5 ms·

It's an extremely dangerous conflation of terms to suggest that private speech and private moderation are the same as censorship. But forcing a "fairness" doct

It's an extremely dangerous conflation of terms to suggest that private speech and private moderation are the same as censorship. But forcing a "fairness" doctrine onto the tech world is exactly what the current political parties, who feel like reporting for them has had insufficient deference and whatabout-ism, want to do. Uniformly across the center of the political spectrum most of the US government represents. Speech Rules enacted democratically by small communities are fine. Speech Rules imposed top down by the owners of infrastructure for communication are not great, but at least customers can make choices about them and it's not so unimaginable to find alternatives. Speech Rules enacted top-down by the executive are impossible to argue with and ultimately one of the most dangerous kinds of authoritarianism. The infosec community can tell you they've been fighting a slow, losing battle against going to jail for saying something that is not illegal to say out loud for some time now.

int_19h 7y ago
Private moderation is censorship. The definition of censorship is not restricted to government actors.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  I regret to inform you the dictionary definition of censorship generally does not include tweets, so a literalist reading invalidates both our positions.
  - int_19h 7y ago
    I don't know which dictionary definition you're referring to, since there are many. But most define it in terms of speech or communication, and tweets are most certainly both. Colloquially, I think most people would agree that e.g. the Hollywood blacklist was an example of political censorship. And yet it was implemented entirely by private parties. ACLU also refers to this sort of thing as censorship in general, while also drawing the distinction between government and private censorship, e.g.: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/facebook-shouldnt-censor-offensive-speech https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/facebo...
    - KirinDave 7y ago
      > I don't know which dictionary definition you're referring to, since there are many. But most define it in terms of speech or communication, and tweets are most certainly both. Most don't, but sure. > ... I don't actually disagree with the ACLU's position in theory. However, in practice I know exactly what this is about and I don't see a need to play along with this. This is about the "fairness doctrine" and the desire to enforce it on more agencies to centralized control of internet communication under the government. That is not free speech, and attempts to paint it as such are worthy of ridicule. I'd rather Facebook's editorial practice be Democratic rather than enforced top down. Then, I'd be fine with any degree of censorship. But since we can't have that in the modern legal framework we both need to content ourselves with consumer purchasing power as a proxy governor on their actions.
      - int_19h 7y ago
        I was specifically addressing your claim that "it's an extremely dangerous conflation of terms to suggest that private speech and private moderation are the same as censorship" - the problem here is not the conflation of terms, since the terms are not misused. The problem is that they're trying to come up with a justification for government regulation of speech under the guise of preventing private regulation. (There's a genuine but separate issue with conflation of private censorship and government censorship, especially in the context of the First Amendment.) I'd rather Facebook's editorial practices be defined by the market, but this only works when the market is free (as in competitive, not as in laissez-faire), and that's not the case with social networks today. Government's job, though, is to ensure that the markets remain free through anti-trust, not to micromanage monopolies and oligopolies. Indeed, a private monopoly or oligopoly that is allowed to exist, but whose policy is partly dictated by the government in its interest, is the worst of both worlds.
    - KirinDave 7y ago
      You're editing your post after I reply. Grammatical corrections are one thing, but adding whole paragraphs after I'm sure you've seen my reply? It seems disingenuous.
malvosenior 7y ago
> It's an extremely dangerous conflation of terms to suggest that private speech and private moderation are the same as censorship. It's extremely dangerous to continue to erode the spirit and meaning of free speech by narrowly defining it as a government only concept. We're collectively losing our ability to tolerate different views and have a level playing field of discussion. We need to get back to "I may not agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it". Both in spirit and in law. Tech companies and political parties have been attacking the spirit of free speech.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  > It's extremely dangerous to continue to erode the spirit and meaning of free speech by narrowly defining it as a government only concept. What spirit is that? No country in the world gives unrestricted speech as a right to citizens. That includes the US, which merely forbids government retaliation. But what's more, this principle is applied very selectively. Why wasn't it free speech to be an openly gay scoutmaster in 2014? Well, for the same reason that Twitter can ban Nazi speech now: they own the platform and restrict membership as they see fit. Similarly, you cannot demand the Washington Post print an arbitrary story. Nor can you force a radio station to broadcast your show. They get to make editorial and resourcing decisions for their content. What's more, social media is not as restricted a space as these prior examples. It is a product. You can to buy it. You can elect to use Mindz and Gab if you want! YouTube is full of extremely bipartisan channels ranging from "Libertarian Socialist Rants" to its dual with "PragerU". The only one attacking free speech is the folks who want to restrict editorial speech because it gets in the way of their ability to project their message onto people who don't want it. And being able to project yourself onto people actively avoiding you is not and will never be a reasonable definition of free speech.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    > What spirit is that? It’s the spirit of the audience to want all viewpoints available. I explicitly said I’m not talking about the government and I don’t know how your scoutmaster example has anything to do with what we’re talking about. If you operate a platform, you are not a media company, you’re a utility and you shouldn’t interfere with content. If you’re part of the audience you should demand access to all content so you can make your own decisions. That is the spirit of free speech I’m talking about. Edit: I explicitly stated I'm talking about the spirit of free speech and not the law. I'm not going to bother replying to comments that don't address that point.

int_19h 7y ago

Private moderation is censorship. The definition of censorship is not restricted to government actors.

