5 ms·

Free speech manifesto by the co-founder of Wikipedia

2 points by seapunk 7y ago

ziddoap 7y ago
As someone towards the left side of the political spectrum, it bugs me a bit that the author paints with such broad strokes about how the left, and apparently only the left, are the problem. And that if you aren't an "old-fashioned liberal" or on the right, you're the issue. But, whatever - common issue I suppose. Something else to keep in mind when lambasting corporations for censorship is that corporote entities get to enjoy rights, too. Those include doing business with those that they like, and not doing business with those that they don't. > "And sure, it's absolutely, 100% true that Facebook has a legal right to ban whomever they want. But that doesn't mean that what they've done is OK. It's legal, but it's wrong." Social Network X doesn't owe anyone free speech, and they aren't obligated to serve anyone they don't wish to. Forcing them to serve everyone is really counter to free speech - it's government encroaching on the rights of companies and just as big of a danger to free speech itself. I think free speech is a big issue, and a right that must be preserved. However, forcing companies to serve customers that they don't want to is not the way to win this battle.
- Juliate 7y ago
  A counter argument could be that, these private platforms being hugely used by even larger parts of the population, what happens inside them becomes public matter (with public as in "about the people"), especially regarding discrimination and abuse (in all possible ways). It is a fact that the main behaviour on these platforms became ruled by fear of the mob, rather than by fear of the baselessness of your speech. By the expectation of constraint and force rather than the appeal of sharing (that used to exist for some short time at the beginning). All that empowered by automation. One may not even genuinely have a formative conversation on it, so it's not even good enough for education, unless you already know how to discern and ban discourses on your own. When your platform becomes one of the two or three main platforms that are used worldwide as a reference by most online people (for news, for representation, for propaganda), it stops to be only your private playground.
  - ziddoap 7y ago
    I agree to your first point, to an extent, or at least I agree that the question must be asked: "At what point does a platform become public, despite being owned privately?". And obvious follow up would be "What do we do when a platform reaches this point". It's a question that I definitely don't claim to have the answer to, and it's an extremely fine balance to strike. I don't think the appropriate action is government encroaching on the rights of corporate entities, which we have to remember have their own rights as a legal entity, in order to attempt to solve to issue (which we know is a slim chance, given the recent history of governments intervening in technology). Does the government gain control of FaceBook? Some sort of auxillory authority? Do the platforms face some sort of regulatory scheme, and who creates it and with what goal?
- forgottenpass 7y ago
  >it's government encroaching on the rights of companies and just as big of a danger to free speech itself. Saying "Legal, but wrong" doesn't mean he wants the government to make it illegal. Your post is arguing in circles unless you can quote the part where he advocates for changing the law. Have you considered the possibility he may be calling on a company to choose to live up to a moral principle, while also supporting their legal right not to? >forcing companies to serve customers that they don't want to is not the way to win this battle. Again, where does he call for this?

2 points by seapunk 7y ago

As someone towards the left side of the political spectrum, it bugs me a bit that the author paints with such broad strokes about how the left, and apparently only the left, are the problem. And that if you aren't an "old-fashioned liberal" or on the right, you're the issue. But, whatever - common issue I suppose. Something else to keep in mind when lambasting corporations for censorship is that corporote entities get to enjoy rights, too. Those include doing business with those that they like, and not doing business with those that they don't. > "And sure, it's absolutely, 100% true that Facebook has a legal right to ban whomever they want. But that doesn't mean that what they've done is OK. It's legal, but it's wrong." Social Network X doesn't owe anyone free speech, and they aren't obligated to serve anyone they don't wish to. Forcing them to serve everyone is really counter to free speech - it's government encroaching on the rights of companies and just as big of a danger to free speech itself. I think free speech is a big issue, and a right that must be preserved. However, forcing companies to serve customers that they don't want to is not the way to win this battle.

Juliate 7y ago
A counter argument could be that, these private platforms being hugely used by even larger parts of the population, what happens inside them becomes public matter (with public as in "about the people"), especially regarding discrimination and abuse (in all possible ways). It is a fact that the main behaviour on these platforms became ruled by fear of the mob, rather than by fear of the baselessness of your speech. By the expectation of constraint and force rather than the appeal of sharing (that used to exist for some short time at the beginning). All that empowered by automation. One may not even genuinely have a formative conversation on it, so it's not even good enough for education, unless you already know how to discern and ban discourses on your own. When your platform becomes one of the two or three main platforms that are used worldwide as a reference by most online people (for news, for representation, for propaganda), it stops to be only your private playground.
- ziddoap 7y ago
  I agree to your first point, to an extent, or at least I agree that the question must be asked: "At what point does a platform become public, despite being owned privately?". And obvious follow up would be "What do we do when a platform reaches this point". It's a question that I definitely don't claim to have the answer to, and it's an extremely fine balance to strike. I don't think the appropriate action is government encroaching on the rights of corporate entities, which we have to remember have their own rights as a legal entity, in order to attempt to solve to issue (which we know is a slim chance, given the recent history of governments intervening in technology). Does the government gain control of FaceBook? Some sort of auxillory authority? Do the platforms face some sort of regulatory scheme, and who creates it and with what goal?
forgottenpass 7y ago
>it's government encroaching on the rights of companies and just as big of a danger to free speech itself. Saying "Legal, but wrong" doesn't mean he wants the government to make it illegal. Your post is arguing in circles unless you can quote the part where he advocates for changing the law. Have you considered the possibility he may be calling on a company to choose to live up to a moral principle, while also supporting their legal right not to? >forcing companies to serve customers that they don't want to is not the way to win this battle. Again, where does he call for this?