcast content they disagree with? I don't see any differences between Facebook and any other private businesses that have built media platforms.
c22 8y ago
I don't think this is a very charitable reading. Your parent didn't make any claims as to Twitter's legal rights.
- richrichardsson 8y ago
  > This is why the US enshrined free speech as the first amendment of the constitution. You're right, it wasn't very charitable, I took it quite literally, and that means the 1st amendment has absolutely no bearing on preserving the right of one person when that is trampling on the publishers rights. > Technical means of defying censorship, like this one, help to preserve that right. I did miss the nuance there because I get angry that there appears to me an impression in the general populace that the 1st amendment applies everywhere and gives people carte blanche to say whatever they please without consequence.
pgm8705 8y ago
I don't think anyone has a problem understanding that these are private companies and that they are well within their rights to censor whatever they see fit. What is concerning is that these particular companies are the main platforms used nowadays for conveying ideas and expressing thought, and there are no alternatives that offer the same level of reach. Sure, you can put your video up on another hosting platform. Nobody is going to find it like they would on YouTube.
- richrichardsson 8y ago
  Then why mention the 1st amendment? In order to disseminate ideas widely authors have always been at the mercy of editors, publishers and distributors. It's an impossible situation because if you force someone to publish something they find objectionable then you've stripped them of their own rights just so some arsehole can write shit about Jews/Muslims/Gays/Blacks/insert minority here.
white-flame 8y ago
The problem is that private enterprise is becoming the centralized controller of both personal and "public square" communications, being a ubiquitously editorializing middle man of common case and important speech. This is completely different than, and carries higher stakes than the role that telecoms, hosting companies, and publishers have played in the past.
aeorgnoieang 8y ago
'Free speech' isn't strictly a legal ideal.
- iamdave 8y ago
  It isn't, but for a good number of people it certainly does appear to be a more comforting approach to stop short of making any sort of ethical claims about the 'free speech' question because it means getting what they want: uncomfortable ideas punted into the closet.