5 ms·

I lean towards free-speech absolutism, I was against banning Alex Jones for example. However, encouraging violence, as 8-chan does, is not included under even t

I lean towards free-speech absolutism, I was against banning Alex Jones for example. However, encouraging violence, as 8-chan does, is not included under even the most expansive definitions of free speech. Nuke it from orbit.

freen 7y ago
Are you a free speech absolutist at your own house party? Really? You'd allow a Nazi to spout propaganda at your family and guests? Why should anyone else have to host them on their private platforms?
- umvi 7y ago
  > Why should anyone else have to host them on their private platforms? Because private platforms are the public now. It's like saying: "You are a Nazi I don't like your beliefs, you are not allowed to express them on my house" So the Nazi leaves and starts preaching on the sidewalk, but the HOA comes by and says "You are a Nazi, and we don't like your beliefs. We own and maintain these sidewalks, and we are kicking you off" So the Nazi stands in the middle of the road to preach, but the government had long since let private corporations build and maintain the roads in this neighborhood and Streets LLC comes by and says "Sorry, we own these roads and we don't like your beliefs, get out" Thus, there is no public space for the Nazi to express his beliefs in, because all public space is now owned by private corporations. Tying the analogy back to computers: Even if the Nazi tries to host their own blog on their own computer in their own house, Comcast can say: "Sorry, we don't like transmitting your ideas from your house over our wires to the internet, get out"
  - laughinghan 7y ago
    I don't see a problem here. The more people think the Nazi's speech is harmful, the smaller the Nazi's reach is. This is exactly the incentive gradient we want. You're describing the free market of ideas working excellently.
  - freen 7y ago
    The cloud is just someone else's computer. Why do you insist on treating internet companies as if they were nation states?
    - antepodius 7y ago
      Once a company gets big enough, the quantitative difference in scale creates a qualitative difference. We don't let electricity providers deny service based on politics; we have a whole legal class called 'public utilities' for this. Public utility laws infringe on the freedom of utility companies, anyway. The question is when a website/service should be classed a public utility.
- LordHumungous 7y ago
  > Why should anyone else have to host them on their private platforms? Because it's hard to draw the line between acceptable speech and unacceptable speech, and once it becomes acceptable to silence people that power will be abused, especially if it is in the hands of large corporations. The logic is exactly the same as why the government shouldn't ban speech. > Are you a free speech absolutist at your own house party? My house is not a public platform so that's a silly analogy.
thedz 7y ago
> I was against banning Alex Jones > However, encouraging violence hmmm
danem 7y ago
As a free speech absolutist you should support Youtube or Twitter's right to ban who they wish from their platform. What about their right to free speech?
- m-p-3 7y ago
  An individual is a person, a corporation/platform isn't. Especially when we're talking about YouTube, which (for now) has no alternative equal in size or reach. Free speech is being stiffled by corporations that offers shared spaces, that even a government is unable to provide. The government is bound to the Constitution, while some companies bigger than some countries in terms of capital, are not bound to these checks and balance.
- LordHumungous 7y ago
  I said I was a free speech absolutist, not a corporate rights absolutist. When corporations have monopolistic control over the means by which we communicate then they must either use that power responsibly or we must use regulation to force them to do so.

freen 7y ago

Are you a free speech absolutist at your own house party? Really? You'd allow a Nazi to spout propaganda at your family and guests? Why should anyone else have to host them on their private platforms?

umvi 7y ago
> Why should anyone else have to host them on their private platforms? Because private platforms are the public now. It's like saying: "You are a Nazi I don't like your beliefs, you are not allowed to express them on my house" So the Nazi leaves and starts preaching on the sidewalk, but the HOA comes by and says "You are a Nazi, and we don't like your beliefs. We own and maintain these sidewalks, and we are kicking you off" So the Nazi stands in the middle of the road to preach, but the government had long since let private corporations build and maintain the roads in this neighborhood and Streets LLC comes by and says "Sorry, we own these roads and we don't like your beliefs, get out" Thus, there is no public space for the Nazi to express his beliefs in, because all public space is now owned by private corporations. Tying the analogy back to computers: Even if the Nazi tries to host their own blog on their own computer in their own house, Comcast can say: "Sorry, we don't like transmitting your ideas from your house over our wires to the internet, get out"
- laughinghan 7y ago
  I don't see a problem here. The more people think the Nazi's speech is harmful, the smaller the Nazi's reach is. This is exactly the incentive gradient we want. You're describing the free market of ideas working excellently.
- freen 7y ago
  The cloud is just someone else's computer. Why do you insist on treating internet companies as if they were nation states?
  - antepodius 7y ago
    Once a company gets big enough, the quantitative difference in scale creates a qualitative difference. We don't let electricity providers deny service based on politics; we have a whole legal class called 'public utilities' for this. Public utility laws infringe on the freedom of utility companies, anyway. The question is when a website/service should be classed a public utility.
LordHumungous 7y ago
> Why should anyone else have to host them on their private platforms? Because it's hard to draw the line between acceptable speech and unacceptable speech, and once it becomes acceptable to silence people that power will be abused, especially if it is in the hands of large corporations. The logic is exactly the same as why the government shouldn't ban speech. > Are you a free speech absolutist at your own house party? My house is not a public platform so that's a silly analogy.

thedz 7y ago

> I was against banning Alex Jones > However, encouraging violence hmmm

danem 7y ago

As a free speech absolutist you should support Youtube or Twitter's right to ban who they wish from their platform. What about their right to free speech?

m-p-3 7y ago
An individual is a person, a corporation/platform isn't. Especially when we're talking about YouTube, which (for now) has no alternative equal in size or reach. Free speech is being stiffled by corporations that offers shared spaces, that even a government is unable to provide. The government is bound to the Constitution, while some companies bigger than some countries in terms of capital, are not bound to these checks and balance.
LordHumungous 7y ago
I said I was a free speech absolutist, not a corporate rights absolutist. When corporations have monopolistic control over the means by which we communicate then they must either use that power responsibly or we must use regulation to force them to do so.