7 ms·

Alex Jones is a much less serious threat then 2 or 3 large companies deciding what can discourse can be promulgated. (not a Jones supporter. nor can I imagine

Alex Jones is a much less serious threat then 2 or 3 large companies deciding what can discourse can be promulgated. (not a Jones supporter. nor can I imagine how anyone would be)

omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
I think the bigger threat is us enabling 2 to 3 large companies to the degree where their decisions can affect discourse. Alex Jones is a thoughtless jerk though, and can still find/provide his own hosting/distribution.
- herostratus101 6y ago
  You presumably also would be in favor of domain brokers restricting speech (correct me if I'm wrong). Does every controversial political speaker also need to host his or her own ICANN domain? Or should they just promote their speech entirely offline?
  - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
    I'd like people to use a multitude of domains/providers/companies to minimize the ability of a small group of companies to influence discourse. Having said that, I understand that practically avoiding those companies is tough.
  - paulcole 6y ago
    There’s no shortage of companies who value money more than morals. Those affected can host their sites with one of them.
    - chillwaves 6y ago
      All these cries of "censorship" misunderstand that what is happening is fundamentally a business decision. When Alex Jones gets pulled from Youtube, it's because he is effecting their business relationships and ability to make money.
      - mythrwy 6y ago
        Couldn't you make the same argument about gay couples in a small town rural restaurant? But would it be morally right to ban those couples from a restaurant?
        chillwaves 6y ago
        No one is born a conspiracy theorist. Someone spouting asshole opinions is not the same as an immutable trait by birth. Alex Jones is not even being sincere in his quackery, this has been explored in court and he admitted to being a fraud.
        meheleventyone 6y ago
        Because we have decided that after decades of bigotry, violence and discrimination that the rights of gay people to their life supersede the rights of free association for public businesses.
        mythrwy 6y ago
        We have? Can you show me a national law in the US that says restaurants have to serve gays? See how the "it's a private business so they can discriminate!" works? Keep in mind, as you mention, the shoe has been on the other foot and it will be again. It's better to enshrine and uphold these principals at all times. Not be like a dirty cop planting evidence because "he knows the suspect did it" and try to get to "Right" by cheating. In the end that blows up and it was wrong all along anyway.
        meheleventyone 6y ago
        Why do you think I’m talking about the US? There’s a whole world out there.
        mythrwy 6y ago
        In that case "We" haven't decided anything at all what you suggest. But now you and I are in the weeds. I hope you see my point, that's all. Discrimination isn't good. Even if you don't agree with the other party.
    - Anon1096 6y ago
      Really? 8chan was unable to find any hosts for a very long time, and its future is still uncertain.
      - midasz 6y ago
        Lots of people in New Zealand and El Paso won't shed a tear for that fact.
paulgb 6y ago
My point is that they don't get to decide that, though. They decide whether they will pay for hosting, but they can't stop him from paying for his own hosting elsewhere. Likewise, if the WSJ decides not to publish my letter to the editor, they aren't violating my freedom of speech, they are just deciding not to amplify it.
- tomp 6y ago
  You’re trivialising the issue a bit. Remember when CloudFront stopped providing DDos protection to some white nationalist website (I forgot which one). “Just start your own multi-billion company bro!”
  - paulgb 6y ago
    It's also inaccessible to me to buy a printing press, but that doesn't make the WSJ compelled to print something I write.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    You sure you're not referring to CloudFlare and The Daily Stormer?
- busymom0 6y ago
  You are comparing apples to oranges. WSJ is a publisher. These tech companies are currently enjoying the benefits of being a "platform" while acting as publishers.
  - paulgb 6y ago
    > These tech companies are currently enjoying the benefits of being a "platform" while acting as publishers. If this is referring to Section 230, I think it's a misinterpration. Section 230 gives platforms the ability to moderate without being (legally) treated as a publisher, but it doesn't make them into a utility. If it's referring to a different law, I'm curious which one. In your view, if YouTube is not a publisher, should they be required to host pornography? Are the community features part of the platform, or is YouTube entitled to host content but make it undiscoverable?
lukifer 6y ago
Battles over freedom of expression have nearly always occurred at the boundary of the vile: see the obscenity battles over the rap group 2 Live Crew [0], or Chomsky's vociferous defense for the right of Europeans to express Holocaust denial [1], despite he himself finding those views to be inaccurate and repugnant. It's a simple formula: Take the most awful idea you can imagine, that any reasonable person would also find unworthy of the public square. Now walk it back it by 1%. Still worth banning? Okay, do it again. Rinse and repeat, until anything anyone finds even vaguely controversial or upsetting is verboten. I can trivially produce a compelling argument that any opinion on abortion or the military (for or against), is hateful, vile, and dangerous. In practice, we need specific exemptions for libel, slander, conspiracy to commit a crime, etc. (It's worth remembering that the infamous "fire in a crowded theater" line was used as a justification for suppressing pamphleteering against the draft [2].) We have such exemptions, and their details are certainly debatable. But they must be targted very narrowly, and the burden of proof must be high, lest moral panics or realpolitik throw out the baby with the bathwater, and outlaw thinking itself. [0] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1447/2-live-crew https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1447/2-live-crew [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
- leephillips 6y ago
  “despite he himself finding those views to be inaccurate and repugnant” If only that were true. Most people who look into this are dumbfounded at Chomsky’s support of Faurisson—not just his right to speak, but his insistence that we take this holocaust-denying nutjob’s “research” seriously.
  - ghthor 6y ago
    I find everything about the holocaust fishy, especially that it was used as justification to establish the country of Israel. The hand gesture used to generate the hebrew letter, ז, Zion is very similar to the nazi salute. The word, Zion, means to project and that's what's symbolized by the Nazi salute. If Hitler wasn't working for the Zionist agenda that has rather enjoyed the establishment of Isreal, then he must have been a patsy.

