6 ms·

>private companies engaging in evaluating what's permissible speech and not I don't feel this is an issue until you can't spin up your own website/app/platform

>private companies engaging in evaluating what's permissible speech and not I don't feel this is an issue until you can't spin up your own website/app/platform and allow whatever speech you want. I am interested for any responses as to why I might be mistaken from people who disagree with me, though.

systematical 7y ago
Some of these tech companies are so large and pervasive that they are integral parts of society. The policies they enact with that power can have a chilling effect. Now, whether we should or shouldn't do something about that is another matter. The Government has certainly shown a willingness to regulate industries that got to big for their britches before.
- wavefunction 7y ago
  >integral parts of society I am not sure I agree with these companies being an integral part of society. I feel pretty confident they could be replaced by alternatives operated by other people and most if not all users would not notice the difference. But I've seen that happen with the early WWW with Altavista, Yahoo, etc. And if they are an integral part of society then I think they should be heavily regulated for things like foreign and domestic propaganda and the promotion of dangerous falsehoods. It's either self-regulation (within legal reason) and whatever they decide is appropriate for their platforms, or they should be heavily regulated with guaranteed free expression as allowed by law.
  - systematical 7y ago
    Facebook, Twitter, and Google. I think they are integral. Sure, you could replace them with different names, but the result is the same.
    - UnpossibleJim 7y ago
      I think if we haven't had any serious conversation about making internet service a public utility, then it seems a bit of a farce to consider talking about companies like these as integral to our modern society. How proper internet service is still held hostage by the likes of Comcast and Verizon is beyond me, with little discussion given while everyone talks about the leverage of these three companies.
      - systematical 7y ago
        Do you consider the press part of society?
        Nasrudith 7y ago
        That is a very different question - both dropping integral a very vast and the entire press vs particularly large publishers. The answer is yes but irrelevant as so are embezzlers, serial killers or would a hypothetical few who literally want to actively to destroy every trace of it. The question is vague enough that literal cancer could get both yes and no as answers logically (cases caused by society part of it vs existing independently in species without anything to remotely qualify as a society).
mc32 7y ago
That's only part of the equation though. People who disagree with PoVs not only want to get people suspended or banned from ubiquitous comms platforms but they also want to doxx them and publicly shame them. I'm not talking about immediate threats of violence or disgusting vile language. But more generic points of view on various contentious topics. But let's take your objection at face value. Let's say a certain Senator has declared the senator wants to break up some certain major tech companies and these companies disagree. Under your take they would be within their rights to suspend or ban or de-rank such candidates given they already have their websites as platforms to comms and moreover that's a non event.
- wavefunction 7y ago
  I don't agree with doxxing or getting people fired. I am fine with facebook/twitter/etc. de-ranking/suspending/hiding/whatever a candidate who has called for their breakup, even though I support their breakup.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    I agree with it all. Here's the thing, you either support freedom of speech and expression, or you don't. Now if you do, then you have to support the nazi's right to speak and express, the abortion doctor's right to speak and express, the senator's right to speak and express, and the beggar's right to speak and express. Everyone's right must be supported. If someone wants to express themselves to my boss via boycott in an effort to get me fired, so be it. That's their right. Just as it's the nazi's right to express himself on the internet to better inform people about the tenets of his ideology. The government must have no ability to constrict either activity. It may not seem like it, but it's actually a good thing that the government can't stop any of these people from doing any of these things. If you want to get the government to disallow any boycotts of companies, then you are not really in favor of freedom of speech and expression.
    - nl 7y ago
      Here's the thing, you either support freedom of speech and expression, or you don't. There are plenty of gradients to freedom of expression - child porn is an obvious one, and German law against Nazi speech is another, and there are things in-between like advertisements for opioids or tobacco. All you've done is restate the absolutist position, without addressing the challenges of that position which include: criminal speech, commercial speech, and the fact the restrictions on some speech have been successfully implemented without all the negative side effects that absolutists claim are inevitable.
elfexec 7y ago
