4 ms·

Ignoring the mechanical-legal aspects of what Section 230 already does, the discourse on this has been a shining example of logically inconsistent philosophy.

Ignoring the mechanical-legal aspects of what Section 230 already does, the discourse on this has been a shining example of logically inconsistent philosophy. The Citizens United v. FEC decision indicates that corporations have free speech rights similar to those of individuals. Logically, if you agree with that part of the decision, then you should also agree that the government can't punish Twitter for doing this, and vice versa. Yet very few people seem to hold either of those combinations of views. There are a few principled civil libertarians who are fine with both super-PACs and what Twitter did here. There are a few principled fair campaign advocates who think it's theoretically permissible, if inadvisable, for the government to stop what Twitter did here. Most people seem to take one of the inconsistent positions.

nullc 6y ago
This tension comes from the fact that there don't exist any "traditional public forum" online. All venues online are private spaces, yet some act as extremely convincing replicas of public spaces. While I don't agree with this weird S230 opposition, the general sentiment that people expect to have a similar protection for free speech that they enjoy in our public squares, street corners, libraries and parks in the online alternatives to these things... isn't really a crazy one. It's also a tenshion that exists in offline form. Increasingly there are gigantic public "downtown" areas which are privately owned (on land taken from the public through eminent domain then sold to developers), where people's free speech is heavily curtailed. The general idea that just because the physical manifestation (or legal structure) behind our traditional public spaces is changing our effective right to free speech shouldn't change seems like a reasonable idea to me. Also the general idea that twitter itself should automatically be free from regulation in how it restricts others due to its own free speech seems extremely specious to me. Twitter is a business, it operates to make money. While businesses have free speech right, commercial operations have a strictly lower level of rights in many areas. Twitter has only refrained from banning the president, who regularly and flagrantly violates their rules, because he makes them money. If twitter consisted primarily of its owners speech no one would visit it. It is effectively a place of public accommodation and its value stems entirely from the public's use of it. We traditionally impose significant regulation on how private businesses that serve the public operate, including extensive rules ensuring equality of access and against discrimination. This executive order seems pretty foolish overall. But a law that set a threshold where a service like twitter become a "public forum"-- places where the public use is the whole point-- and they had to meet a much higher standard when they wanted to silence people or ideas (beyond "our AI picked you at random, tough luck") and had provide effective modes of redress might be important to preserving people's effective freedom of speech in the long run.
oldsklgdfth 6y ago
> The Citizens United v. FEC decision indicates that corporations have free speech rights similar to those of individuals Individuals have the freedom of speech, but the can also be sued for liable for the things they say. Twitter can't be sued, because they are "re-transmitting" information. That's why Elon was sued for his "pedo guy" tweet and not twitter. Am I missing something here? It seems like it makes corporations more like people in that if they curate content [in some vaguely biased way] then they can be held liable for that act. Because by doing that they are exercising their freedom of speech. I think an interesting question is what will become the threshold for acceptable curation. Is it just illegal content, ex. CP. It seems like this has the potential for more legislation defining speech.

nullc 6y ago

This tension comes from the fact that there don't exist any "traditional public forum" online. All venues online are private spaces, yet some act as extremely convincing replicas of public spaces. While I don't agree with this weird S230 opposition, the general sentiment that people expect to have a similar protection for free speech that they enjoy in our public squares, street corners, libraries and parks in the online alternatives to these things... isn't really a crazy one. It's also a tenshion that exists in offline form. Increasingly there are gigantic public "downtown" areas which are privately owned (on land taken from the public through eminent domain then sold to developers), where people's free speech is heavily curtailed. The general idea that just because the physical manifestation (or legal structure) behind our traditional public spaces is changing our effective right to free speech shouldn't change seems like a reasonable idea to me. Also the general idea that twitter itself should automatically be free from regulation in how it restricts others due to its own free speech seems extremely specious to me. Twitter is a business, it operates to make money. While businesses have free speech right, commercial operations have a strictly lower level of rights in many areas. Twitter has only refrained from banning the president, who regularly and flagrantly violates their rules, because he makes them money. If twitter consisted primarily of its owners speech no one would visit it. It is effectively a place of public accommodation and its value stems entirely from the public's use of it. We traditionally impose significant regulation on how private businesses that serve the public operate, including extensive rules ensuring equality of access and against discrimination. This executive order seems pretty foolish overall. But a law that set a threshold where a service like twitter become a "public forum"-- places where the public use is the whole point-- and they had to meet a much higher standard when they wanted to silence people or ideas (beyond "our AI picked you at random, tough luck") and had provide effective modes of redress might be important to preserving people's effective freedom of speech in the long run.

oldsklgdfth 6y ago

> The Citizens United v. FEC decision indicates that corporations have free speech rights similar to those of individuals Individuals have the freedom of speech, but the can also be sued for liable for the things they say. Twitter can't be sued, because they are "re-transmitting" information. That's why Elon was sued for his "pedo guy" tweet and not twitter. Am I missing something here? It seems like it makes corporations more like people in that if they curate content [in some vaguely biased way] then they can be held liable for that act. Because by doing that they are exercising their freedom of speech. I think an interesting question is what will become the threshold for acceptable curation. Is it just illegal content, ex. CP. It seems like this has the potential for more legislation defining speech.