4 ms·

We're not talking about inalienable rights. That's implied in the title of the linked post. If you don't care about "good"/"bad" decisions and just care about

We're not talking about inalienable rights. That's implied in the title of the linked post. If you don't care about "good"/"bad" decisions and just care about the legal bounds, just say so and dismiss the article out of hand. Your roundabout question just drags discussion down.

throwafkdl 7y ago
The thing is, people rightfully are pointing out an important issue ("corporate tech giants have monopolized the public speaking space and are holding unaccountable power") and but inexplicably ignore the obvious solution (break them up and/or emigrate to federated/decentralized platforms while actively promoting them) in favor of the worst possible one (force Twitter to unban nazis).
- hackinthebochs 7y ago
  How does breaking them up not kick the can down the road? Presumably the forces that led to the monopoly of users will be in play after they're broken up. Enforcing freedom of speech on platforms that have become de facto utilities or public spaces is the only permanent solution on offer.
- danso 7y ago
  Yes, this is essentially my point, except stated in a much more concise way than I was able to. The author wants something we all want – less power for massive private companies to control our society. But he doesn't want to accept what that takes – greater government control. So his essay is little more than inane rhetoric, e.g. journalists are basically silenced if they can't be on Twitter.
danso 7y ago
The title and content of the post implies that we should regard private censorship with the same concern as we do government censorship, regardless of the current legal framework. Which I don't necessarily disagree with. In fact, I think most people here are on the same page of: it sucks big time when a company like Facebook can unilaterally decide that the famous Napalm Girl photo should not be displayed. So where's the argument? Where's the discussion? Forgive me, but I don't find the above assertion interesting to discuss when virtually everyone agrees with it. The actual topic of interest is: how can we prevent Facebook from making such decisions over its own platform? That's a pretty big question with a lot of angles. So I chose, for the sake of argument, to focus on what the parent commenter highlighted, because its specious premise raises issues with the author's overall premise: > For instance, if you’re a journalist and you want to promote your work, there is simply no viable alternative to Twitter at the moment. No other microblogging platform comes even close to having the number of users Twitter does, and most of the alternatives are hotbeds of extremism, so that anyone who joins them is thereby disqualified in polite company. In the history of our society there has never been free or equal channels of promotion, i.e. advertising or being featured in mainstream media. It has always been the case that if you didn't pay, or otherwise get noticed by mainstream media, you were unheard and/or considered to be part of a "hotbed of extremism". So I ask of the author (and those who agree with him), if you want to argue that Facebook/Twitter should be compelled to not censor, then what sense does it make to assert people (journalists are not) have a right (legal or moral) to have their self-promotion be noticed, when that precedent does not exist? Moreover, it's just a flawed premise because I can think of journalists big (e.g. at the NYT) and small (e.g. former students of mine) who have paid careers in journalism without being active on Twitter. I contend that this is not just quibbling over minor facts, but an example of how the author's argument only makes sense by ignoring details of how the world actually works. What does this one point have to do with the article's overall premise? He wants our society to change in a significant way, but he neither accepts the legal consequences that would follow, nor proposes an alternative framework that would be feasible. I don't disagree with that Big Tech Censorship is of huge concern. But I believe that if we want to change this status quo, we'd have to agree to give the government greater powers to regulate private industry and wealth individuals. The author doesn't want to grant this, rendering this entire discussion to be an inane impotent exercise.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Ostensibly that's the argument. But the real argument is that platforms are wising up to being used for extremist positions and that the extremists don't like it and so they twist everything to associated themselves with content that should get a pass.

throwafkdl 7y ago

The thing is, people rightfully are pointing out an important issue ("corporate tech giants have monopolized the public speaking space and are holding unaccountable power") and but inexplicably ignore the obvious solution (break them up and/or emigrate to federated/decentralized platforms while actively promoting them) in favor of the worst possible one (force Twitter to unban nazis).

hackinthebochs 7y ago
How does breaking them up not kick the can down the road? Presumably the forces that led to the monopoly of users will be in play after they're broken up. Enforcing freedom of speech on platforms that have become de facto utilities or public spaces is the only permanent solution on offer.
danso 7y ago
Yes, this is essentially my point, except stated in a much more concise way than I was able to. The author wants something we all want – less power for massive private companies to control our society. But he doesn't want to accept what that takes – greater government control. So his essay is little more than inane rhetoric, e.g. journalists are basically silenced if they can't be on Twitter.

danso 7y ago

The title and content of the post implies that we should regard private censorship with the same concern as we do government censorship, regardless of the current legal framework. Which I don't necessarily disagree with. In fact, I think most people here are on the same page of: it sucks big time when a company like Facebook can unilaterally decide that the famous Napalm Girl photo should not be displayed. So where's the argument? Where's the discussion? Forgive me, but I don't find the above assertion interesting to discuss when virtually everyone agrees with it. The actual topic of interest is: how can we prevent Facebook from making such decisions over its own platform? That's a pretty big question with a lot of angles. So I chose, for the sake of argument, to focus on what the parent commenter highlighted, because its specious premise raises issues with the author's overall premise: > For instance, if you’re a journalist and you want to promote your work, there is simply no viable alternative to Twitter at the moment. No other microblogging platform comes even close to having the number of users Twitter does, and most of the alternatives are hotbeds of extremism, so that anyone who joins them is thereby disqualified in polite company. In the history of our society there has never been free or equal channels of promotion, i.e. advertising or being featured in mainstream media. It has always been the case that if you didn't pay, or otherwise get noticed by mainstream media, you were unheard and/or considered to be part of a "hotbed of extremism". So I ask of the author (and those who agree with him), if you want to argue that Facebook/Twitter should be compelled to not censor, then what sense does it make to assert people (journalists are not) have a right (legal or moral) to have their self-promotion be noticed, when that precedent does not exist? Moreover, it's just a flawed premise because I can think of journalists big (e.g. at the NYT) and small (e.g. former students of mine) who have paid careers in journalism without being active on Twitter. I contend that this is not just quibbling over minor facts, but an example of how the author's argument only makes sense by ignoring details of how the world actually works. What does this one point have to do with the article's overall premise? He wants our society to change in a significant way, but he neither accepts the legal consequences that would follow, nor proposes an alternative framework that would be feasible. I don't disagree with that Big Tech Censorship is of huge concern. But I believe that if we want to change this status quo, we'd have to agree to give the government greater powers to regulate private industry and wealth individuals. The author doesn't want to grant this, rendering this entire discussion to be an inane impotent exercise.

jacquesm 7y ago
Ostensibly that's the argument. But the real argument is that platforms are wising up to being used for extremist positions and that the extremists don't like it and so they twist everything to associated themselves with content that should get a pass.