> I don't feel this is an issue until you can't spin up your own website/app/platform and allow whatever speech you want. I mostly agree with you on "website/app". As for the platform, it really depends on the nature and size of the platform. If it becomes an essential platform or if it is a monopoly, then you could argue it has utility features and hence everyone has a right to it. For example, you wouldn't say a power or water company doesn't have to serve you because you can go start your own power or water company. You could argue that twitter is an essential platform since its the primary form of communication for the president. It is a platform for you to communicated with your elected official. Hence twitter as a platform is a "utility" and cannot block US citizens from accessing it and exercising their 1st amendment rights. This actually could be an interesting Supreme Court case if anyone who has been banned wants to ligitate. It could actually be precedent-setting. You could argue that facebook, youtube, etc are monopolies that nearly serve the purpose of a utility and hence you have a right to it. Also, you could argue that these american companies have a duty to follow the "spirit of free speech" in our country even if they aren't legally bound to it. There are arguments to be made on both sides. Unfortunately, it isn't being taken through the legal system.
- wavefunction 7y ago
  I think if a platform like twitter or facebook have become a "utility" or indispensable to society then they should be heavily regulated and fall under society's control. I replied elsewhere that I am not sure I agree that these platforms have achieved indispensability but leaving that aside if they are integral to society then society should control them. >you could argue that these american companies have a duty to follow the "spirit of free speech" in our country even if they aren't legally bound to it I could not personally argue this in any shape way or form because I don't even know what to base this claim on. Free speech has been restricted historically (often during war-time but also for various populations of people.) It has been restricted for pragmatic reasons (like perjury).
deogeo 7y ago
Because speech is meaningless without an audience, and people on mainstream platforms don't all know about or agree with those platform's moderation/censorship policies. Sure people shouldn't be "forced to listen to everyone's message", but what if it's a message someone does want to listen to, but the platform doesn't want to transmit? And since they don't even know the message exists, they won't be seeking it out on alternative platforms.
- nl 7y ago
  what if it's a message someone does want to listen to, but the platform doesn't want to transmit? And since they don't even know the message exists, they won't be seeking it out on alternative platforms. Are you talking about Fox News not broadcasting the benefits of public health options or CNN not broadcasting something beneficial about guns here? Yes it's a problem. It's unclear it it limited to digital platforms.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    It's not a problem though. Private platforms, whether digital or not, do not have to carry your message. That's also a part of free expression. Fox is free to ignore whomever they choose. Everyone gets rights, not just the platform, not just the user. The user can speak whatever he wants, and so can the platform. There are good reasons for this, it allows for propaganda portals like fox news, but it also allows for real, well researched journalism like propublica.
    - nl 7y ago
      >>> ... since they don't even know the message exists, they won't be seeking it out on alternative platforms. >> .. Yes it's a problem. It's unclear it it limited to digital platforms. > It's not a problem though... You didn't seem to address the OP's issue ("they don't even know the message exists, they won't be seeking it out on alternative platforms") here at all?
      - bilbo0s 7y ago
mistermann 7y ago
Your evaluation seems to disregard the relative network sizes and in turn exposure one has on a mainstream platform vs a tiny user created one. This difference seems so obvious to me, I suspect you may only have a limited subset of "issues" in mind, such as the 1st amendment.
- wavefunction 7y ago
  I don't believe that anyone is guaranteed an audience for their free expression. I don't believe I'm disregarding anything?
  - mistermann 7y ago
    The guarantee is not the point. If anything is altered by censorship, like ability to get one's message in front of people, it is an issue. Whether your personal ideology considers that problematic has no bearing on the fact that change has occurred.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      The point is, you don't have a right to get your message in front of people. You only have a right to speak your message. You can speak your message in the middle of the street, but the government is under no obligation to force people to stop on the street and listen to your message. Because other people have the right to ignore you. That right to ignore and not associate with you is also part of free speech and free expression. There really are no further guarantees to free speech and expression other than being able to speak and express.
      - mistermann 7y ago
        As I said earlier: > This difference seems so obvious to me, I suspect you may only have a limited subset of "issues" in mind, such as the 1st amendment. Free speech seems like an unlikely candidate for culture war status (and the ensuing cognitive behaviors), but it seems unmistakable.
ryukafalz 7y ago
>I don't feel this is an issue until you can't spin up your own website/app/platform and allow whatever speech you want. We're already kinda at this point. I don't condone them, obviously, but sites like the Daily Stormer and 8chan have been kicked off several registrars, and at one point one of their hosting providers got kicked off their upstream provider for hosting them. I'm generally fine with social media companies policing their sites, but I get nervous when we start talking about similar things in core internet infrastructure. I think we're setting a dangerous precedent for the future if we do that.

