3 ms·

Bingo. Liberalism is ill-equipped to promote free expression in any meaningful sense, because the principles it presumably holds sacred play second fiddle to th

Bingo. Liberalism is ill-equipped to promote free expression in any meaningful sense, because the principles it presumably holds sacred play second fiddle to the central tenant of the philosophy: private property. Most "live free or die" types wouldn't tell someone struggling against government repression, "If you don't like it, why don't you just leave your country?" Yet they do this all the time on corporate communications channels, some of which have populations bigger than most real-world states. It may seem histrionic to complain about much free-market censorship now, but the vise will tighten as firms consolidate and anything threatening to the bottom line will become increasingly difficult to disseminate to a wider population.

cyphar 8y ago
I assume you mean libertarianism, not liberalism? While some liberals might have libertarian views (and vice-versa) they are very different concepts. > Yet they do this all the time on corporate communications channels, some of which have populations bigger than most real-world states. Yup -- and a quick reminder (for the people in the back) that Google unilaterally controls what more than 3 billion people find when they search for information. This is a larger impact than any government in the history of humanity -- and unlike any other government in the history of humanity, Google has no constitution or laws which require it to be accountable to its citizens (or users, in this case). You might argue that some regimes like China or the USSR only had theoretical protections for their citizens (with abuses by the government being commonplace and unpunished), but Google has no such protections to even pretend to follow. And like most independent nation-states, Google feels no pressure to obey other nations' laws if it's inconvenient for them.
- archgoon 8y ago
  > I assume you mean libertarianism, not liberalism? They probably meant liberalism. 'Liberalism' has multiple meanings. To my knowledge, the US is unique in equating 'liberal' with 'the left'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_State...
humanrebar 8y ago
I think there's a case to be made that public discourse regularly happens on private property and that private organizations that provide public forums as a service must respect speech rights. Of course, I would prefer an amendment to guarantee this, but it's less tenuous than other precedents.
- Jwarder 8y ago
  There is an old court case, Marsh v Alabama, where the Supreme Court indicated that the more a private property owner opens their space for public use the more the public's constitutional rights matter.

cyphar 8y ago

I assume you mean libertarianism, not liberalism? While some liberals might have libertarian views (and vice-versa) they are very different concepts. > Yet they do this all the time on corporate communications channels, some of which have populations bigger than most real-world states. Yup -- and a quick reminder (for the people in the back) that Google unilaterally controls what more than 3 billion people find when they search for information. This is a larger impact than any government in the history of humanity -- and unlike any other government in the history of humanity, Google has no constitution or laws which require it to be accountable to its citizens (or users, in this case). You might argue that some regimes like China or the USSR only had theoretical protections for their citizens (with abuses by the government being commonplace and unpunished), but Google has no such protections to even pretend to follow. And like most independent nation-states, Google feels no pressure to obey other nations' laws if it's inconvenient for them.

archgoon 8y ago
> I assume you mean libertarianism, not liberalism? They probably meant liberalism. 'Liberalism' has multiple meanings. To my knowledge, the US is unique in equating 'liberal' with 'the left'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_State...

humanrebar 8y ago

I think there's a case to be made that public discourse regularly happens on private property and that private organizations that provide public forums as a service must respect speech rights. Of course, I would prefer an amendment to guarantee this, but it's less tenuous than other precedents.

Jwarder 8y ago
There is an old court case, Marsh v Alabama, where the Supreme Court indicated that the more a private property owner opens their space for public use the more the public's constitutional rights matter.