6 ms·

Lets be clear with terms here; I wouldn't call for an exception to "free speech" even for Alex Jones. He has every right to say whatever he wants short of outr

Lets be clear with terms here; I wouldn't call for an exception to "free speech" even for Alex Jones. He has every right to say whatever he wants short of outright threats, etc. But I certainly don't think anyone should be forced or required to give him a platform for which to broadcast his speech.

whatshisface 7y ago
I'm glad you brought up the platform distinction because I've also been thinking about that one. I could deny Alex Jones a soapbox in my yard, because it has little value and there are plenty of others. If there are only two soap boxes in the world and I coordinate with the owner of the other box to silence somebody, then I have become functionally indistinguishable from the government for the purpose of free speech, thereby taking on the same duty they have to not shut it down.
- wvenable 7y ago
  Not even the government has to provide you with a soap box -- so being functionally indistinguishable from the government makes no difference. If you cannot find a platform, can't buy one, can't build one because nobody will work with you then tough shit. We talk about how developers shouldn't work on projects that are morally questionable but here you are suggesting that they must because a platform must be provided. That sounds so much worse to me. How would that even work?
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    Well, the Soviet Constitution promised every comrade a printing press... To speak to your market freedom point, imagine a community of racist business owners who all refused to sell to an outsider. If every business owner was equally racist, the outsider would be forced to leave, even if there was no law stating that they couldn't live in the neighborhood. Markets have an answer to this - any defector will make more money. However sometimes everybody stays racist and no defector emerges. The community is acting like a de-facto evil government even though there is no legal system supporting it nor any democracy legitimizing it. I'm really not sure what to do when that happens. I'm as against forcing business to do business as you are.
    - wvenable 7y ago
      As a society , we deem specific groups as protected classes and I don't think it's good to mix concepts about protected classes with just being an asshole. We make specific laws to protect people from racial or religious discrimination. We don't, however, make the same considerations if you're just an asshole. Would your argument have the same effect if there was a community of fed up business owners who all refused to sell to a big jerk?
AmericanChopper 7y ago
> But I certainly don't think anyone should be forced or required to give him a platform This is where I think most people on both sides of the debate miss the point. Section 203 of the communications decency act provides protection from liability for platforms that host content provided by others. This is a very important law that I think most people see the value in. However it has a Good Samaritan clause which allows them to arbitrarily moderate content without losing that protection. Should these large platforms be able to exert absolute editorial control over the content they host? I think yes, they most certainly should be allowed to. But they should not be entitled to the liability protections afforded to common carriers if they choose to do so.
- wvenable 7y ago
  So basically you're suggesting that a forum about knitting couldn't restrict their content to just knitting topics without losing their copyright infringement protection? I see the point you're trying to make but it's completely wrong. Platform like this one would be impossible without Section 203; I don't see why it's necessary to tie that together with other requirements. It's certainly not a logical follow on.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    > I see the point you're trying to make but it's completely wrong. If it is, then it’s not for the reason you provided. If I made Knitter News, and somebody posted a thread about gardening, then nobody would comment on it or up vote it. If I went into a knitting thread, and started posted gardening comments, then they would be downvoted. It’s also not just copyright infringement protection, it protects against a broad range of liability. The reason common carrier protections exist, is because the service providers do not control the content they disseminate, or the goods they transport, etc... Providing common carrier protections to platforms that exert editorial control over the content they publish is granting common carrier protections to service providers that are not common carriers. Logically, this is precisely equivalent to providing common carrier protections to an ISP, but completely removing all regulations that mandate any form of net neutrality. The law was specifically created to protect free expression online, and in the mid 90s, that’s exactly what it did. However since then, most online expression as become concentrated into a small handful of platforms, who all leverage their position (often in concert) to restrict expression to only that which they deem acceptable. Regardless of what you think about their judgements of what is acceptable, the law is not consistent with other common carrier regulations, and it is absolutely not doing what it was originally designed to do.

whatshisface 7y ago

I'm glad you brought up the platform distinction because I've also been thinking about that one. I could deny Alex Jones a soapbox in my yard, because it has little value and there are plenty of others. If there are only two soap boxes in the world and I coordinate with the owner of the other box to silence somebody, then I have become functionally indistinguishable from the government for the purpose of free speech, thereby taking on the same duty they have to not shut it down.

wvenable 7y ago
Not even the government has to provide you with a soap box -- so being functionally indistinguishable from the government makes no difference. If you cannot find a platform, can't buy one, can't build one because nobody will work with you then tough shit. We talk about how developers shouldn't work on projects that are morally questionable but here you are suggesting that they must because a platform must be provided. That sounds so much worse to me. How would that even work?
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Well, the Soviet Constitution promised every comrade a printing press... To speak to your market freedom point, imagine a community of racist business owners who all refused to sell to an outsider. If every business owner was equally racist, the outsider would be forced to leave, even if there was no law stating that they couldn't live in the neighborhood. Markets have an answer to this - any defector will make more money. However sometimes everybody stays racist and no defector emerges. The community is acting like a de-facto evil government even though there is no legal system supporting it nor any democracy legitimizing it. I'm really not sure what to do when that happens. I'm as against forcing business to do business as you are.
  - wvenable 7y ago
    As a society , we deem specific groups as protected classes and I don't think it's good to mix concepts about protected classes with just being an asshole. We make specific laws to protect people from racial or religious discrimination. We don't, however, make the same considerations if you're just an asshole. Would your argument have the same effect if there was a community of fed up business owners who all refused to sell to a big jerk?

AmericanChopper 7y ago

> But I certainly don't think anyone should be forced or required to give him a platform This is where I think most people on both sides of the debate miss the point. Section 203 of the communications decency act provides protection from liability for platforms that host content provided by others. This is a very important law that I think most people see the value in. However it has a Good Samaritan clause which allows them to arbitrarily moderate content without losing that protection. Should these large platforms be able to exert absolute editorial control over the content they host? I think yes, they most certainly should be allowed to. But they should not be entitled to the liability protections afforded to common carriers if they choose to do so.

wvenable 7y ago
So basically you're suggesting that a forum about knitting couldn't restrict their content to just knitting topics without losing their copyright infringement protection? I see the point you're trying to make but it's completely wrong. Platform like this one would be impossible without Section 203; I don't see why it's necessary to tie that together with other requirements. It's certainly not a logical follow on.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  > I see the point you're trying to make but it's completely wrong. If it is, then it’s not for the reason you provided. If I made Knitter News, and somebody posted a thread about gardening, then nobody would comment on it or up vote it. If I went into a knitting thread, and started posted gardening comments, then they would be downvoted. It’s also not just copyright infringement protection, it protects against a broad range of liability. The reason common carrier protections exist, is because the service providers do not control the content they disseminate, or the goods they transport, etc... Providing common carrier protections to platforms that exert editorial control over the content they publish is granting common carrier protections to service providers that are not common carriers. Logically, this is precisely equivalent to providing common carrier protections to an ISP, but completely removing all regulations that mandate any form of net neutrality. The law was specifically created to protect free expression online, and in the mid 90s, that’s exactly what it did. However since then, most online expression as become concentrated into a small handful of platforms, who all leverage their position (often in concert) to restrict expression to only that which they deem acceptable. Regardless of what you think about their judgements of what is acceptable, the law is not consistent with other common carrier regulations, and it is absolutely not doing what it was originally designed to do.