3 ms·

You say you're worried about freedom of speech in big tech companies and de facto digital public squares, but what you seem to be getting at would actually curt

You say you're worried about freedom of speech in big tech companies and de facto digital public squares, but what you seem to be getting at would actually curtail their freedom of speech. The government forcing private entities to disseminate speech they don't want to — that's where this leads, right? In reality, no one is a free speech absolutist. We just argue over where the lines should be drawn. Bans on child pornography and threats of violence are pretty uncontroversial abridgements of free speech. Banning harassment and hate speech seems to be a bit less popular. Which is fine, everyone has their own ideas about what's acceptable. But don't draw your line in the sand and then tell me that's what determines "free speech".

meruru 7y ago
>The government forcing private entities to disseminate speech they don't want to — that's where this leads, right? I don't think so. Is anyone proposing this as a solution? The parent certainly doesn't seem to be.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  The parent, in a reply to a sibling comment to mine [1]: > Yes, totally agree. These big companies must be broken up, or treated with a much greater degree of regulation (effectively holding them to the standards that the government is held to, as sole provider of some functions). I am sympathetic to breaking up big companies (albeit because of a dislike of private consolidations of power, rather than a commitment to freedom of speech). But their alternative proposal is exactly the scenario to which I was referring. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21143819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21143819
  - meruru 7y ago
    I somehow missed that. His proposal sounds much more narrow however, targeting only companies that have become a "sole provider of some functions". I do think breaking up the monopoly is a no-brainer in this scenario.
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      I agree with breaking up the monopoly! But again, it's because I dislike concentrated power in general, not because of their power over speech specifically. My issue here isn't with the idea that we do something about large tech companies. It's the proposal to abridge legal freedom of speech, masquerading as an attempt to protect free speech. OP is presenting this as an objective argument about freedom, when really they just don't like where the lines are drawn.
      - meruru 7y ago
        I think we mostly agree. I was just replying to the idea that people are calling for the government to force speech, which felt like a weird notion (though when it comes to the political extremes, I'm sure both sides would love nothing more than total control over what's acceptable speech).
AmericanChopper 7y ago
This post contains the two forms of gaslighting most often used to derail any serious discussion on the merits of free speech. 1. Free speech absolutism is actually perfectly reasonable. An absolute stance of free speech doesn’t mean you can’t use speech to commit a crime. If you hire a hit man to kill somebody, you’ve committed a crime, even though the only thing you have done is speak. Nothing about that contradicts an absolute stance on free speech. I have a drivers licence which entitles me to drive a car on public roads. It doesn’t entitle me to run over pedestrians who may be walking on them. Your child pornography example is the same thing. Child pornography is illegal because it involves the crime of sexually abusing children. That’s why it’s illegal, and why drawn or computer generated images or movies depicting sexual acts with children are protected by 1A. 2. Calling for free speech in large online platforms is not curtailing their own right to free speech. The one and only reason large online platforms are allowed to moderate their platforms in anyway they choose is because of a law introduced in the 90s granting them protection from prosecution for the content they publish. If you have an online platform that you don’t moderate, you used to be protected by common carrier laws. If you do choose to moderate it, you are no longer a common carrier, and should be held liable for the content you are now acting as a editor and publisher for. This law was created at a time before large tech companies had monopolised online speech, and really should be revised. Changing it certainly wouldn’t require curtailing anybody’s rights, and every time this comes up I’m honestly surprised by the kind of people who object to it, because the argument you have put forward applies equally as an argument against net neutrality.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  1. It's possible to make an argument for free speech absolutism, but such a vanishingly small number of people actually believe in it that it's not interesting. If I go around insulting and cursing at all my coworkers, I'm going to be fired — and somehow, I doubt the people who are upset about James Damore's dismissal will be clamoring to defend me. Child pornography is the only law I'm aware of that prohibits taking a picture of a crime. Is it illegal to photograph someone shoplifting? Is it illegal to send someone shoplifting photos I find, even if I had nothing to do with the crime in the first place? Don't kid yourself: it's a limit on free speech that basically everyone is okay with because child pornography is universally reviled. 2. It doesn't matter when certain laws were introduced. The government making legislation forcing private citizens to disseminate speech against their will curtails their freedom of speech, full stop. I'm fine with arguments about what regulations are appropriate, just not in the guise of "platforms must do X to support free speech".

