7 ms·

A small note: how can ever a private company claim the right to decide about "hate speech", "illegal contents" etc? If they have suspects they have to go knock

by xte 8y ago

A small note: how can ever a private company claim the right to decide about "hate speech", "illegal contents" etc? If they have suspects they have to go knock the police/other public authority door to signal what they suspect and after comply to the public authority decision. Nowadays to many people do not comprehend really this super-important concept... And many countries try to take advantage of it pushing private power.

jrs95 8y ago
"Hate speech" doesn't have a legal definition in the United States that I am aware of. If it does, it's still covered by the first amendment and legal. So its not a question of Patreon determining what is legal, they're determining what is acceptable to them.
- xte 8y ago
  Ok, so my point is how a private company can ever determinate what is acceptable or not for them of their customers activities or idea. I do not know how USA legislation works, in EU a private company can't "discriminate" their customers based on their own personal assumption. If you run a company you may refuse a new customer or you may found a way to break a contract with an actual customer but nothing "suddenly", unnoticed and arbitrary or you face big troubles in curt.
  - jrs95 8y ago
    Businesses in the U.S. for the most part can discriminate however they want as long as it isn't on the basis of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.
    - xte 8y ago
      So you say that a company can legally lock out a customers without any reasonable notice and room to discuss? In EU for instance telcos, banks etc often change conditions without "negotiation" they simply inform their customers that starting from the next month/year/end of auto-renewal period there are new conditions visible "there" and if their customers refuse the change can end the contract without penalties having, in theory, enough time to switch to another company. This protection is not much effective in many cases since most telcos/banks etc offer nearly the same conditions and change them nearly at the same time so a "bad move" for a customer of company X typically is already present or about to arrive to others possible "competitors", regularly antitrust step into action but normally without enough strength and timing to really avoid many bad moves... However no one can act without enough time from the over part to respond and certainly not without keep receiving money on behalf of anyone... Oh, to clarify I hear about cases arrived in curt with motivation like "we have received (as proved by Postal Service) that communication, but inside the envelope there are only to white sheets..." and things of that level but still person to person actions with a formal responsible from both sides.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > So you say that a company can legally lock out a customers without any reasonable notice and room to discuss? Generally, limited by terms of the contract with the customer, sure. But most consumer online services have contracts that provide broad discretion to providers. Some particular services are subject to additional public regulation.
        xte 8y ago
        Hum, nice to know, thanks. I know that for instance a telco can lock a customers phone if it was an active spammer that with it's activity compromise/endanger telco service itself, however this can apply ONLY as a safety measure against immediate threats otherwise it can led to and adverse court decision because even if telco claim is valid it must demand communication to the costumer like "cease and desist letter" with proof that's it was received and a reasonable time after that event cut the service.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        Yes, telcos are particularly tightly regulated.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  > "Hate speech" doesn't have a legal definition in the United States that I am aware of. Then fix that, instead of using it as a loophole to ruin the web, and then still not having fixed that.
  - ivrrimum 8y ago
    Huhh... But there are a lot of people who don't even agree that hate speech exists..
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    Either one of defining hate speech at the federal level or preventing businesses from enforcing their own hate speech policies would require a constitutional amendment in the us. I highly doubt such an amendment could ever get popular or political support.
    - weberc2 8y ago
      Seems like policing speech is a bad precedent to set, and even if you don’t think it’s a slippery slope, how do we make sure the government’s definition of the phrase is/remains reasonable? Ideally the extreme left wing will be marginalized (i.e., no more dominating universities and newsrooms or tech companies) just like we marginalized right wing extremists.
      - joshuamorton 8y ago
        Part of the problem may be that you're off the opinion that tech companies are the extreme left. I've met people on the extreme left, they're not average Facebook or Google employees. No one on mainstream TV is "extreme" left. You have to get to theyoungturks or chapotraphouse. (And these are marginalized, given that you've probable maybe heard of Cenk and TYT, but CTH is a podcast and subreddit and nothing else). If your ideal is that the US's center left (which is globally center or center right) is considered the extreme left and marginalized, your personal overton window is so far to the right that you probably shouldn't be making these decisions. And as you say, the government probably shouldn't be either, it would allow a government that believed that CNN was far left to censor it.
- mirimir 8y ago
  There's "hate crime". Which is basically "crime" plus evidence of illegal discrimination (at least, regarding race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation). So there are increased penalties, if convicted. But speech itself is rarely illegal, with exceptions for inciting riots or panics, "fighting words", interfering with police, and so on. However, individuals and businesses are free to refuse service, censor speech, etc. As long as they're not discriminating on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> A small note: how can ever a private company claim the right to decide about "hate speech", "illegal contents" etc? Very easily; private parties are, in fact, in many cases subject to punishment for failing to avoid involvement with illegal activity, which necessarily requires them to identify it. > If they have suspects they have to go knock the police/other public authority door to signal what they suspect and after comply to the public authority decision. No, this is generally false; the only time they have to do that is if they want consequences reserved to public authorities to be applied, or if they are engaged in an area of business activity subject to unusual legal protection (usually, regulated monopolies and similar.) > Nowadays to many people do not comprehend really this super-important concept... This concept is bizarre and has never been generally accepted, and is contrary to th foundations of most modern systems of law.
- xte 8y ago
  > private parties are, in fact, in many cases subject to punishment for failing to avoid involvement with illegal activity That's true IF and only IF they know a crime and do not reported it to the competent authority. They are nor police nor curt to decide autonomously. Impromptu autonomous decisions should happen ONLY in case immediate of danger-life situations that's hard to happen for an internet company. > the only time they have to do that is if they want consequences reserved to public authorities to be applied Might be my limited English but... I do not understand what you say... If you know a crime you have to report it and competent authority act and instruct you on how to act... > This concept is bizarre and has never been generally accepted Mh, in the EU and in general since the ancient Roman law it's actually generally accepted... We decide after French Revolution to split power in executive, legislative and judicial authorities and those are the sole that can act.

