2 ms·

The degree of a corporation's control over the flow of information matters because the harm done to our society is different.

ashtonkem 6y ago
The problem I always have with this argument is that everyone is undervaluing the unintended consequences of holding companies like YT to the first amendment only. Most people like to image that what they’ll get is more free wheeling discussions on the topic, but in reality all you’ll get is porn. See, YT bans all kinds of stuff that the first amendment protects, including pornography, violence, and a lot of other nasty stuff that they don’t want on their platform for entirely clear reasons. Eliminate YT’s right to clear those off their site, and it’ll be filled with the lowest common denominator very quickly, as regular users flee from the torrent of unwanted offensive material. Of course, it’s easy to imagine that we can give YT the right to ban some “offensive” material, but who defines what “offensive” is? The Government? Giving the government the right to control what can and cannot be moderated on YT is kind of contrary to the entire point of this exercise. If you believe that YT controls too much of the information in our society, then anti-trust or anti-monopoly law is a much richer area for fostering free speech.
- jshevek 6y ago
  You seem to be rather fixated on the "first amendment" lens, while others have their own ideas of the value of the ethical principal of free speech as a means of preventing control over 'that which we are permitted to debate'.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    The first amendment is a legal principle with clear implications, limits, and enforcement mechanisms. This makes it much easier to discuss rather than the more nebulous “free speech” which allows everyone to just make up their own definition in-situ, leaving the conversation unmoored from any common definitions. Aside from that, removing the first amendment from my argument changes very little. You’d still be obliged to create a definition of what is and is not free speech and a mechanism for enforcement, which would be subject to the pitfalls listed above.
    - jshevek 6y ago
      >This makes it much easier to discuss Yes, that's part of my point. That's an incentive to shoehorn, over-simplify, and strawman the ideas and arguments of others.

ashtonkem 6y ago

The problem I always have with this argument is that everyone is undervaluing the unintended consequences of holding companies like YT to the first amendment only. Most people like to image that what they’ll get is more free wheeling discussions on the topic, but in reality all you’ll get is porn. See, YT bans all kinds of stuff that the first amendment protects, including pornography, violence, and a lot of other nasty stuff that they don’t want on their platform for entirely clear reasons. Eliminate YT’s right to clear those off their site, and it’ll be filled with the lowest common denominator very quickly, as regular users flee from the torrent of unwanted offensive material. Of course, it’s easy to imagine that we can give YT the right to ban some “offensive” material, but who defines what “offensive” is? The Government? Giving the government the right to control what can and cannot be moderated on YT is kind of contrary to the entire point of this exercise. If you believe that YT controls too much of the information in our society, then anti-trust or anti-monopoly law is a much richer area for fostering free speech.

jshevek 6y ago
You seem to be rather fixated on the "first amendment" lens, while others have their own ideas of the value of the ethical principal of free speech as a means of preventing control over 'that which we are permitted to debate'.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  The first amendment is a legal principle with clear implications, limits, and enforcement mechanisms. This makes it much easier to discuss rather than the more nebulous “free speech” which allows everyone to just make up their own definition in-situ, leaving the conversation unmoored from any common definitions. Aside from that, removing the first amendment from my argument changes very little. You’d still be obliged to create a definition of what is and is not free speech and a mechanism for enforcement, which would be subject to the pitfalls listed above.
  - jshevek 6y ago
    >This makes it much easier to discuss Yes, that's part of my point. That's an incentive to shoehorn, over-simplify, and strawman the ideas and arguments of others.