5 ms·

You either believe social networks are like malls or like public parks. In a mall, you can't say whatever you want, you get kicked out because it's private prop

by mempko 6y ago

You either believe social networks are like malls or like public parks. In a mall, you can't say whatever you want, you get kicked out because it's private property. In a park, you won't get kicked out. If you believe social networks are like public parks, then they should be owned like public parks no?

gremlinsinc 6y ago
you run around naked in a public park you'll still get kicked out or thrown in jail.
- maallooc 6y ago
  Your speech, whatever it is, is protected in public places.
- cabalamat 6y ago
  And if you say things that the law says you can't say on social media, you should be stopped. Note I said "the law", which is created by the democratic process (in theory anyway. Stop laughing at the back.) This is as opposed to the whims of a private company. As for what things the law should forbid you from saying, that's another matter, and orthogonal to this one.
maallooc 6y ago
Nope. You're wrong. Social networks should not be treated like private property because it serves as an agora. Being restricted by social networks only because you have a difference of opinion is effectively restriction of free speech. The government should treat them like public uni, and defend peoples' rights to speak in the platform from far left to far right. The church tried Galilei for spreading fake news and misinformation in 1600s. We now know how dangerous shutting people up by force is.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > The government should treat them like public uni You want the government funding Twitter's operations? Incidentally, you can definitely get banned from public university campuses for misbehaving.
  - maallooc 6y ago
    The government should create a law to treat them as public places because our rights can be infringed. That doesn't mean Twitter should be funded publically. Misbehaving != alternative opinion.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      Shall we nationalize my employer, too, because I can't yell "fuck you" at my boss? Public universities have additional restrictions because they are organs of the state. Twitter is very definitively not in that category.
      - maallooc 6y ago
        You can talk to your boss and face consequences, but we're talking about the case of not being able to talk at all. I think you should learn how to follow a conversation. If a utility company is privately owned and it's denying service because you have 'different opinion about utility prices' thus threatening your life will you stand it?
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        > You can talk to your boss and face consequences, but we're talking about the case of not being able to talk at all. No, we're not. Trump's tweets are still there. He retains the ability to post. All Twitter did was exercise their own free speech by adding a note below it.
        maallooc 6y ago
        Yeah, how about your speech being marked retarded every time? The court has this power and it can declare a person incompetent. But does twitter have this kind of authority? Also I was not talking about the link being left, I was talking about your account terminated.
- rpiguy 6y ago
  Agree. People who pride themselves on being able to see fine distinctions and shades of gray, seem unable to comprehend that a virtual space, run by a private company, which is itself running on partially publicly funded infrastructure is an entirely new thing. The intent of the 1st Amendment applies most strongly to political and religious views. Liberals love it when the 1st Amendment is used to defend communism, terrorists, or profane art. If Communists and Antifa were being squashed by Twitter, they'd be playing victim.
  - mempko 6y ago
    > private company, which is itself running on partially publicly funded infrastructure is an entirely new thing. This is entirely and old thing. Every private company runs on publicly funded infrastructure. Roads, sewers, etc...
  - uberman 6y ago
    First amendment claims with respect to those things you state are loved by liberals are almost certainly to stop government censorship. That is after all what the First Amendment is about. There is no applicability of the First Amendment with respect to what a private company may censor. This is why Trump may talk about "freedom" but his executive order will not be grounded on any First Amendment claim. Rather, Trump will essentially force the interpretation that CDA 230 should only apply to "politically neutral" actors. The result will be that social media companies will not be able to "censor" content that might be political. Again, not because of the Bill of Rights but because the liability shield provided by CDA 230. The practical result will be that all content that is not clearly illegal (and potentially content that is) will be fair game and unable to be censored as any censorship will risk a claim against political neutrality and jeopardize CDA 230 protection.
12xo 6y ago
And furthering this: Until access is 100% free for every person. Until every person has the tools and the devices necessary to access available to them, for free. The internet and specifically the walled gardens are NOT the public square. It is a country club, not a park. Every aspect of the web today requires money and contractual obligations with PRIVATE companies. Want to make it public? Make access universal and free. Until then its a country club, not a public park.
mindslight 6y ago
Actually, malls are public venues and the legal right to free speech can extend to them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R... For this topic though, nobody has been kicked out, silenced, or censored. Twitter has added a competing message.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  That's not really what that decision says. It's much narrower than that. It does not extend First Amendment protection to malls. It simply permits states to go beyond the First Amendment's protections in their enforcement of state laws.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    My comment said nothing about the "First Amendment". Legal rights to free speech are larger than the first amendment to the US Constitution, and the general ideal of free speech is even larger than that. edit-reply: You're arguing with me, but neither of your replies contains anything concrete that disagrees with what I said.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > Legal rights to free speech are larger than the first amendment to the US Constitution Yes, that's what "go beyond the First Amendment" means. You have free speech rights in malls in some states, because of state laws expanding the right past what the Constitution guarantees.

