6 ms·

See but that's a libertarian issue here. If you value freedom above all else, Google being an independent entity, should have the freedom to ban / veto whomeve

by d--b 7y ago

See but that's a libertarian issue here. If you value freedom above all else, Google being an independent entity, should have the freedom to ban / veto whomever they want. You can't have it both ways: let people be free to say whatever they want AND force the owners of communication channels to spread all information.

dangerface 7y ago
> If you value freedom above all else Thats not libertarian, its freedom to do whatever you want that doesn't affect other people.
ch4s3 7y ago
I don’t think that’s the argument they’re making. I think they would concede that Google has a property right, and may at it’s discretion moderate content. However, they would argue that Google shouldn’t exercise that right because it is harmful to the culture of free speech. This is volunteerism, which is to say they should choose to hold themselves to a standard without being forced to do so. I’m not sure how I feel about it, but I think I’ve summarized the best version of the argument.
merpnderp 7y ago
Ironically this is somewhat similar the LGBT cake shop case where the two political sides are flipped. A great example of how many people don’t care about right and wrong, just winning.
degski 7y ago
I agree with you that Google or Facebook should be allowed to do what they want. The problem we face is that these companies run major (the dominant) communication channels, that's (IMHO) where the problem lies [it shouldn't be like that, but heck, we cannot trust our governments better than G or FB].
- buboard 7y ago
  Perversely, the popular press is also communicating to people that G & FB should censor more, instead of calling them out for their manipulation shenanigans.
ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
Freedom comes with responsibility. The idea that they are not responsible for the content (i.e. you can't hold Youtube/Google legally responsible for the content they have on their platforms) while at the same time they make profit on the very same content and can censor it as they see fit -- this is idiocy in its purest form. We hold newspapers or TV station legally liable for the content they serve. This is fair. Situation in which they couldn't be sued for the stuff they air still making money on it -- that's the current situation with them. It's even worse because they can somehow censor the content they don't like for their own political reasons. It's like with banks. Yes, we can make money. And yes when times are bad we can get money from the government/tax payers too. This is not freedom this is fascism.
- nova22033 7y ago
  Freedom comes with responsibility. And who decides what is responsible? This may be helpful https://www.popehat.com/2019/08/29/make-no-law-deplatformed/ https://www.popehat.com/2019/08/29/make-no-law-deplatformed/
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  That definition of responsibility negates freedom in itself. I have literally seen it used by dictators who set libel laws to crush any negative stories. The stance is absurd - tt is akin to saying that Kinkos should be liable for anything printed beyond "they knowingly used ink laced with weaponized anthrax" - and should be charged with terrorism because a customer who quietly printed a bomb threat formatted to look like a resume - just because they kick you out for openly printing Goatse.ck and every other old shock site which scares away the other customers.
  - ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
    Exactly my point. But for this to work, they need to be regulated by Government as utilities. No one has the right to turn off electric grid on your house because they are "private company". No one has the right to turn off "running water" from your sink because they are "private company" and if you don't like it, you can go somewhere else or open your own. The same way, no one has right to censor me because they are "private company" and if I don't like it I can go ahead and open my own Youtube. They should be and will be regulated as utilities.
buboard 7y ago
That's a false dilemma. The author is not disputing Google's natural right to do so. He s arguing that they shouldn't however get a pass from libertarians. It is possible to criticize someone without demanding that someone regulates them!
OscarCunningham 7y ago
Isn't it the essence of Libertarianism that something can be wrong without making it illegal? So there's no contradiction between "Google is wrong to censor" and "Google should be free to censor".
normalnorm 7y ago
> If you value freedom above all else, Google being an independent entity, should have the freedom to ban / veto whomever they want. Not so if you value freedom of human beings above all else, and even less so if you would wish to maximize human freedom across the population. Unregulated capitalism maximizes the potential for freedom, if you win a lottery ticket, at the expense of diminishing freedom for all the losers. Libertarians tend to either already be rich or believe they have a significant shot at winning the lottery ticket. A practical example: lack of worker rights in the US corresponds to more freedom in the abstract, but in practice creates a society where the average worker is much less free than, say, the average European worker. For example, workers in more regulated labor markets enjoy many more days of vacation on average, leading to literally more freedom to explore the world and pursue personal interests.
jerf 7y ago
This basically begs the question (in the true sense of the phrase). The debate we're having right now (not just about this particular article but in general) is whether that should be true. Saying that it is the current legal regime is not telling anyone anything they don't already know. We are discussing whether that is a good idea and whether it should be changed.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
MaxBarraclough 7y ago
If your flavour of libertarianism doesn't account for inverted totalitarianism [0], it's just not factoring in reality. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

by d--b 7y ago

dangerface 7y ago

> If you value freedom above all else Thats not libertarian, its freedom to do whatever you want that doesn't affect other people.

