3 ms·

The "Town square" has never given you a global audience. Reddit, twitter, and discord are not the equivalent of a Town square, they're a global square giving n

The "Town square" has never given you a global audience. Reddit, twitter, and discord are not the equivalent of a Town square, they're a global square giving normal people access to an audience they never would have previously had access to. I get that you have opinions about this, but pretending that the right to have your tweets promoted to an audience of millions and the right to free assembly are in any way the same is just muddying the waters.

throwawaysea 7y ago
I would argue that the physical town Square no longer exists and that the same space for discussion has been subsumed by Reddit and Twitter and such, even if they also include a more global square.
harimau777 7y ago
I'm not sure that I agree with that. We now live in a global world where the issues effecting people have shifting from a local and state level to a national and global level. Therefore, in order for the reach of a modern day town "town square" to be comparable to those in the past, it would also need to be national or globabl.
mistermann 7y ago
> Reddit, twitter, and discord are not the equivalent of a Town square > pretending that the right to have your tweets promoted to an audience of millions and the right to free assembly are in any way the same is just muddying the waters One might say that pretending that: - because two issues aren't identical, they do not have similarities - because the 1st amendment does not extend to private corporations, then no free speech (in the generic sense, that precedes the 1st amendment) limitations are occurring ...is also muddying the waters. I find it interesting how it seems that the ability to detect nuance is largely dependent upon the topic of discussion.
virtuous_signal 7y ago
So what I think of as "free assembly" way back when, is the private meetings that our founding father had in taverns and homes when they were planning the rebellion. Today I would consider that to be, say, Antifa (or whatever group you like) organizing via whatsapp or facebook groups (and maybe to some extent Twitter). My concern is when the companies behind these platforms shut down groups that they don't like. Sure, the participants could theoretically just meet in person to do their planning, but in a country as big as ours that simply won't happen.
whateveracct 7y ago
Well the first amendment also includes freedom of the press, which inherently involves the amplification of speech to reach the masses. So I think the Internet is easily covered.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  No, it prevents the government from censoring the press. It does not require that any given press publish you. In other words, if you're going to consider that "Facebook" is like "The Washington Post", you have no right to be published in either. And the government forcing either to publish you is an attack on the freedom of speech of the publisher. Because forcing them to say something they don't want to is a clear and obvious violation of their freedom of speech.
  - whateveracct 7y ago
    Right but my point was just that the Internet clearly falls under the 1st amendment expression and is therefore protected from government influence in similar ways.
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      I'd agree with what you just said, but your original post can be construed as (and many claim) that if Facebook is a monopoly, the first amendment protects your ability to post on Facebook, since it's a public square. But that doesn't follow.
  - Floegipoky 7y ago
    Freedom of the press has nothing to do with publishers or institutions; "the press" is not a separate entity from "The People". All citizens may exercise freedom of the press whether they're a credentialed journalist or a rando with a camera phone. And I think the argument being made is that social media like Facebook is more akin to a public forum than a curated publication like The Washington Post.
    - 7y ago

throwawaysea 7y ago

I would argue that the physical town Square no longer exists and that the same space for discussion has been subsumed by Reddit and Twitter and such, even if they also include a more global square.

harimau777 7y ago

I'm not sure that I agree with that. We now live in a global world where the issues effecting people have shifting from a local and state level to a national and global level. Therefore, in order for the reach of a modern day town "town square" to be comparable to those in the past, it would also need to be national or globabl.

mistermann 7y ago

> Reddit, twitter, and discord are not the equivalent of a Town square > pretending that the right to have your tweets promoted to an audience of millions and the right to free assembly are in any way the same is just muddying the waters One might say that pretending that: - because two issues aren't identical, they do not have similarities - because the 1st amendment does not extend to private corporations, then no free speech (in the generic sense, that precedes the 1st amendment) limitations are occurring ...is also muddying the waters. I find it interesting how it seems that the ability to detect nuance is largely dependent upon the topic of discussion.

virtuous_signal 7y ago

So what I think of as "free assembly" way back when, is the private meetings that our founding father had in taverns and homes when they were planning the rebellion. Today I would consider that to be, say, Antifa (or whatever group you like) organizing via whatsapp or facebook groups (and maybe to some extent Twitter). My concern is when the companies behind these platforms shut down groups that they don't like. Sure, the participants could theoretically just meet in person to do their planning, but in a country as big as ours that simply won't happen.

whateveracct 7y ago

Well the first amendment also includes freedom of the press, which inherently involves the amplification of speech to reach the masses. So I think the Internet is easily covered.

joshuamorton 7y ago
No, it prevents the government from censoring the press. It does not require that any given press publish you. In other words, if you're going to consider that "Facebook" is like "The Washington Post", you have no right to be published in either. And the government forcing either to publish you is an attack on the freedom of speech of the publisher. Because forcing them to say something they don't want to is a clear and obvious violation of their freedom of speech.
- whateveracct 7y ago
  Right but my point was just that the Internet clearly falls under the 1st amendment expression and is therefore protected from government influence in similar ways.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    I'd agree with what you just said, but your original post can be construed as (and many claim) that if Facebook is a monopoly, the first amendment protects your ability to post on Facebook, since it's a public square. But that doesn't follow.
- Floegipoky 7y ago
  Freedom of the press has nothing to do with publishers or institutions; "the press" is not a separate entity from "The People". All citizens may exercise freedom of the press whether they're a credentialed journalist or a rando with a camera phone. And I think the argument being made is that social media like Facebook is more akin to a public forum than a curated publication like The Washington Post.
  - 7y ago