4 ms·

> Spare me the tired arguments that these private companies have a right to not serve customers at will. That seems like self-serving cherry-picking, when in ot

> Spare me the tired arguments that these private companies have a right to not serve customers at will. That seems like self-serving cherry-picking, when in other situations the same folks would be against granting freedom of association. Some people's hypocrisy doesn't undermine the core principle of freedom of association. The more abusive the big players become, the more incentive there is for people to use alternatives. Getting the government involved will slow that process and, inevitably, have unforeseen negative consequences. > And we should not patronize such businesses. I agree, and that is the best solution.

stcredzero 8y ago
> Spare me the tired arguments that these private companies have a right to not serve customers at will. Some people's hypocrisy doesn't undermine the core principle of freedom of association. There is a lawsuit where a mining company owned an entire town, including the roads. A Jehova's witness won a lawsuit allowing them to distribute pamphlets there on the basis of free speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc In any case, freedom of association shouldn't apply to online platforms. The average person isn't possessed by the illusion that any YouTuber's opinion is necessarily ratified by YouTube. If you don't want to hear someone's opinion nor associate with them, then you unfriend/block/unsubscribe. On the other hand, freedom of speech is very relevant from a practical standpoint.
- sanderjd 8y ago
  If I start a company that allows users to upload content over the internet, is it your contention that I should not be within my rights to control what is stored and who is allowed to use my services?
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    You wind up in a monopoly, or a near-monopoly position, and you can practically suppress the free speech of people, then yes. There is a lawsuit where a company owned this mining company town, including all of its roads and sidewalks. A Jehova's witness won a lawsuit on the basis of the First Amendment, enabling her to walk about that town and distribute her pamphlets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc Originally, it was widely recognized by US jurisprudence, though property rights and freedom of association are important, the First Amendment was even more important.
    - geeostation 8y ago
      why is this downvoted? seems very good counterpoint to private companies can do whatever they want. The reality of the free speech online is that US constitution comes stapled with a "Terms of Service" by tech oligopoly
      - sanderjd 8y ago
        I see a tag that says "dupe" on the comment, so maybe that's why. I did see that anecdote about the company town elsewhere in the thread.
- PeterisP 8y ago
  For pretty much every online community starting from the smallest web forums, you need an ability to remove unwanted content and people from that platform. Even platforms for very free, unrestricted discussion need to fight commercial spam and simple vandalism. The ability to have a community of group A for topics that interest group A requires effective moderation, i.e. the ability to remove unwanted topics and people from that forum, blocking them before the majority of the group have had to encounter that unwanted content, otherwise you have a very, very poor experience full of spam that kills the forum, and that is very relevant from a practical standpoint. For some of that content the proper answer is "go have your community somewhere else"; for other content (e.g. penis enlargement spam and people who post it) there probably is no community that wants them, and for that freedom of speech consists of being able to freely speak on a soapbox somewhere where all the 0 people who want to hear you can do it.

stcredzero 8y ago

> Spare me the tired arguments that these private companies have a right to not serve customers at will. Some people's hypocrisy doesn't undermine the core principle of freedom of association. There is a lawsuit where a mining company owned an entire town, including the roads. A Jehova's witness won a lawsuit allowing them to distribute pamphlets there on the basis of free speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc In any case, freedom of association shouldn't apply to online platforms. The average person isn't possessed by the illusion that any YouTuber's opinion is necessarily ratified by YouTube. If you don't want to hear someone's opinion nor associate with them, then you unfriend/block/unsubscribe. On the other hand, freedom of speech is very relevant from a practical standpoint.

sanderjd 8y ago
If I start a company that allows users to upload content over the internet, is it your contention that I should not be within my rights to control what is stored and who is allowed to use my services?
- stcredzero 8y ago
  You wind up in a monopoly, or a near-monopoly position, and you can practically suppress the free speech of people, then yes. There is a lawsuit where a company owned this mining company town, including all of its roads and sidewalks. A Jehova's witness won a lawsuit on the basis of the First Amendment, enabling her to walk about that town and distribute her pamphlets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc Originally, it was widely recognized by US jurisprudence, though property rights and freedom of association are important, the First Amendment was even more important.
  - geeostation 8y ago
    why is this downvoted? seems very good counterpoint to private companies can do whatever they want. The reality of the free speech online is that US constitution comes stapled with a "Terms of Service" by tech oligopoly
    - sanderjd 8y ago
      I see a tag that says "dupe" on the comment, so maybe that's why. I did see that anecdote about the company town elsewhere in the thread.
PeterisP 8y ago
For pretty much every online community starting from the smallest web forums, you need an ability to remove unwanted content and people from that platform. Even platforms for very free, unrestricted discussion need to fight commercial spam and simple vandalism. The ability to have a community of group A for topics that interest group A requires effective moderation, i.e. the ability to remove unwanted topics and people from that forum, blocking them before the majority of the group have had to encounter that unwanted content, otherwise you have a very, very poor experience full of spam that kills the forum, and that is very relevant from a practical standpoint. For some of that content the proper answer is "go have your community somewhere else"; for other content (e.g. penis enlargement spam and people who post it) there probably is no community that wants them, and for that freedom of speech consists of being able to freely speak on a soapbox somewhere where all the 0 people who want to hear you can do it.