6 ms·

Well they have to, as it is law. I specifically wrote about legal speech. Extensions like this (or much more popular: dissenter) allows people to exercise that

by s9w 7y ago

Well they have to, as it is law. I specifically wrote about legal speech. Extensions like this (or much more popular: dissenter) allows people to exercise that right on sites that limit their free speech.

kristiandupont 7y ago
Don't refer to freedom of speech like something everyone is obliged to provide. That's not what it means. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- s9w 7y ago
  That's orthogonal to what I said. I do have the right to say controversial things (at least I would have if I would be American, but let's assume that). Sites can limit that and delete comments they don't like - that's ok! But I am still allowed to use external software to still exercise that right.
- julienreszka 7y ago
  That exactly what it means
  - marcinzm 7y ago
    No it's not. I am in no way required to provide you a platform to talk through or to allow you to continue using a platform you've been using. All it means is that the government, key word, is not allowed to stop you from using a platform you are allowed by it's owners to use.
    - fwn 7y ago
      > [...] All it means is that the government, key word, is not allowed to stop you from using a platform [...] The confusion (ours, not yours specifically) might arise because some talk about free speech the principle and others talk about free speech the legal norm. (The latter is prominently codified in the US constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). It's not the same and the principle isn't exclusively about government. Free speech is also a very old ideal and exists in places where the US constitution doesn't apply and places where human rights aren't implemented through local policies. It can be violated in places where there is no government at all. There's this great Wikipedia article on the topic which introduces first the idea, then different implementations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
    - julienreszka 7y ago
      Yes it is
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  And, we already know that's not entirely true. There was a recent decision that POTUS twitter feed is a public space (https://theconversation.com/federal-judge-rules-trumps-twitter-account-is-a-public-forum-97159 https://theconversation.com/federal-judge-rules-trumps-twitt...) . We can easily see this extended to any US elected official. And there is also historical context in an 1980 decision in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins where, based on Californian law, private property of the shoping mall was deemed open to political speech (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...) When its a private, non-political forum, the corps can do as they choose. But once politics and political speech move in along with public elected officials, all bets are off. (Thanks to hn:dexen for the links. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20268802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20268802 )
  - marcinzm 7y ago
    The distinction, in this case, is that's it's NOT about using an existing forum for something. Web pages do not come with comment sections by default. So the discussion (ie: not having comments being a restriction of free speech) is about requiring you to build a forum specifically for speech to take place. It's like requiring a shopping mall to build a stage for people to have political speeches on. I feel few people would say free speech is infringed upon if every mall doesn't build such a stage.
    - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
      Sigh. > The distinction, in this case, is that's it's NOT about using an existing forum for something. Web pages do not come with comment sections by default. But social media does. And so does a lot of websites that use either wordpress plugins, Discus, or other sites. And nothing I cited requires a comments section to be made... But when it is, there's precedent for forcing whomever's running it to make way for political speech when politicians are stumping and talking there. > It's like requiring a shopping mall to build a stage for people to have political speeches on. I feel few people would say free speech is infringed upon if every mall doesn't build such a stage. The very act of having a floor in the private mall was enough. You don't need a stage. And even gathering signatures for a political reason is reason enough. Seriously, go look up the Pruneyard rule. You can try to derail it with 'whatifs', but that is precedent.
- davesmith1983 7y ago
  This comic routinely used as a "Gotcha". However it so over simplifies the position that we are in. Youtube now totally owns online video, there isn't any competitors that are even close. Facebook has almost half the world signed up to its platform. This isn't someone's online forum or a news site. These companies completely own their respective parts of the industry. The major social media sites like Youtube, Twitter, Facebook are so large they are considered to be a "public private space" (I forget the exact legal term). These platforms agree to DMCA safe harbour where they are considered to be a "platform" and not a "publisher". That means they shouldn't be censoring anyone on their political opinions and must be politically neutral (otherwise they are taking on the role of a publisher as they are acting as an editor), now IANAL but there is certainly an argument that can be made. Whether a judge would rule it so, who knows. This is worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ Tim Pool in this video manages to point out quite clearly how Twitter terms of service are political and they don't even realise it.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Freedom of speech is not the same as the 1st Amendment. You're talking about the latter, which is a constitutional right protected by the government. What people are talking about here is the concept of unrestricted speech, which is a much broader ideal, necessary for a healthy society, and is definitely under ever-increasing pressure as the world moves towards entirely different communication mediums. When most conversation moves online, the lack of public open spaces in that digital environment is a valid cause for concern and definitely deserves discussion.

