2 ms·

> I'm not making a slippery slope argument about child pornography. I'm saying that the OP is not making a "free speech" argument in the first place Well now t

> I'm not making a slippery slope argument about child pornography. I'm saying that the OP is not making a "free speech" argument in the first place Well now that just sounds like a no true Scotsman argument. Even among absolutists, the idea that torts or other unrelated crimes should be legalized if they contain an element of speech would be considered fringe and extreme.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
It’s not a no true Scotsman argument. What do you think “absolutist” means? (Also, again, with e.g. child pornography and threats of violence, speech is the crime). Regardless, OP isn’t even talking about crimes. They’re saying that big tech companies should be regulated to force them to carry speech they don’t want to, which is clearly a limit on freedom of speech.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  > They’re saying that big tech companies should be regulated to force them to carry speech they don’t want to, which is clearly a limit on freedom of speech. Which is simply a straw man argument. The actual legal argument is to allow them to choose between being a common carrier, or accepting liability for the content they publish.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    It's not a straw man; it's exactly what's being proposed. This is an invented dichotomy. If a private entity is not liable for its users' content, it doesn't follow that they then can't moderate that content. We don't hold bars liable for defamatory statements their patrons make, even if they kick out people who say racist things. If I understand correctly, you're also misapplying common carriage here. Common carrier laws basically say that if all you do is transport things from A to B, you can't discriminate. That already doesn't describe social networks, which do much more than just deliver your speech: they algorithmically promote it, sell ads against it, etc. But OP is speaking even more broadly than that. One example they've brought up is YouTube demonetizing people, which has nothing to do with transmitting speech.

jakelazaroff 7y ago

It’s not a no true Scotsman argument. What do you think “absolutist” means? (Also, again, with e.g. child pornography and threats of violence, speech is the crime). Regardless, OP isn’t even talking about crimes. They’re saying that big tech companies should be regulated to force them to carry speech they don’t want to, which is clearly a limit on freedom of speech.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
> They’re saying that big tech companies should be regulated to force them to carry speech they don’t want to, which is clearly a limit on freedom of speech. Which is simply a straw man argument. The actual legal argument is to allow them to choose between being a common carrier, or accepting liability for the content they publish.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  It's not a straw man; it's exactly what's being proposed. This is an invented dichotomy. If a private entity is not liable for its users' content, it doesn't follow that they then can't moderate that content. We don't hold bars liable for defamatory statements their patrons make, even if they kick out people who say racist things. If I understand correctly, you're also misapplying common carriage here. Common carrier laws basically say that if all you do is transport things from A to B, you can't discriminate. That already doesn't describe social networks, which do much more than just deliver your speech: they algorithmically promote it, sell ads against it, etc. But OP is speaking even more broadly than that. One example they've brought up is YouTube demonetizing people, which has nothing to do with transmitting speech.