48 ms·

> Right, which is why I'm personally mostly worried about service providers being wink-wink nudge-nudge deputized into performing a mostly-effective end run aro

> Right, which is why I'm personally mostly worried about service providers being wink-wink nudge-nudge deputized into performing a mostly-effective end run around legal protections on speech. This is totally within their right - in fact the 1st Amendment guarantees it. Freedom of speech isn't just freedom to say what you want, it's also freedom from compelled speech - freedom from the government saying "you have to say X, Y, and Z". To mandate that platforms host content isn't an "end run around legal protections on speech", their ability to refuse content is guaranteed by the legal protections on speech. I assume you're talking about platforms here. Telecoms are utilities and are required to transmit content because they're government-backed. While I think there's a debate to be had about what parts of internet infrastructure should be regulated as utilities (I think hosting providers or at least domain providers should, they're filling a similar infrastructure role as ISPs in my view) it's incorrect to say that platforms' refusal to host certain content is circumventing freedom of speech.

livueta 7y ago
> it's incorrect to say that platforms' refusal to host certain content is circumventing freedom of speech. I think there's an argument to be made that this stance is incompatible with Marsh v. Alabama given the reach and impact of certain platforms, but I digress. My real point was less that platforms should be mandated to host speech and more that extra-legal pressure from governments is a convenient method for suppressing or promoting information, especially when mechanisms for doing that within platforms already exist. These aren't incompatible- you could, for instance, really trust the moderation team of a particular platform and want them to be able to implement their moderation decisions (i.e not engage in compelled speech by being forced to not delete white supremacist content) while also not wanting those moderation decisions to be unduly influenced by government pressure.

livueta 7y ago

> it's incorrect to say that platforms' refusal to host certain content is circumventing freedom of speech. I think there's an argument to be made that this stance is incompatible with Marsh v. Alabama given the reach and impact of certain platforms, but I digress. My real point was less that platforms should be mandated to host speech and more that extra-legal pressure from governments is a convenient method for suppressing or promoting information, especially when mechanisms for doing that within platforms already exist. These aren't incompatible- you could, for instance, really trust the moderation team of a particular platform and want them to be able to implement their moderation decisions (i.e not engage in compelled speech by being forced to not delete white supremacist content) while also not wanting those moderation decisions to be unduly influenced by government pressure.