KirinDave 7y ago
I regret to inform you the dictionary definition of censorship generally does not include tweets, so a literalist reading invalidates both our positions.
- int_19h 7y ago
  I don't know which dictionary definition you're referring to, since there are many. But most define it in terms of speech or communication, and tweets are most certainly both. Colloquially, I think most people would agree that e.g. the Hollywood blacklist was an example of political censorship. And yet it was implemented entirely by private parties. ACLU also refers to this sort of thing as censorship in general, while also drawing the distinction between government and private censorship, e.g.: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/facebook-shouldnt-censor-offensive-speech https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/facebo...
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    > I don't know which dictionary definition you're referring to, since there are many. But most define it in terms of speech or communication, and tweets are most certainly both. Most don't, but sure. > ... I don't actually disagree with the ACLU's position in theory. However, in practice I know exactly what this is about and I don't see a need to play along with this. This is about the "fairness doctrine" and the desire to enforce it on more agencies to centralized control of internet communication under the government. That is not free speech, and attempts to paint it as such are worthy of ridicule. I'd rather Facebook's editorial practice be Democratic rather than enforced top down. Then, I'd be fine with any degree of censorship. But since we can't have that in the modern legal framework we both need to content ourselves with consumer purchasing power as a proxy governor on their actions.
    - int_19h 7y ago
      I was specifically addressing your claim that "it's an extremely dangerous conflation of terms to suggest that private speech and private moderation are the same as censorship" - the problem here is not the conflation of terms, since the terms are not misused. The problem is that they're trying to come up with a justification for government regulation of speech under the guise of preventing private regulation. (There's a genuine but separate issue with conflation of private censorship and government censorship, especially in the context of the First Amendment.) I'd rather Facebook's editorial practices be defined by the market, but this only works when the market is free (as in competitive, not as in laissez-faire), and that's not the case with social networks today. Government's job, though, is to ensure that the markets remain free through anti-trust, not to micromanage monopolies and oligopolies. Indeed, a private monopoly or oligopoly that is allowed to exist, but whose policy is partly dictated by the government in its interest, is the worst of both worlds.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    You're editing your post after I reply. Grammatical corrections are one thing, but adding whole paragraphs after I'm sure you've seen my reply? It seems disingenuous.

malvosenior 7y ago

> It's an extremely dangerous conflation of terms to suggest that private speech and private moderation are the same as censorship. It's extremely dangerous to continue to erode the spirit and meaning of free speech by narrowly defining it as a government only concept. We're collectively losing our ability to tolerate different views and have a level playing field of discussion. We need to get back to "I may not agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it". Both in spirit and in law. Tech companies and political parties have been attacking the spirit of free speech.

KirinDave 7y ago
> It's extremely dangerous to continue to erode the spirit and meaning of free speech by narrowly defining it as a government only concept. What spirit is that? No country in the world gives unrestricted speech as a right to citizens. That includes the US, which merely forbids government retaliation. But what's more, this principle is applied very selectively. Why wasn't it free speech to be an openly gay scoutmaster in 2014? Well, for the same reason that Twitter can ban Nazi speech now: they own the platform and restrict membership as they see fit. Similarly, you cannot demand the Washington Post print an arbitrary story. Nor can you force a radio station to broadcast your show. They get to make editorial and resourcing decisions for their content. What's more, social media is not as restricted a space as these prior examples. It is a product. You can to buy it. You can elect to use Mindz and Gab if you want! YouTube is full of extremely bipartisan channels ranging from "Libertarian Socialist Rants" to its dual with "PragerU". The only one attacking free speech is the folks who want to restrict editorial speech because it gets in the way of their ability to project their message onto people who don't want it. And being able to project yourself onto people actively avoiding you is not and will never be a reasonable definition of free speech.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  > What spirit is that? It’s the spirit of the audience to want all viewpoints available. I explicitly said I’m not talking about the government and I don’t know how your scoutmaster example has anything to do with what we’re talking about. If you operate a platform, you are not a media company, you’re a utility and you shouldn’t interfere with content. If you’re part of the audience you should demand access to all content so you can make your own decisions. That is the spirit of free speech I’m talking about. Edit: I explicitly stated I'm talking about the spirit of free speech and not the law. I'm not going to bother replying to comments that don't address that point.