4 ms·

A problem with that article is fundamental, but unfortunately not uncommon, misunderstanding of free speech. A website is a private property. You have no more

A problem with that article is fundamental, but unfortunately not uncommon, misunderstanding of free speech. A website is a private property. You have no more right to leave a comment on my website than I have to come to your house and bore you with a speech on politics. My free speech rights allow me to publish my thoughts on my blog or publish them in my newspaper. Free speech, however, is not about allowing me to publish my thoughts on your blog or giving me right to publish an op-ed in New York Times, anonymously. So saying: "But to force all comments into the realm of "single real identity" public exposure -- as Facebook now appears intent on doing -- is unacceptable, reprehensible, dangerous, and utterly at odds with basic free speech rights in the United States at least." ,as dire and dramatic as it sounds, is, frankly, utter bullshit. Today we have unprecedented ability to exercise our rights to free speech, anonymous or otherwise, so let's not fall for demagogy of people who want to pollute web with worthless comments while hiding behind principles of free speech (while completely misunderstanding those principles).

mattdeboard 16y ago
And exactly who is the arbiter of what is "web pollution," of what is "worthless?"
michaelchisari 16y ago
Normally, I would agree with you. However, there is an exception I make for hegemony. When a private entity becomes powerful enough, I think there are similar arguments to be made about as there would be for governments. Maybe "censorship" and "free speech" aren't accurate terms, but that doesn't negate the discussion itself.
- kreilly 16y ago
  This might be a valid point except that TechCrunch made a business decision to use FaceBook's comments in an apparent attempt to improve the user experience by limiting trolls. In no way is any government or monopolistic entity forcing them to do this.

mattdeboard 16y ago

And exactly who is the arbiter of what is "web pollution," of what is "worthless?"

michaelchisari 16y ago

Normally, I would agree with you. However, there is an exception I make for hegemony. When a private entity becomes powerful enough, I think there are similar arguments to be made about as there would be for governments. Maybe "censorship" and "free speech" aren't accurate terms, but that doesn't negate the discussion itself.

kreilly 16y ago
This might be a valid point except that TechCrunch made a business decision to use FaceBook's comments in an apparent attempt to improve the user experience by limiting trolls. In no way is any government or monopolistic entity forcing them to do this.