2 ms·

Companies have no obligation to allow hate speech and incitements to violence on their platform. And because of how media bubbles work, it's very easy for peopl

Companies have no obligation to allow hate speech and incitements to violence on their platform. And because of how media bubbles work, it's very easy for people to get in a part of the internet where all they see is Alex Jones-type content, and constant exposure to that can change a person without them realizing it. I've seen it happen with people I know, who started out fairly reasonable and have since descended into raving lunacy over the course of several years. We expect corporations to help fix this problem because they're in part the cause of it by creating systems which recommend content people want to see and in the process trap those people in a bubble of content that reinforces those positions.

bena 8y ago
I'll take it a step further: Companies have no obligation to allow speech on their platform. Full stop. If I run a Transformers forum and I've decided that FIRRIB* will be the only opinion allowed, then that is the only opinion allowed. You come in here with that FIBRIR nonsense and I'm well within my rights to deplatform you on my forum. * A semi-humorous debate in Transformers fan circles. FIRRIB stands for "Frenzy Is Red, Rumble Is Blue". Frenzy and Rumble are two tape cassettes that transform into robots. Their toys use the same molds, the only differences being in their colors. Due to the overall similarity of the two, the names get swapped in various incarnations. They toys have Frenzy as blue, while it's the red one in the cartoon.
- iotku 8y ago
  >Companies have no obligation to allow speech on their platform. Full stop. Despite my whole belief in freedom of speech being an extremely important value I'm going to play half devil's advocate here. I agree that no site owner should be obligated to provide speech for its users. I don't have any methods of commenting on my personal website. Am I restricting freedom of speech? No, there was never a method of speech (especially a nonrestrictred one) and I never made any promises that there would be. This is where my problem comes in. Social media sites claim that they're for everyone and that everyone should be able to have their say. Well... Until it brings them bad press then everything goes out the window. There's decent arguments against calls to violence, but often if they don't cause negative press attention or otherwise seem against the site's political Norm chances are it will go unchecked. But the moment it's anything doesn't fit the political narrative or causes bad press, social media operators will bend over to restrict speech. If there actually is an illegal/credible call to violence or otherwise illegal content the authorities should be involved otherwise the prominence of very few main methods of communication being able to censor legal content at will is concerning. There's always going to be unsavory characters in the world, and social media sites have methods to let users block them without banning people outright. TL;DR The main issue I have is social media platforms advertise themselves as being neutral actors where everyone has a voice as long as they're not breaking the law, but act completely opposite of how they advertise themselves often due to pressure and political bias.
  - bena 8y ago
    I mean, you effectively run an authoritarian site where you and only you get an opinion. And that's fine. It is your platform. I had a similar discussion with someone else. We see censorship in general as something wrong. So only bad actors do it. Good people, like you and me, don't do bad things. So we don't censor. So whatever we do can't be censoring, because only bad people censor. What if censorship isn't always bad? For instance, you censor all opinions not your own on your site. You have established it as the one stop shop for iotku's opinion on things iotku wishes to opine on. Since I do not have iotku's opinions, I can't really elaborate on them. I can't explain why iotku thought x or y. So my voice is pointless in that realm. Although the question of how much of a responsibility these sites have to hold to the purest ideals of freedom of speech isn't a bad one. I personally believe that they can make that determination themselves and it is not my place to insist on a certain standard.
lylecubed 8y ago
> Companies have no obligation to allow hate speech and incitements to violence on their platform. And if Twitter decided to ban a prominent gay group because of hate speech toward Muslims? Would you support their right to do so then?
- waterphone 8y ago
  What I support has nothing to do with it, they can do what they want. I already don't use Twitter, I don't care one way or another.

bena 8y ago

I'll take it a step further: Companies have no obligation to allow speech on their platform. Full stop. If I run a Transformers forum and I've decided that FIRRIB* will be the only opinion allowed, then that is the only opinion allowed. You come in here with that FIBRIR nonsense and I'm well within my rights to deplatform you on my forum. * A semi-humorous debate in Transformers fan circles. FIRRIB stands for "Frenzy Is Red, Rumble Is Blue". Frenzy and Rumble are two tape cassettes that transform into robots. Their toys use the same molds, the only differences being in their colors. Due to the overall similarity of the two, the names get swapped in various incarnations. They toys have Frenzy as blue, while it's the red one in the cartoon.

iotku 8y ago
>Companies have no obligation to allow speech on their platform. Full stop. Despite my whole belief in freedom of speech being an extremely important value I'm going to play half devil's advocate here. I agree that no site owner should be obligated to provide speech for its users. I don't have any methods of commenting on my personal website. Am I restricting freedom of speech? No, there was never a method of speech (especially a nonrestrictred one) and I never made any promises that there would be. This is where my problem comes in. Social media sites claim that they're for everyone and that everyone should be able to have their say. Well... Until it brings them bad press then everything goes out the window. There's decent arguments against calls to violence, but often if they don't cause negative press attention or otherwise seem against the site's political Norm chances are it will go unchecked. But the moment it's anything doesn't fit the political narrative or causes bad press, social media operators will bend over to restrict speech. If there actually is an illegal/credible call to violence or otherwise illegal content the authorities should be involved otherwise the prominence of very few main methods of communication being able to censor legal content at will is concerning. There's always going to be unsavory characters in the world, and social media sites have methods to let users block them without banning people outright. TL;DR The main issue I have is social media platforms advertise themselves as being neutral actors where everyone has a voice as long as they're not breaking the law, but act completely opposite of how they advertise themselves often due to pressure and political bias.
- bena 8y ago
  I mean, you effectively run an authoritarian site where you and only you get an opinion. And that's fine. It is your platform. I had a similar discussion with someone else. We see censorship in general as something wrong. So only bad actors do it. Good people, like you and me, don't do bad things. So we don't censor. So whatever we do can't be censoring, because only bad people censor. What if censorship isn't always bad? For instance, you censor all opinions not your own on your site. You have established it as the one stop shop for iotku's opinion on things iotku wishes to opine on. Since I do not have iotku's opinions, I can't really elaborate on them. I can't explain why iotku thought x or y. So my voice is pointless in that realm. Although the question of how much of a responsibility these sites have to hold to the purest ideals of freedom of speech isn't a bad one. I personally believe that they can make that determination themselves and it is not my place to insist on a certain standard.

lylecubed 8y ago

> Companies have no obligation to allow hate speech and incitements to violence on their platform. And if Twitter decided to ban a prominent gay group because of hate speech toward Muslims? Would you support their right to do so then?

waterphone 8y ago
What I support has nothing to do with it, they can do what they want. I already don't use Twitter, I don't care one way or another.