3 ms·

>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

by 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).

by meruru 7y ago

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).