4 ms·

How are those not synonymous in this day and age? The point of freedom of expression is not inhibiting the right to an audience or explicitly interferring in th

How are those not synonymous in this day and age? The point of freedom of expression is not inhibiting the right to an audience or explicitly interferring in the marketplace of ideas in civil society. Saying that Facebook, Twitter, Paypal, et. al face any actual injury or diminution in service as a result of hosting pernicious speech is absurd, especially in light of the role of Chapter 47 in the history of the freedom of the Internet.^1 And let's be clear, this isn't a case of the use of a service depriving other more worthy parties of using said service. It is Shaw's comparison between apples and ideas.^2 And it is attempting to tear down a universal principle to make it accountable to shifting tastes and moral fads which makes everyone guilty eventually. --- 1 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 2 - “If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.”

jasode 8y ago
>Saying that Facebook, Twitter, Paypal, et. al face any actual injury or diminution in service as a result of hosting pernicious speech is absurd, It isn't absurd because an example of such an injury happened last year at YouTube with the "adpocalypse" demonetization debacle.[1] - Various uploaders put objectionable content on Youtube. Google/Youtube doesn't censor or filter it out. - Viewers complain loudly about it and threaten to boycott the major advertisers that ran ads against it (e.g. Proctor & Gamble, etc) - P&G and other advertisers abandon Youtube and Google loses millions[2]. The innocent Youtube channel creators who created mainstream content also lost AdSense reveneue because they got caught up in the stricter content crackdown. - Some advertisers finally return. E.g. P&G after one year.[3] Facebook and Twitter can't realistically be an "any and all free speech including hate speech" platform because they are beholden to advertisers. They have the same platform funding dependence as Youtube/Google. Those social media websites are not in the lower layer of the TCPIP stack such as "common carriers" ISPs like Comcast and Verizon. Those "dumb pipes" telecom businesses are less sensitive to whether a TCPIP packet is routing bytes for hate speech vs pictures of cats. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#Advertiser-friendly_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#Advertise... [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=biggest+advertisers+abandon+youtube+adpocalypse https://www.google.com/search?q=biggest+advertisers+abandon+... [3] https://www.tubefilter.com/2018/04/20/pg-resumes-youtube-spend-new-ad-controversy/ https://www.tubefilter.com/2018/04/20/pg-resumes-youtube-spe...

jasode 8y ago

>Saying that Facebook, Twitter, Paypal, et. al face any actual injury or diminution in service as a result of hosting pernicious speech is absurd, It isn't absurd because an example of such an injury happened last year at YouTube with the "adpocalypse" demonetization debacle.[1] - Various uploaders put objectionable content on Youtube. Google/Youtube doesn't censor or filter it out. - Viewers complain loudly about it and threaten to boycott the major advertisers that ran ads against it (e.g. Proctor & Gamble, etc) - P&G and other advertisers abandon Youtube and Google loses millions[2]. The innocent Youtube channel creators who created mainstream content also lost AdSense reveneue because they got caught up in the stricter content crackdown. - Some advertisers finally return. E.g. P&G after one year.[3] Facebook and Twitter can't realistically be an "any and all free speech including hate speech" platform because they are beholden to advertisers. They have the same platform funding dependence as Youtube/Google. Those social media websites are not in the lower layer of the TCPIP stack such as "common carriers" ISPs like Comcast and Verizon. Those "dumb pipes" telecom businesses are less sensitive to whether a TCPIP packet is routing bytes for hate speech vs pictures of cats. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#Advertiser-friendly_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#Advertise... [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=biggest+advertisers+abandon+youtube+adpocalypse https://www.google.com/search?q=biggest+advertisers+abandon+... [3] https://www.tubefilter.com/2018/04/20/pg-resumes-youtube-spend-new-ad-controversy/ https://www.tubefilter.com/2018/04/20/pg-resumes-youtube-spe...