Alex Jones is a much less serious threat then 2 or 3 large companies deciding what can discourse can be promulgated. (not a Jones supporter. nor can I imagine how anyone would be)

omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago

I think the bigger threat is us enabling 2 to 3 large companies to the degree where their decisions can affect discourse. Alex Jones is a thoughtless jerk though, and can still find/provide his own hosting/distribution.

herostratus101 6y ago
You presumably also would be in favor of domain brokers restricting speech (correct me if I'm wrong). Does every controversial political speaker also need to host his or her own ICANN domain? Or should they just promote their speech entirely offline?
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
  I'd like people to use a multitude of domains/providers/companies to minimize the ability of a small group of companies to influence discourse. Having said that, I understand that practically avoiding those companies is tough.
- paulcole 6y ago
  There’s no shortage of companies who value money more than morals. Those affected can host their sites with one of them.
  - chillwaves 6y ago
    All these cries of "censorship" misunderstand that what is happening is fundamentally a business decision. When Alex Jones gets pulled from Youtube, it's because he is effecting their business relationships and ability to make money.
    - mythrwy 6y ago
      Couldn't you make the same argument about gay couples in a small town rural restaurant? But would it be morally right to ban those couples from a restaurant?
      - chillwaves 6y ago
        No one is born a conspiracy theorist. Someone spouting asshole opinions is not the same as an immutable trait by birth. Alex Jones is not even being sincere in his quackery, this has been explored in court and he admitted to being a fraud.
      - meheleventyone 6y ago
        Because we have decided that after decades of bigotry, violence and discrimination that the rights of gay people to their life supersede the rights of free association for public businesses.
        mythrwy 6y ago
        We have? Can you show me a national law in the US that says restaurants have to serve gays? See how the "it's a private business so they can discriminate!" works? Keep in mind, as you mention, the shoe has been on the other foot and it will be again. It's better to enshrine and uphold these principals at all times. Not be like a dirty cop planting evidence because "he knows the suspect did it" and try to get to "Right" by cheating. In the end that blows up and it was wrong all along anyway.
        meheleventyone 6y ago
        Why do you think I’m talking about the US? There’s a whole world out there.
        mythrwy 6y ago
        In that case "We" haven't decided anything at all what you suggest. But now you and I are in the weeds. I hope you see my point, that's all. Discrimination isn't good. Even if you don't agree with the other party.
  - Anon1096 6y ago
    Really? 8chan was unable to find any hosts for a very long time, and its future is still uncertain.
    - midasz 6y ago
      Lots of people in New Zealand and El Paso won't shed a tear for that fact.

paulgb 6y ago

My point is that they don't get to decide that, though. They decide whether they will pay for hosting, but they can't stop him from paying for his own hosting elsewhere. Likewise, if the WSJ decides not to publish my letter to the editor, they aren't violating my freedom of speech, they are just deciding not to amplify it.

tomp 6y ago
You’re trivialising the issue a bit. Remember when CloudFront stopped providing DDos protection to some white nationalist website (I forgot which one). “Just start your own multi-billion company bro!”
- paulgb 6y ago
  It's also inaccessible to me to buy a printing press, but that doesn't make the WSJ compelled to print something I write.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  You sure you're not referring to CloudFlare and The Daily Stormer?
busymom0 6y ago
You are comparing apples to oranges. WSJ is a publisher. These tech companies are currently enjoying the benefits of being a "platform" while acting as publishers.
- paulgb 6y ago
  > These tech companies are currently enjoying the benefits of being a "platform" while acting as publishers. If this is referring to Section 230, I think it's a misinterpration. Section 230 gives platforms the ability to moderate without being (legally) treated as a publisher, but it doesn't make them into a utility. If it's referring to a different law, I'm curious which one. In your view, if YouTube is not a publisher, should they be required to host pornography? Are the community features part of the platform, or is YouTube entitled to host content but make it undiscoverable?

lukifer 6y ago

Battles over freedom of expression have nearly always occurred at the boundary of the vile: see the obscenity battles over the rap group 2 Live Crew [0], or Chomsky's vociferous defense for the right of Europeans to express Holocaust denial [1], despite he himself finding those views to be inaccurate and repugnant. It's a simple formula: Take the most awful idea you can imagine, that any reasonable person would also find unworthy of the public square. Now walk it back it by 1%. Still worth banning? Okay, do it again. Rinse and repeat, until anything anyone finds even vaguely controversial or upsetting is verboten. I can trivially produce a compelling argument that any opinion on abortion or the military (for or against), is hateful, vile, and dangerous. In practice, we need specific exemptions for libel, slander, conspiracy to commit a crime, etc. (It's worth remembering that the infamous "fire in a crowded theater" line was used as a justification for suppressing pamphleteering against the draft [2].) We have such exemptions, and their details are certainly debatable. But they must be targted very narrowly, and the burden of proof must be high, lest moral panics or realpolitik throw out the baby with the bathwater, and outlaw thinking itself. [0] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1447/2-live-crew https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1447/2-live-crew [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

leephillips 6y ago
“despite he himself finding those views to be inaccurate and repugnant” If only that were true. Most people who look into this are dumbfounded at Chomsky’s support of Faurisson—not just his right to speak, but his insistence that we take this holocaust-denying nutjob’s “research” seriously.
- ghthor 6y ago
  I find everything about the holocaust fishy, especially that it was used as justification to establish the country of Israel. The hand gesture used to generate the hebrew letter, ז, Zion is very similar to the nazi salute. The word, Zion, means to project and that's what's symbolized by the Nazi salute. If Hitler wasn't working for the Zionist agenda that has rather enjoyed the establishment of Isreal, then he must have been a patsy.