4 ms·

I'm sorry but this argument that "X silicon valley company is just a private company and has no responsibility to free speech" is just not going to fly in the c

I'm sorry but this argument that "X silicon valley company is just a private company and has no responsibility to free speech" is just not going to fly in the coming years. I just read another HN article about how amazon just got a $10B pentagon contract. You can't tell me in a time where the public space has moved onto their platforms that they have absolutely nothing to do with the government and so have nothing to do with free speech.

O2F2 8y ago
A corp establishing a effective monopoly on a share of everyday life should be held to the same scrutiny as a government. Especially if it intermingles with it. edit: word
- oxide 8y ago
  How does it intermingle? I'm sorry, but social media and even internet access are not rights nor are they provided to you by the government. The reason you can say whatever you want on the internet is tolerance. Not because its an inalienable right. A corporation should be held accountable similar to the federal government? That is a nonsensical sentiment. How would that even be enforced? Corporations are accountable to shareholders, not the citizens of any nation. Please think critically for a moment about what you're suggesting, keeping in mind you clearly are only suggesting this for one specific company, out of all social media companies. it's blatantly out of spite.
oxide 8y ago
It is going to fly as long as the First Amendment is worded to protect you from the government. Do you really think a Twitter ban is equal to the US government muzzling you? Or do you simply see the alternatives as not good enough and feel like folks are entitled to posting tweets? Regardless of your (or my) opinion, Twitter is not and will never be a public service provided to you by the US government. you have no right to free speech on their platform. you are welcome to create your own centralized rival service and allow all the hate speech and abuse you want. Twitter and the like are simply not obligated to tolerate you or anyone else being a prick, just like a private message board is not obligated to tolerate the same thing. So, yeah, I can tell you that. It's not an arguement, facts rarely are. Thems the breaks.
- lylecubed 8y ago
  Your perspective is not even close to being the legal reality yet. Companies that provide a public service are considered to be a public utility and are thus subject to certain federal laws including freedom of speech. There are two cases in particular that reference freedom of speech on private property[0][1]. The two rulings are at odds with each other. The first ruling, a US supreme court case, says what you're saying. The second, which is specifically a state of California ruling, says 'individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers' and 'states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights'. It seems this issue could wind up being decided on a state by state basis. [0]: https://infogalactic.com/info/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner https://infogalactic.com/info/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner [1]: https://infogalactic.com/info/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://infogalactic.com/info/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

O2F2 8y ago

A corp establishing a effective monopoly on a share of everyday life should be held to the same scrutiny as a government. Especially if it intermingles with it. edit: word

oxide 8y ago
How does it intermingle? I'm sorry, but social media and even internet access are not rights nor are they provided to you by the government. The reason you can say whatever you want on the internet is tolerance. Not because its an inalienable right. A corporation should be held accountable similar to the federal government? That is a nonsensical sentiment. How would that even be enforced? Corporations are accountable to shareholders, not the citizens of any nation. Please think critically for a moment about what you're suggesting, keeping in mind you clearly are only suggesting this for one specific company, out of all social media companies. it's blatantly out of spite.

oxide 8y ago

It is going to fly as long as the First Amendment is worded to protect you from the government. Do you really think a Twitter ban is equal to the US government muzzling you? Or do you simply see the alternatives as not good enough and feel like folks are entitled to posting tweets? Regardless of your (or my) opinion, Twitter is not and will never be a public service provided to you by the US government. you have no right to free speech on their platform. you are welcome to create your own centralized rival service and allow all the hate speech and abuse you want. Twitter and the like are simply not obligated to tolerate you or anyone else being a prick, just like a private message board is not obligated to tolerate the same thing. So, yeah, I can tell you that. It's not an arguement, facts rarely are. Thems the breaks.

lylecubed 8y ago
Your perspective is not even close to being the legal reality yet. Companies that provide a public service are considered to be a public utility and are thus subject to certain federal laws including freedom of speech. There are two cases in particular that reference freedom of speech on private property[0][1]. The two rulings are at odds with each other. The first ruling, a US supreme court case, says what you're saying. The second, which is specifically a state of California ruling, says 'individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers' and 'states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights'. It seems this issue could wind up being decided on a state by state basis. [0]: https://infogalactic.com/info/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner https://infogalactic.com/info/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner [1]: https://infogalactic.com/info/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://infogalactic.com/info/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...