by s9w 7y ago

kristiandupont 7y ago

Don't refer to freedom of speech like something everyone is obliged to provide. That's not what it means. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

s9w 7y ago
That's orthogonal to what I said. I do have the right to say controversial things (at least I would have if I would be American, but let's assume that). Sites can limit that and delete comments they don't like - that's ok! But I am still allowed to use external software to still exercise that right.
julienreszka 7y ago
That exactly what it means
- marcinzm 7y ago
  No it's not. I am in no way required to provide you a platform to talk through or to allow you to continue using a platform you've been using. All it means is that the government, key word, is not allowed to stop you from using a platform you are allowed by it's owners to use.
  - fwn 7y ago
    > [...] All it means is that the government, key word, is not allowed to stop you from using a platform [...] The confusion (ours, not yours specifically) might arise because some talk about free speech the principle and others talk about free speech the legal norm. (The latter is prominently codified in the US constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). It's not the same and the principle isn't exclusively about government. Free speech is also a very old ideal and exists in places where the US constitution doesn't apply and places where human rights aren't implemented through local policies. It can be violated in places where there is no government at all. There's this great Wikipedia article on the topic which introduces first the idea, then different implementations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
  - julienreszka 7y ago
    Yes it is
crankylinuxuser 7y ago
And, we already know that's not entirely true. There was a recent decision that POTUS twitter feed is a public space (https://theconversation.com/federal-judge-rules-trumps-twitter-account-is-a-public-forum-97159 https://theconversation.com/federal-judge-rules-trumps-twitt...) . We can easily see this extended to any US elected official. And there is also historical context in an 1980 decision in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins where, based on Californian law, private property of the shoping mall was deemed open to political speech (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...) When its a private, non-political forum, the corps can do as they choose. But once politics and political speech move in along with public elected officials, all bets are off. (Thanks to hn:dexen for the links. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20268802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20268802 )
- marcinzm 7y ago
  The distinction, in this case, is that's it's NOT about using an existing forum for something. Web pages do not come with comment sections by default. So the discussion (ie: not having comments being a restriction of free speech) is about requiring you to build a forum specifically for speech to take place. It's like requiring a shopping mall to build a stage for people to have political speeches on. I feel few people would say free speech is infringed upon if every mall doesn't build such a stage.
  - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
    Sigh. > The distinction, in this case, is that's it's NOT about using an existing forum for something. Web pages do not come with comment sections by default. But social media does. And so does a lot of websites that use either wordpress plugins, Discus, or other sites. And nothing I cited requires a comments section to be made... But when it is, there's precedent for forcing whomever's running it to make way for political speech when politicians are stumping and talking there. > It's like requiring a shopping mall to build a stage for people to have political speeches on. I feel few people would say free speech is infringed upon if every mall doesn't build such a stage. The very act of having a floor in the private mall was enough. You don't need a stage. And even gathering signatures for a political reason is reason enough. Seriously, go look up the Pruneyard rule. You can try to derail it with 'whatifs', but that is precedent.
davesmith1983 7y ago
This comic routinely used as a "Gotcha". However it so over simplifies the position that we are in. Youtube now totally owns online video, there isn't any competitors that are even close. Facebook has almost half the world signed up to its platform. This isn't someone's online forum or a news site. These companies completely own their respective parts of the industry. The major social media sites like Youtube, Twitter, Facebook are so large they are considered to be a "public private space" (I forget the exact legal term). These platforms agree to DMCA safe harbour where they are considered to be a "platform" and not a "publisher". That means they shouldn't be censoring anyone on their political opinions and must be politically neutral (otherwise they are taking on the role of a publisher as they are acting as an editor), now IANAL but there is certainly an argument that can be made. Whether a judge would rule it so, who knows. This is worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ Tim Pool in this video manages to point out quite clearly how Twitter terms of service are political and they don't even realise it.
manigandham 7y ago
Freedom of speech is not the same as the 1st Amendment. You're talking about the latter, which is a constitutional right protected by the government. What people are talking about here is the concept of unrestricted speech, which is a much broader ideal, necessary for a healthy society, and is definitely under ever-increasing pressure as the world moves towards entirely different communication mediums. When most conversation moves online, the lack of public open spaces in that digital environment is a valid cause for concern and definitely deserves discussion.