8 ms·
Free Speech Puts U.S. on ‘A Collision Course’ with Global Limits on Big Tech
- tynpeddler 7y ago>Tech companies, as private businesses, have the right to choose what speech exists on their sites, much as a newspaper can pick which letters to the editor to publish. This sentiment is a little odd. Tech companies like Facebook and Google are not at all like a newspaper. Someone can copy a copyrighted poem to their front page, and Facebook may spread the link around before being notified and removing the content. If the New York Times were to publish copyrighted material without the appropriate license, it would be obvious just how much they aren't like Facebook. And let's not even talk about the legal weirdness of being able to google The Pirate Bay. The compromise of the DMCA seems like it hinged on the fact that tech companies are not publishers or editors, and as such do not have the same moral and legal liabilities for things that appear on their platforms. In a sense, OSP's and ISP's are just "tubes". The demands being placed on tech companies seem to be increasingly reactive and contradictory. As bad as article 11 and 13 are, they seem to at least be consistent in that tech companies are now responsible for everything that appears on their infrastructure, much like the New York Times is responsible for everything they print.
- hammock 7y agoReplace "New York Times" with "nytimes.com" and it's really not that different from FB or Google.
- julienreszka 7y agoIf you invite a girl at your house do you have the right to rape her? No. Same applies for free speech, it doesn't stop at your doorstep no matter how private your property is. You can physically more easily abuse the right to free speech of other people in your property censoring them but this is still abuse.
- duxup 7y agoWhat does that mean? I'm not following this analogy.
- julienreszka 7y agoSee sibling post
- thundergolfer 7y agoThis analogy isn't making sense to me at all. Please elaborate.
- julienreszka 7y agoFree speech is the right to expose your ideas without fear of persecution, censorship, silencing, no matter the ideas because ideas that are not yours are the possibility to open your mind and heart to a different perspective. What's the point of exchanging ideas if you want all ideas to look the same as yours, it's cheaper to talk to a parrot or with your self image in a mirror. It's arrogant to believe that your ideas are perfect and that because other people's ideas are different they're wrong, false or not meeting reality. Maybe it's your ideas that are wrong, false and far from meeting the reality, but how will you be able to know whether this is the case if you don't allow the existence of those ideas in the discourse whether private or public. We need ideas to be explored and if they are explored alone they can quickly turn into madness. My point is to give ideas a chance to be exposed without fear of persecution so that the best ones can thrive not just those ideas that we are used to. It shouldn't be ok to abuse people's right to free speech; not just in public spheres but also in private spheres too. Our culture shouldn't be based on fear. Fear of difference, fear of persecution. We should be able to expose ourselves with confidence no matter who we are and what we think. Censoring someone is abuse not just of other people but also of yourself.
- duxup 7y agoWhat is the collision exactly? The first amendment isn't going anywhere. Any US speech legislation would likely be dead on arrival after it is shot down in court. At the same time there is nobody successfully (legally at least) arguing Facebook can't remove content as it wishes... If you're a big platform and you dominate the market, yeah you've got a lot of work to do but that's the price of success.
- manfredo 7y agoIt's a big rock and a hard place. I know plenty of people in tech that are adverse to the idea of government regulating tech, but at the same time do not believe it is right for the small segment of the population working in tech to decide what conversations we are and are not allowed to discuss. Cloudflare expressed a good perspective on this sort of self-reflective doubt when they terminated the Daily Stormer: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ At lot of people I talk to want to have some sort of national consensus on regulating platforms instead of tech companies deciding for themselves. Government would be the natural mechanism by which to manage this, but we are extremely wary of putting speech in control of the government for good historical reasons.
- kantos2 7y ago>I know plenty of people in tech that are adverse to the idea of government regulating tech, but at the same time do not believe it is right for the small segment of the population working in tech to decide what conversations we are and are not allowed to discuss Government also are small segment of the population, moreover politicians don't understand the topic. Cloudflare and other tech pundits just want to be free from consequences of their decisions. If gov tell them to censor they would just say, its not us, its you country law. This is purely PR endeavor.
- lone_haxx0r 7y agoBanning "violent speech" is the same as banning political opinions altogether. Politics is essentially deciding in which ways the state should apply violence against its citizens. Saying "the state should be violent against people who do X" is violent speech. Also, asking the govt. to ban "violent speech" is violent speech itself. Are people too dumb to understand this or would they actually love to live in a totalitarian dictatorship?
- godzillabrennus 7y agoPeople have been taught that feelings are as important as our physical health. Now we suffer from the consequences.
- colejohnson66 7y agoCould that be because mental health affects physical health?
- lone_haxx0r 7y agoHypothetically, if watching other people chew affected my mental health, would it be a justifiable to ban chewing in public?
- godzillabrennus 7y agoOnly if you provide chewers with safe spaces.
- godzillabrennus 7y agoOf course it does. The world isn't gum drops and rainbows. Mental health is a real thing and I sympathize but can't support the impact that attention to it is having on society. Negatively impacting someones mental health is not the same thing as directly having a negative impact on someones physical health. Words and feelings are not a good reason to restrict free speech.
- 7y ago
- anfilt 7y agoHonestly, why do platforms need to delete anything. Why not just have options like most search engines... Let the users decide if they want to see objectional or even violent content. They are adults they can make up their own mind. Consider duckduckgo's search results you can choose: Strict *No Adult content* Moderate *No Explicit images or video* Off *Don't filter content*
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoIt doesn't work. Even the US' much vaunted free speech is a myth. Not the very slow to react removal of hate, racist and extreme right supremacist groups and similar rubbish, but in the day to day. Some of that content will be illegal some places. Europe, Middle and Far East have different cultures, expectations and laws - some far more restricted than others. The USA seems to be particularly offended by, and most likely to remove, harmless breast feeding or topless images. Facebook and eBay are absurdly prudish. Much of Europe finds this odd, to say the least. At the same time will let by highly violent images, and straight up hate speech as perfectly fine. So it's not even slightly consistent. It's as daft as the US TV habit of dubbing over slightly naughty words, whilst showing people getting shot through with a full magazine in the same programme. My kids are grown now, but I would far rather have limited them from the violent and racist too soon than prudishly from an accidental nipple or baby feeding pic! Simply put they should abide by the differing standards of the places they operate. Just like all those companies selling foods, electricals, consumer goods and toys do.
- anfilt 7y agoWhat you mean what I said does not work? Let adults choose what they want to see or read. While different countries may have different laws. Do you really think the censorship that happens in China is good? If you operate in such countries you may not have a choice, but to comply or pull such local operations. The end result is content is available in one place and not another which is unfortunate.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
- qwsxyh 7y agoI find it ironic to be holding an absolutist free speech view on a website that automatically deletes opinions the community doesn't like.