ch4s3 7y ago

I don’t think that’s the argument they’re making. I think they would concede that Google has a property right, and may at it’s discretion moderate content. However, they would argue that Google shouldn’t exercise that right because it is harmful to the culture of free speech. This is volunteerism, which is to say they should choose to hold themselves to a standard without being forced to do so. I’m not sure how I feel about it, but I think I’ve summarized the best version of the argument.

merpnderp 7y ago

Ironically this is somewhat similar the LGBT cake shop case where the two political sides are flipped. A great example of how many people don’t care about right and wrong, just winning.

degski 7y ago

I agree with you that Google or Facebook should be allowed to do what they want. The problem we face is that these companies run major (the dominant) communication channels, that's (IMHO) where the problem lies [it shouldn't be like that, but heck, we cannot trust our governments better than G or FB].

buboard 7y ago
Perversely, the popular press is also communicating to people that G & FB should censor more, instead of calling them out for their manipulation shenanigans.

ChaosDegenerate 7y ago

Freedom comes with responsibility. The idea that they are not responsible for the content (i.e. you can't hold Youtube/Google legally responsible for the content they have on their platforms) while at the same time they make profit on the very same content and can censor it as they see fit -- this is idiocy in its purest form. We hold newspapers or TV station legally liable for the content they serve. This is fair. Situation in which they couldn't be sued for the stuff they air still making money on it -- that's the current situation with them. It's even worse because they can somehow censor the content they don't like for their own political reasons. It's like with banks. Yes, we can make money. And yes when times are bad we can get money from the government/tax payers too. This is not freedom this is fascism.

nova22033 7y ago
Freedom comes with responsibility. And who decides what is responsible? This may be helpful https://www.popehat.com/2019/08/29/make-no-law-deplatformed/ https://www.popehat.com/2019/08/29/make-no-law-deplatformed/
Nasrudith 7y ago
That definition of responsibility negates freedom in itself. I have literally seen it used by dictators who set libel laws to crush any negative stories. The stance is absurd - tt is akin to saying that Kinkos should be liable for anything printed beyond "they knowingly used ink laced with weaponized anthrax" - and should be charged with terrorism because a customer who quietly printed a bomb threat formatted to look like a resume - just because they kick you out for openly printing Goatse.ck and every other old shock site which scares away the other customers.
- ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
  Exactly my point. But for this to work, they need to be regulated by Government as utilities. No one has the right to turn off electric grid on your house because they are "private company". No one has the right to turn off "running water" from your sink because they are "private company" and if you don't like it, you can go somewhere else or open your own. The same way, no one has right to censor me because they are "private company" and if I don't like it I can go ahead and open my own Youtube. They should be and will be regulated as utilities.

buboard 7y ago

That's a false dilemma. The author is not disputing Google's natural right to do so. He s arguing that they shouldn't however get a pass from libertarians. It is possible to criticize someone without demanding that someone regulates them!

OscarCunningham 7y ago

Isn't it the essence of Libertarianism that something can be wrong without making it illegal? So there's no contradiction between "Google is wrong to censor" and "Google should be free to censor".

normalnorm 7y ago

> If you value freedom above all else, Google being an independent entity, should have the freedom to ban / veto whomever they want. Not so if you value freedom of human beings above all else, and even less so if you would wish to maximize human freedom across the population. Unregulated capitalism maximizes the potential for freedom, if you win a lottery ticket, at the expense of diminishing freedom for all the losers. Libertarians tend to either already be rich or believe they have a significant shot at winning the lottery ticket. A practical example: lack of worker rights in the US corresponds to more freedom in the abstract, but in practice creates a society where the average worker is much less free than, say, the average European worker. For example, workers in more regulated labor markets enjoy many more days of vacation on average, leading to literally more freedom to explore the world and pursue personal interests.

jerf 7y ago

This basically begs the question (in the true sense of the phrase). The debate we're having right now (not just about this particular article but in general) is whether that should be true. Saying that it is the current legal regime is not telling anyone anything they don't already know. We are discussing whether that is a good idea and whether it should be changed.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

MaxBarraclough 7y ago

If your flavour of libertarianism doesn't account for inverted totalitarianism [0], it's just not factoring in reality. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism