5 ms·

I love how you can say "free speech is an ideal" while simultaneous arguing to limit the free speech of platform holders. The reason free speech only lawfully b

I love how you can say "free speech is an ideal" while simultaneous arguing to limit the free speech of platform holders. The reason free speech only lawfully bounds the government is because the ability to kick bad actors out of your business is an essential free speech to the populous. MS is free to moderate their platform in anyway that doesn't violate US law; that's their exercise of free speech. Groups that disagree can go elsewhere with their business. The "fine" folks over at gab can say what ever they want among themselves; on their own servers, hosted by them. Until then freedom to say what you want is not freedom from the consequences of public opinion.

ufmace 8y ago
Now this is where things get interesting. There's a decent argument to be made that internet communication is becoming dominated by a handful of platforms. There may be a point at which you are practically unable to speak on the internet if a half-dozen Silicon Valley companies do not like your opinion. I do not say that we are at this point yet. It is a possible and visible future, though. I think we can consider how we would determine when that domination of internet discussion constitutes a monopoly, and what should be done about it in that case. We don't allow companies that are monopolies in critical industries to do as they please, in many areas and for many reasons. If there is effectively widespread censorship of speech, who elected Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, et all to be the deciders of what gets censored and what does not? If the ability or potential for that is out there, shouldn't it be the democratically elected government that determines what does and does not get censored and not a cabal of private corporations?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Spivak 8y ago
You're pretty much proving my point when it comes to confusing the law with what is right. Ignore the law, it's completely orthogonal to the discussion. Free speech isn't prescriptive. Holding it as an ideal doesn't mean you want zero restrictions any more than holding liberty as an ideal means you want anarchy. Your 'system' is simply unrestricted speech to the powerful and your 'solution' is just a suggestion that Gab's community become powerful enough to speak. Does that sound like free speech to you?
- lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
  If we lived in a fantasy dystopia inwhich computers were outlawed to all but the silicon valley elite and the rest of the populace had to rent from them or be left in the cold, maybe your argument would have some weight. In the world we do live in, speech for your small niche community is literally a 30 dollar raspberry pi and an internet connection away. No one has any moral (or legal authority for that matter) to shut down the nazi chat rooms of others (under your views at least); just like Microsoft and others have no moral obligation to host content that breaks their terms of service and will drive others off of their platform. Arguing what is "right" in a law abiding society is nonsense. If the laws are flawed you argue against the laws, if they aren't pretending that people or groups of people should conform to your ideals is ultimately a waste of time.
- Rapzid 8y ago
  Freedom of speech literally has everything to do with the government. Microsoft should be under no more obligation to enable the spread of hate by hosting it online than a business hosting it in physical space.

ufmace 8y ago

Now this is where things get interesting. There's a decent argument to be made that internet communication is becoming dominated by a handful of platforms. There may be a point at which you are practically unable to speak on the internet if a half-dozen Silicon Valley companies do not like your opinion. I do not say that we are at this point yet. It is a possible and visible future, though. I think we can consider how we would determine when that domination of internet discussion constitutes a monopoly, and what should be done about it in that case. We don't allow companies that are monopolies in critical industries to do as they please, in many areas and for many reasons. If there is effectively widespread censorship of speech, who elected Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, et all to be the deciders of what gets censored and what does not? If the ability or potential for that is out there, shouldn't it be the democratically elected government that determines what does and does not get censored and not a cabal of private corporations?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Spivak 8y ago

You're pretty much proving my point when it comes to confusing the law with what is right. Ignore the law, it's completely orthogonal to the discussion. Free speech isn't prescriptive. Holding it as an ideal doesn't mean you want zero restrictions any more than holding liberty as an ideal means you want anarchy. Your 'system' is simply unrestricted speech to the powerful and your 'solution' is just a suggestion that Gab's community become powerful enough to speak. Does that sound like free speech to you?

lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
If we lived in a fantasy dystopia inwhich computers were outlawed to all but the silicon valley elite and the rest of the populace had to rent from them or be left in the cold, maybe your argument would have some weight. In the world we do live in, speech for your small niche community is literally a 30 dollar raspberry pi and an internet connection away. No one has any moral (or legal authority for that matter) to shut down the nazi chat rooms of others (under your views at least); just like Microsoft and others have no moral obligation to host content that breaks their terms of service and will drive others off of their platform. Arguing what is "right" in a law abiding society is nonsense. If the laws are flawed you argue against the laws, if they aren't pretending that people or groups of people should conform to your ideals is ultimately a waste of time.
Rapzid 8y ago
Freedom of speech literally has everything to do with the government. Microsoft should be under no more obligation to enable the spread of hate by hosting it online than a business hosting it in physical space.