by mempko 6y ago

gremlinsinc 6y ago

you run around naked in a public park you'll still get kicked out or thrown in jail.

maallooc 6y ago
Your speech, whatever it is, is protected in public places.
cabalamat 6y ago
And if you say things that the law says you can't say on social media, you should be stopped. Note I said "the law", which is created by the democratic process (in theory anyway. Stop laughing at the back.) This is as opposed to the whims of a private company. As for what things the law should forbid you from saying, that's another matter, and orthogonal to this one.

maallooc 6y ago

Nope. You're wrong. Social networks should not be treated like private property because it serves as an agora. Being restricted by social networks only because you have a difference of opinion is effectively restriction of free speech. The government should treat them like public uni, and defend peoples' rights to speak in the platform from far left to far right. The church tried Galilei for spreading fake news and misinformation in 1600s. We now know how dangerous shutting people up by force is.

ceejayoz 6y ago
> The government should treat them like public uni You want the government funding Twitter's operations? Incidentally, you can definitely get banned from public university campuses for misbehaving.
- maallooc 6y ago
  The government should create a law to treat them as public places because our rights can be infringed. That doesn't mean Twitter should be funded publically. Misbehaving != alternative opinion.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    Shall we nationalize my employer, too, because I can't yell "fuck you" at my boss? Public universities have additional restrictions because they are organs of the state. Twitter is very definitively not in that category.
    - maallooc 6y ago
      You can talk to your boss and face consequences, but we're talking about the case of not being able to talk at all. I think you should learn how to follow a conversation. If a utility company is privately owned and it's denying service because you have 'different opinion about utility prices' thus threatening your life will you stand it?
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        > You can talk to your boss and face consequences, but we're talking about the case of not being able to talk at all. No, we're not. Trump's tweets are still there. He retains the ability to post. All Twitter did was exercise their own free speech by adding a note below it.
        maallooc 6y ago
        Yeah, how about your speech being marked retarded every time? The court has this power and it can declare a person incompetent. But does twitter have this kind of authority? Also I was not talking about the link being left, I was talking about your account terminated.
rpiguy 6y ago
Agree. People who pride themselves on being able to see fine distinctions and shades of gray, seem unable to comprehend that a virtual space, run by a private company, which is itself running on partially publicly funded infrastructure is an entirely new thing. The intent of the 1st Amendment applies most strongly to political and religious views. Liberals love it when the 1st Amendment is used to defend communism, terrorists, or profane art. If Communists and Antifa were being squashed by Twitter, they'd be playing victim.
- mempko 6y ago
  > private company, which is itself running on partially publicly funded infrastructure is an entirely new thing. This is entirely and old thing. Every private company runs on publicly funded infrastructure. Roads, sewers, etc...
- uberman 6y ago
  First amendment claims with respect to those things you state are loved by liberals are almost certainly to stop government censorship. That is after all what the First Amendment is about. There is no applicability of the First Amendment with respect to what a private company may censor. This is why Trump may talk about "freedom" but his executive order will not be grounded on any First Amendment claim. Rather, Trump will essentially force the interpretation that CDA 230 should only apply to "politically neutral" actors. The result will be that social media companies will not be able to "censor" content that might be political. Again, not because of the Bill of Rights but because the liability shield provided by CDA 230. The practical result will be that all content that is not clearly illegal (and potentially content that is) will be fair game and unable to be censored as any censorship will risk a claim against political neutrality and jeopardize CDA 230 protection.

12xo 6y ago

And furthering this: Until access is 100% free for every person. Until every person has the tools and the devices necessary to access available to them, for free. The internet and specifically the walled gardens are NOT the public square. It is a country club, not a park. Every aspect of the web today requires money and contractual obligations with PRIVATE companies. Want to make it public? Make access universal and free. Until then its a country club, not a public park.

mindslight 6y ago

Actually, malls are public venues and the legal right to free speech can extend to them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R... For this topic though, nobody has been kicked out, silenced, or censored. Twitter has added a competing message.

ceejayoz 6y ago
That's not really what that decision says. It's much narrower than that. It does not extend First Amendment protection to malls. It simply permits states to go beyond the First Amendment's protections in their enforcement of state laws.
- mindslight 6y ago
  My comment said nothing about the "First Amendment". Legal rights to free speech are larger than the first amendment to the US Constitution, and the general ideal of free speech is even larger than that. edit-reply: You're arguing with me, but neither of your replies contains anything concrete that disagrees with what I said.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > Legal rights to free speech are larger than the first amendment to the US Constitution Yes, that's what "go beyond the First Amendment" means. You have free speech rights in malls in some states, because of state laws expanding the right past what the Constitution guarantees.