by xte 8y ago

jrs95 8y ago

"Hate speech" doesn't have a legal definition in the United States that I am aware of. If it does, it's still covered by the first amendment and legal. So its not a question of Patreon determining what is legal, they're determining what is acceptable to them.

xte 8y ago
Ok, so my point is how a private company can ever determinate what is acceptable or not for them of their customers activities or idea. I do not know how USA legislation works, in EU a private company can't "discriminate" their customers based on their own personal assumption. If you run a company you may refuse a new customer or you may found a way to break a contract with an actual customer but nothing "suddenly", unnoticed and arbitrary or you face big troubles in curt.
- jrs95 8y ago
  Businesses in the U.S. for the most part can discriminate however they want as long as it isn't on the basis of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.
  - xte 8y ago
    So you say that a company can legally lock out a customers without any reasonable notice and room to discuss? In EU for instance telcos, banks etc often change conditions without "negotiation" they simply inform their customers that starting from the next month/year/end of auto-renewal period there are new conditions visible "there" and if their customers refuse the change can end the contract without penalties having, in theory, enough time to switch to another company. This protection is not much effective in many cases since most telcos/banks etc offer nearly the same conditions and change them nearly at the same time so a "bad move" for a customer of company X typically is already present or about to arrive to others possible "competitors", regularly antitrust step into action but normally without enough strength and timing to really avoid many bad moves... However no one can act without enough time from the over part to respond and certainly not without keep receiving money on behalf of anyone... Oh, to clarify I hear about cases arrived in curt with motivation like "we have received (as proved by Postal Service) that communication, but inside the envelope there are only to white sheets..." and things of that level but still person to person actions with a formal responsible from both sides.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > So you say that a company can legally lock out a customers without any reasonable notice and room to discuss? Generally, limited by terms of the contract with the customer, sure. But most consumer online services have contracts that provide broad discretion to providers. Some particular services are subject to additional public regulation.
      - xte 8y ago
        Hum, nice to know, thanks. I know that for instance a telco can lock a customers phone if it was an active spammer that with it's activity compromise/endanger telco service itself, however this can apply ONLY as a safety measure against immediate threats otherwise it can led to and adverse court decision because even if telco claim is valid it must demand communication to the costumer like "cease and desist letter" with proof that's it was received and a reasonable time after that event cut the service.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        Yes, telcos are particularly tightly regulated.
PavlovsCat 8y ago
> "Hate speech" doesn't have a legal definition in the United States that I am aware of. Then fix that, instead of using it as a loophole to ruin the web, and then still not having fixed that.
- ivrrimum 8y ago
  Huhh... But there are a lot of people who don't even agree that hate speech exists..
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  Either one of defining hate speech at the federal level or preventing businesses from enforcing their own hate speech policies would require a constitutional amendment in the us. I highly doubt such an amendment could ever get popular or political support.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    Seems like policing speech is a bad precedent to set, and even if you don’t think it’s a slippery slope, how do we make sure the government’s definition of the phrase is/remains reasonable? Ideally the extreme left wing will be marginalized (i.e., no more dominating universities and newsrooms or tech companies) just like we marginalized right wing extremists.
    - joshuamorton 8y ago
      Part of the problem may be that you're off the opinion that tech companies are the extreme left. I've met people on the extreme left, they're not average Facebook or Google employees. No one on mainstream TV is "extreme" left. You have to get to theyoungturks or chapotraphouse. (And these are marginalized, given that you've probable maybe heard of Cenk and TYT, but CTH is a podcast and subreddit and nothing else). If your ideal is that the US's center left (which is globally center or center right) is considered the extreme left and marginalized, your personal overton window is so far to the right that you probably shouldn't be making these decisions. And as you say, the government probably shouldn't be either, it would allow a government that believed that CNN was far left to censor it.
mirimir 8y ago
There's "hate crime". Which is basically "crime" plus evidence of illegal discrimination (at least, regarding race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation). So there are increased penalties, if convicted. But speech itself is rarely illegal, with exceptions for inciting riots or panics, "fighting words", interfering with police, and so on. However, individuals and businesses are free to refuse service, censor speech, etc. As long as they're not discriminating on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> A small note: how can ever a private company claim the right to decide about "hate speech", "illegal contents" etc? Very easily; private parties are, in fact, in many cases subject to punishment for failing to avoid involvement with illegal activity, which necessarily requires them to identify it. > If they have suspects they have to go knock the police/other public authority door to signal what they suspect and after comply to the public authority decision. No, this is generally false; the only time they have to do that is if they want consequences reserved to public authorities to be applied, or if they are engaged in an area of business activity subject to unusual legal protection (usually, regulated monopolies and similar.) > Nowadays to many people do not comprehend really this super-important concept... This concept is bizarre and has never been generally accepted, and is contrary to th foundations of most modern systems of law.

xte 8y ago
> private parties are, in fact, in many cases subject to punishment for failing to avoid involvement with illegal activity That's true IF and only IF they know a crime and do not reported it to the competent authority. They are nor police nor curt to decide autonomously. Impromptu autonomous decisions should happen ONLY in case immediate of danger-life situations that's hard to happen for an internet company. > the only time they have to do that is if they want consequences reserved to public authorities to be applied Might be my limited English but... I do not understand what you say... If you know a crime you have to report it and competent authority act and instruct you on how to act... > This concept is bizarre and has never been generally accepted Mh, in the EU and in general since the ancient Roman law it's actually generally accepted... We decide after French Revolution to split power in executive, legislative and judicial authorities and those are the sole that can act.