5 ms·

In America speech is censored by American private companies all the time. Racial or anti-semitic speech is often censored thanks for pressure from civil rights

In America speech is censored by American private companies all the time. Racial or anti-semitic speech is often censored thanks for pressure from civil rights groups (i.e. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-bans-white-nationalism-after-pressure-civil-rights-groups-n987991 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-bans-white-n...) and from lawsuits (i.e. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47705904 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47705904) Twitter has even begun censoring political speech from public figures: "Twitter will now hide — but not remove — harmful tweets from public figures" (https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/27/18761132/twitter-donald-trump-rules-violation-tweet-hide-remove-political-figures https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/27/18761132/twitter-donald-t...)

modulos 7y ago
It is not reasonable compare a company choosing not to host content that hurts marginalized people, with a company being forced not to host content critical of the most powerful people.
cblades 7y ago
I think there's a pretty wide gulf between that and government-enforced censorship, to the point that comparing the two seems a bit disingenuous. "Twitter has even begun censoring political speech from public figures" vs "The FBI will require Twitter to censor political speech from public figures" I think those two scenarios are eons apart.
- modulos 7y ago
  It is also disingenuous to refer to hate speech that breaks Twitter's rules as "political speech".
- lmm 7y ago
  I disagree; I'd even say this is a peculiar blind spot in US political culture. Practically, it's probably easier to have a similar life in a non-US country than to have a similar life while avoiding these big platforms. Yes theoretically the US government has the ability to use violence against you while Twitter doesn't, but that doesn't seem to make a lot of difference to the practical impact - people are more worried about the government ruining their livelihood than locking them up, and that's something that Twitter can do just as well.
root_axis 7y ago
American private companies aren't forced to censor these things by the government, they are leveraging their own freedom to operate their business with respect to their own prerogatives.
- kccqzy 7y ago
  And when these private companies become large enough they become the de-facto public forum.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    Why? So what?
    - kccqzy 7y ago
      > So what? The eighteenth-century ideal of free speech in a public forum has now become de-facto mediated by private companies acting in their own interest. Some may believe in free speech more rigorously than others (say Reddit, as compared to Facebook). The fact that the government cannot censor speech matters less and less nowadays, given how much speech now passes through private companies' control.
      - papito 7y ago
        And private companies want their taxes and regulations cut.
      - root_axis 7y ago
        > free speech in a public forum has now become de-facto mediated by private companies acting in their own interest This statement is misleading. Some public internet forums owned by large corporations are mediated by companies acting in their own interest. Nobody is required to use those forums and many alternative forums exist, other individuals or firms are also able to create their own online public forums subject to whatever speech standards they consider ideal. > The fact that the government cannot censor speech matters less and less nowadays, given how much speech now passes through private companies' controls This is not true. The fact that government cannot censor speech is as critically important today as it ever was. It doesn't matter that a lot of speech passes through private companies because that is a free choice made by individuals who voluntarily push their speech through those companies and are free to take their speech elsewhere if they desire. Additionally, censorship or moderation is sometimes a desirable feature of a social media product because unbridled free-speech is sometimes abused in a way that is antithetical to the user experience and thus to business prerogatives.

modulos 7y ago

It is not reasonable compare a company choosing not to host content that hurts marginalized people, with a company being forced not to host content critical of the most powerful people.

cblades 7y ago

I think there's a pretty wide gulf between that and government-enforced censorship, to the point that comparing the two seems a bit disingenuous. "Twitter has even begun censoring political speech from public figures" vs "The FBI will require Twitter to censor political speech from public figures" I think those two scenarios are eons apart.

modulos 7y ago
It is also disingenuous to refer to hate speech that breaks Twitter's rules as "political speech".
lmm 7y ago
I disagree; I'd even say this is a peculiar blind spot in US political culture. Practically, it's probably easier to have a similar life in a non-US country than to have a similar life while avoiding these big platforms. Yes theoretically the US government has the ability to use violence against you while Twitter doesn't, but that doesn't seem to make a lot of difference to the practical impact - people are more worried about the government ruining their livelihood than locking them up, and that's something that Twitter can do just as well.

root_axis 7y ago

American private companies aren't forced to censor these things by the government, they are leveraging their own freedom to operate their business with respect to their own prerogatives.

kccqzy 7y ago
And when these private companies become large enough they become the de-facto public forum.
- root_axis 7y ago
  Why? So what?
  - kccqzy 7y ago
    > So what? The eighteenth-century ideal of free speech in a public forum has now become de-facto mediated by private companies acting in their own interest. Some may believe in free speech more rigorously than others (say Reddit, as compared to Facebook). The fact that the government cannot censor speech matters less and less nowadays, given how much speech now passes through private companies' control.
    - papito 7y ago
      And private companies want their taxes and regulations cut.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      > free speech in a public forum has now become de-facto mediated by private companies acting in their own interest This statement is misleading. Some public internet forums owned by large corporations are mediated by companies acting in their own interest. Nobody is required to use those forums and many alternative forums exist, other individuals or firms are also able to create their own online public forums subject to whatever speech standards they consider ideal. > The fact that the government cannot censor speech matters less and less nowadays, given how much speech now passes through private companies' controls This is not true. The fact that government cannot censor speech is as critically important today as it ever was. It doesn't matter that a lot of speech passes through private companies because that is a free choice made by individuals who voluntarily push their speech through those companies and are free to take their speech elsewhere if they desire. Additionally, censorship or moderation is sometimes a desirable feature of a social media product because unbridled free-speech is sometimes abused in a way that is antithetical to the user experience and thus to business prerogatives.