4 ms·

It's because there is a wide distance between these two positions: (a) People who publicly support white supremacy should be imprisoned by the government. (b)

by nrook 7y ago

It's because there is a wide distance between these two positions: (a) People who publicly support white supremacy should be imprisoned by the government. (b) Businesses should not make money by hosting or providing services to people who publicly support white supremacy. It's very easy to think that (b) is true, but (a) is false; this is a popular position among free speech advocates who know the law.

ThrustVectoring 7y ago
There's more factors in play, too. It's coherent to think B && !A, but also (C) Unelected members of the press should not have the power to shame businesses into excluding individuals and organizations.
- FDSGSG 7y ago
  What about just me? I'm not a member of the press. Should I not have the power to shame businesses into excluding individuals and organizations? Perhaps they're doing something they should be ashamed of.
  - ThrustVectoring 7y ago
    No, you shouldn't have that power. Doing business with someone and providing services to them isn't and shouldn't be an endorsement of their values. Jeffrey Epstein should be able to hire whatever legal council he wants, convicted sex offenders should be able to find an apartment upon release, gun stores should be able to take credit card payments, and generally speaking you shouldn't get excluded from the benefits of modern society simply for being unpopular, no matter how just the reasoning.
    - FDSGSG 7y ago
      So, in other words: Freedom of association should not exist. Am I getting this right?
      - ThrustVectoring 7y ago
        Not at all. I'm not complaining about Cloudflare or Voxility dropping customers. I'm complaining about the press using their influence to pressure those companies into dropping customers. You're still free to drop a customer for whatever reason. I just want the press to be held accountable for the torts they're committing and the economic harm they are causing.
        FDSGSG 7y ago
        Ah, so freedom of association is OK. Freedom of speech is not though? > press using their influence to pressure those companies into dropping customers So what does that even look like? Odds are it looks like this: "Hey, I'm working on a story about 8chan and heard you guys host them. Do you have anything to say about that?" I guess what you're saying is that the press should just not be allowed to report on this stuff. >torts they're committing such as? IANAL, but the first amendment provides strong protections against tortious interference claims.
        ThrustVectoring 7y ago
        I'm not a free speech absolutist. If you cause certain established categories of harm, you should be held liable for the damages you cause. Specific example: https://mobile.twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1158392795687575554 https://mobile.twitter.com/alexstamos/status/115839279568757... BitMitigate has a case for tortious interference over this tweet, IMO. Alex knew of contracts between BitMitigate and 8chan (or Voxility), used his influence to induce Voxility to make it impossible for BitMitigate to fulfill their 8chan contract (or for the breach of their voxility contract), Alex was not privileged to interfere, and there were economic damages suffered. That's all the elements necessary for a tortious interference with contract claim. >IANAL, but the first amendment provides strong protections against tortious interference claims. Indeed it does. Generally, merely sharing truthful information does not provide a basis for tortious interference. The problem I have isn't that these sorts of statements are false, but that they come attached with a threat of an active negative PR campaign. The format of twitter makes this particularly salient, since it makes it easy to get viral traction and hard to communicate extensive information. And the tweet I linked earlier didn't tell Voxility anything it didn't already know, it simply publicized things and used the author's influence coercively.
- reilly3000 7y ago
  One doesn’t elect employees of a private business. They choose not to consume media that business produces. Do you think that we should elect people to tell us what’s happening?
  - ThrustVectoring 7y ago
    No, I'm saying that people generally should not use their influence with third parties to enact extrajudicial punishment. Tortious interference with contract is a bad thing.
    - reilly3000 7y ago
      So long as the WWW is a public network ran by private entities, essentially every decision is extrajudicial. I completely see the issue you're trying to highlight, but it seems that limiting the abilities of reporters and activists isn't healthy for democracy. If the services CloudFlare and others provide is regulated like a public utility, then standards like guaranteeing equal access regardless of ideology, or enforcing standards that have been democratically adopted. Is there a middle ground between regulation and corporate discretion in all matters of speech on that use their platform?

by nrook 7y ago

ThrustVectoring 7y ago

There's more factors in play, too. It's coherent to think B && !A, but also (C) Unelected members of the press should not have the power to shame businesses into excluding individuals and organizations.

FDSGSG 7y ago
What about just me? I'm not a member of the press. Should I not have the power to shame businesses into excluding individuals and organizations? Perhaps they're doing something they should be ashamed of.
- ThrustVectoring 7y ago
  No, you shouldn't have that power. Doing business with someone and providing services to them isn't and shouldn't be an endorsement of their values. Jeffrey Epstein should be able to hire whatever legal council he wants, convicted sex offenders should be able to find an apartment upon release, gun stores should be able to take credit card payments, and generally speaking you shouldn't get excluded from the benefits of modern society simply for being unpopular, no matter how just the reasoning.
  - FDSGSG 7y ago
    So, in other words: Freedom of association should not exist. Am I getting this right?
    - ThrustVectoring 7y ago
      Not at all. I'm not complaining about Cloudflare or Voxility dropping customers. I'm complaining about the press using their influence to pressure those companies into dropping customers. You're still free to drop a customer for whatever reason. I just want the press to be held accountable for the torts they're committing and the economic harm they are causing.
      - FDSGSG 7y ago
        Ah, so freedom of association is OK. Freedom of speech is not though? > press using their influence to pressure those companies into dropping customers So what does that even look like? Odds are it looks like this: "Hey, I'm working on a story about 8chan and heard you guys host them. Do you have anything to say about that?" I guess what you're saying is that the press should just not be allowed to report on this stuff. >torts they're committing such as? IANAL, but the first amendment provides strong protections against tortious interference claims.
        ThrustVectoring 7y ago
        I'm not a free speech absolutist. If you cause certain established categories of harm, you should be held liable for the damages you cause. Specific example: https://mobile.twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1158392795687575554 https://mobile.twitter.com/alexstamos/status/115839279568757... BitMitigate has a case for tortious interference over this tweet, IMO. Alex knew of contracts between BitMitigate and 8chan (or Voxility), used his influence to induce Voxility to make it impossible for BitMitigate to fulfill their 8chan contract (or for the breach of their voxility contract), Alex was not privileged to interfere, and there were economic damages suffered. That's all the elements necessary for a tortious interference with contract claim. >IANAL, but the first amendment provides strong protections against tortious interference claims. Indeed it does. Generally, merely sharing truthful information does not provide a basis for tortious interference. The problem I have isn't that these sorts of statements are false, but that they come attached with a threat of an active negative PR campaign. The format of twitter makes this particularly salient, since it makes it easy to get viral traction and hard to communicate extensive information. And the tweet I linked earlier didn't tell Voxility anything it didn't already know, it simply publicized things and used the author's influence coercively.
reilly3000 7y ago
One doesn’t elect employees of a private business. They choose not to consume media that business produces. Do you think that we should elect people to tell us what’s happening?
- ThrustVectoring 7y ago
  No, I'm saying that people generally should not use their influence with third parties to enact extrajudicial punishment. Tortious interference with contract is a bad thing.
  - reilly3000 7y ago
    So long as the WWW is a public network ran by private entities, essentially every decision is extrajudicial. I completely see the issue you're trying to highlight, but it seems that limiting the abilities of reporters and activists isn't healthy for democracy. If the services CloudFlare and others provide is regulated like a public utility, then standards like guaranteeing equal access regardless of ideology, or enforcing standards that have been democratically adopted. Is there a middle ground between regulation and corporate discretion in all matters of speech on that use their platform?