systematical 7y ago

Some of these tech companies are so large and pervasive that they are integral parts of society. The policies they enact with that power can have a chilling effect. Now, whether we should or shouldn't do something about that is another matter. The Government has certainly shown a willingness to regulate industries that got to big for their britches before.

wavefunction 7y ago
>integral parts of society I am not sure I agree with these companies being an integral part of society. I feel pretty confident they could be replaced by alternatives operated by other people and most if not all users would not notice the difference. But I've seen that happen with the early WWW with Altavista, Yahoo, etc. And if they are an integral part of society then I think they should be heavily regulated for things like foreign and domestic propaganda and the promotion of dangerous falsehoods. It's either self-regulation (within legal reason) and whatever they decide is appropriate for their platforms, or they should be heavily regulated with guaranteed free expression as allowed by law.
- systematical 7y ago
  Facebook, Twitter, and Google. I think they are integral. Sure, you could replace them with different names, but the result is the same.
  - UnpossibleJim 7y ago
    I think if we haven't had any serious conversation about making internet service a public utility, then it seems a bit of a farce to consider talking about companies like these as integral to our modern society. How proper internet service is still held hostage by the likes of Comcast and Verizon is beyond me, with little discussion given while everyone talks about the leverage of these three companies.
    - systematical 7y ago
      Do you consider the press part of society?
      - Nasrudith 7y ago
        That is a very different question - both dropping integral a very vast and the entire press vs particularly large publishers. The answer is yes but irrelevant as so are embezzlers, serial killers or would a hypothetical few who literally want to actively to destroy every trace of it. The question is vague enough that literal cancer could get both yes and no as answers logically (cases caused by society part of it vs existing independently in species without anything to remotely qualify as a society).

mc32 7y ago

That's only part of the equation though. People who disagree with PoVs not only want to get people suspended or banned from ubiquitous comms platforms but they also want to doxx them and publicly shame them. I'm not talking about immediate threats of violence or disgusting vile language. But more generic points of view on various contentious topics. But let's take your objection at face value. Let's say a certain Senator has declared the senator wants to break up some certain major tech companies and these companies disagree. Under your take they would be within their rights to suspend or ban or de-rank such candidates given they already have their websites as platforms to comms and moreover that's a non event.

wavefunction 7y ago
I don't agree with doxxing or getting people fired. I am fine with facebook/twitter/etc. de-ranking/suspending/hiding/whatever a candidate who has called for their breakup, even though I support their breakup.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  I agree with it all. Here's the thing, you either support freedom of speech and expression, or you don't. Now if you do, then you have to support the nazi's right to speak and express, the abortion doctor's right to speak and express, the senator's right to speak and express, and the beggar's right to speak and express. Everyone's right must be supported. If someone wants to express themselves to my boss via boycott in an effort to get me fired, so be it. That's their right. Just as it's the nazi's right to express himself on the internet to better inform people about the tenets of his ideology. The government must have no ability to constrict either activity. It may not seem like it, but it's actually a good thing that the government can't stop any of these people from doing any of these things. If you want to get the government to disallow any boycotts of companies, then you are not really in favor of freedom of speech and expression.
  - nl 7y ago
    Here's the thing, you either support freedom of speech and expression, or you don't. There are plenty of gradients to freedom of expression - child porn is an obvious one, and German law against Nazi speech is another, and there are things in-between like advertisements for opioids or tobacco. All you've done is restate the absolutist position, without addressing the challenges of that position which include: criminal speech, commercial speech, and the fact the restrictions on some speech have been successfully implemented without all the negative side effects that absolutists claim are inevitable.