meruru 7y ago

>The government forcing private entities to disseminate speech they don't want to — that's where this leads, right? I don't think so. Is anyone proposing this as a solution? The parent certainly doesn't seem to be.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
The parent, in a reply to a sibling comment to mine [1]: > Yes, totally agree. These big companies must be broken up, or treated with a much greater degree of regulation (effectively holding them to the standards that the government is held to, as sole provider of some functions). I am sympathetic to breaking up big companies (albeit because of a dislike of private consolidations of power, rather than a commitment to freedom of speech). But their alternative proposal is exactly the scenario to which I was referring. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21143819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21143819
- meruru 7y ago
  I somehow missed that. His proposal sounds much more narrow however, targeting only companies that have become a "sole provider of some functions". I do think breaking up the monopoly is a no-brainer in this scenario.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    I agree with breaking up the monopoly! But again, it's because I dislike concentrated power in general, not because of their power over speech specifically. My issue here isn't with the idea that we do something about large tech companies. It's the proposal to abridge legal freedom of speech, masquerading as an attempt to protect free speech. OP is presenting this as an objective argument about freedom, when really they just don't like where the lines are drawn.
    - meruru 7y ago
      I think we mostly agree. I was just replying to the idea that people are calling for the government to force speech, which felt like a weird notion (though when it comes to the political extremes, I'm sure both sides would love nothing more than total control over what's acceptable speech).

AmericanChopper 7y ago

This post contains the two forms of gaslighting most often used to derail any serious discussion on the merits of free speech. 1. Free speech absolutism is actually perfectly reasonable. An absolute stance of free speech doesn’t mean you can’t use speech to commit a crime. If you hire a hit man to kill somebody, you’ve committed a crime, even though the only thing you have done is speak. Nothing about that contradicts an absolute stance on free speech. I have a drivers licence which entitles me to drive a car on public roads. It doesn’t entitle me to run over pedestrians who may be walking on them. Your child pornography example is the same thing. Child pornography is illegal because it involves the crime of sexually abusing children. That’s why it’s illegal, and why drawn or computer generated images or movies depicting sexual acts with children are protected by 1A. 2. Calling for free speech in large online platforms is not curtailing their own right to free speech. The one and only reason large online platforms are allowed to moderate their platforms in anyway they choose is because of a law introduced in the 90s granting them protection from prosecution for the content they publish. If you have an online platform that you don’t moderate, you used to be protected by common carrier laws. If you do choose to moderate it, you are no longer a common carrier, and should be held liable for the content you are now acting as a editor and publisher for. This law was created at a time before large tech companies had monopolised online speech, and really should be revised. Changing it certainly wouldn’t require curtailing anybody’s rights, and every time this comes up I’m honestly surprised by the kind of people who object to it, because the argument you have put forward applies equally as an argument against net neutrality.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
1. It's possible to make an argument for free speech absolutism, but such a vanishingly small number of people actually believe in it that it's not interesting. If I go around insulting and cursing at all my coworkers, I'm going to be fired — and somehow, I doubt the people who are upset about James Damore's dismissal will be clamoring to defend me. Child pornography is the only law I'm aware of that prohibits taking a picture of a crime. Is it illegal to photograph someone shoplifting? Is it illegal to send someone shoplifting photos I find, even if I had nothing to do with the crime in the first place? Don't kid yourself: it's a limit on free speech that basically everyone is okay with because child pornography is universally reviled. 2. It doesn't matter when certain laws were introduced. The government making legislation forcing private citizens to disseminate speech against their will curtails their freedom of speech, full stop. I'm fine with arguments about what regulations are appropriate, just not in the guise of "platforms must do X to support free speech".