elfexec 7y ago

> I don't feel this is an issue until you can't spin up your own website/app/platform and allow whatever speech you want. I mostly agree with you on "website/app". As for the platform, it really depends on the nature and size of the platform. If it becomes an essential platform or if it is a monopoly, then you could argue it has utility features and hence everyone has a right to it. For example, you wouldn't say a power or water company doesn't have to serve you because you can go start your own power or water company. You could argue that twitter is an essential platform since its the primary form of communication for the president. It is a platform for you to communicated with your elected official. Hence twitter as a platform is a "utility" and cannot block US citizens from accessing it and exercising their 1st amendment rights. This actually could be an interesting Supreme Court case if anyone who has been banned wants to ligitate. It could actually be precedent-setting. You could argue that facebook, youtube, etc are monopolies that nearly serve the purpose of a utility and hence you have a right to it. Also, you could argue that these american companies have a duty to follow the "spirit of free speech" in our country even if they aren't legally bound to it. There are arguments to be made on both sides. Unfortunately, it isn't being taken through the legal system.

wavefunction 7y ago
I think if a platform like twitter or facebook have become a "utility" or indispensable to society then they should be heavily regulated and fall under society's control. I replied elsewhere that I am not sure I agree that these platforms have achieved indispensability but leaving that aside if they are integral to society then society should control them. >you could argue that these american companies have a duty to follow the "spirit of free speech" in our country even if they aren't legally bound to it I could not personally argue this in any shape way or form because I don't even know what to base this claim on. Free speech has been restricted historically (often during war-time but also for various populations of people.) It has been restricted for pragmatic reasons (like perjury).

deogeo 7y ago

Because speech is meaningless without an audience, and people on mainstream platforms don't all know about or agree with those platform's moderation/censorship policies. Sure people shouldn't be "forced to listen to everyone's message", but what if it's a message someone does want to listen to, but the platform doesn't want to transmit? And since they don't even know the message exists, they won't be seeking it out on alternative platforms.

nl 7y ago
what if it's a message someone does want to listen to, but the platform doesn't want to transmit? And since they don't even know the message exists, they won't be seeking it out on alternative platforms. Are you talking about Fox News not broadcasting the benefits of public health options or CNN not broadcasting something beneficial about guns here? Yes it's a problem. It's unclear it it limited to digital platforms.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  It's not a problem though. Private platforms, whether digital or not, do not have to carry your message. That's also a part of free expression. Fox is free to ignore whomever they choose. Everyone gets rights, not just the platform, not just the user. The user can speak whatever he wants, and so can the platform. There are good reasons for this, it allows for propaganda portals like fox news, but it also allows for real, well researched journalism like propublica.
  - nl 7y ago
    >>> ... since they don't even know the message exists, they won't be seeking it out on alternative platforms. >> .. Yes it's a problem. It's unclear it it limited to digital platforms. > It's not a problem though... You didn't seem to address the OP's issue ("they don't even know the message exists, they won't be seeking it out on alternative platforms") here at all?
    - bilbo0s 7y ago

mistermann 7y ago

Your evaluation seems to disregard the relative network sizes and in turn exposure one has on a mainstream platform vs a tiny user created one. This difference seems so obvious to me, I suspect you may only have a limited subset of "issues" in mind, such as the 1st amendment.

wavefunction 7y ago
I don't believe that anyone is guaranteed an audience for their free expression. I don't believe I'm disregarding anything?
- mistermann 7y ago
  The guarantee is not the point. If anything is altered by censorship, like ability to get one's message in front of people, it is an issue. Whether your personal ideology considers that problematic has no bearing on the fact that change has occurred.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    The point is, you don't have a right to get your message in front of people. You only have a right to speak your message. You can speak your message in the middle of the street, but the government is under no obligation to force people to stop on the street and listen to your message. Because other people have the right to ignore you. That right to ignore and not associate with you is also part of free speech and free expression. There really are no further guarantees to free speech and expression other than being able to speak and express.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      As I said earlier: > This difference seems so obvious to me, I suspect you may only have a limited subset of "issues" in mind, such as the 1st amendment. Free speech seems like an unlikely candidate for culture war status (and the ensuing cognitive behaviors), but it seems unmistakable.

ryukafalz 7y ago

>I don't feel this is an issue until you can't spin up your own website/app/platform and allow whatever speech you want. We're already kinda at this point. I don't condone them, obviously, but sites like the Daily Stormer and 8chan have been kicked off several registrars, and at one point one of their hosting providers got kicked off their upstream provider for hosting them. I'm generally fine with social media companies policing their sites, but I get nervous when we start talking about similar things in core internet infrastructure. I think we're setting a dangerous precedent for the future if we do that.