5 ms·

It's not like these companies particularly care about the First Amendment, seeing their actions when it comes to things protected by 1A but too icky for their p

It's not like these companies particularly care about the First Amendment, seeing their actions when it comes to things protected by 1A but too icky for their platforms. I expect a blog post(s) to come out of this containing the words "As $COMPANY, we believe the right to freedom of expressing yourself." Bonus points if they include the term "responsible speech".

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> not like these companies particularly care about the First Amendment Free speech versus the First Amendment. One can believe private platforms have the right to regulate their content while holding the government doesn’t.
- coldcode 6y ago
  People always forget that the Bill Of Rights is about the relationship between the Federal government and the people within the US. Applicability to the relationship between businesses and the people can be extended by Congress and the Courts but is not the reason the Bill Of Rights exists.
- Hermel 6y ago
  Of course, Reddit has the right to fight for free speech while at the same time suppressing it on its own platform, or at least tolerating the suppression of a free discourse in the most popular subreddit. But doing so makes it seem reddit cares first and foremost about its own freedom, and less about freedom of speech in general. It also means reddit is a poor choice if you want to run a forum that leans conservative.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > doing so makes it seem reddit cares first and foremost about its own freedom, and less about freedom of speech in general It’s a company. Of course that’s its motive. I’d argue this is true for most people, too. Which is fine. It is incumbent upon those users whose free speech Reddit impinges upon to rectify the situation, but bringing other users to support their cause or setting up a competitor. Either way, this is all orthogonal to the First Amendment concern of this case.
  - Scarnface 6y ago
    Reddit is global so its censorship makes it a poor choice for any group that doesn't support the narrative.
- trashburger 6y ago
  >One can believe private platforms have the right to regulate their content while holding the government doesn’t. This article makes it look like they are in support of the former (free speech) when in fact they are in support of their own butts.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > article makes it look like they are in support of the former (free speech) Fighting for the First Amendment does promote feee speech. Without the First Amendment, free speech is dead. With it, it has a chance (but is not guaranteed).
    - Karunamon 6y ago
      I would argue that free speech as a concept is just as dead in a world where most communication platforms are owned by large companies who enforce their politics on their users.
  - claudiawerner 6y ago
    The same principle that allows individuals to say what they want also allows companies like Reddit to disallow certain speech on their platform. It's not as though they're fighting for it to virtue signal. Besides that, you want to keep the flow of speech open, even if you bottleneck it yourself, because it gives you more range on what to allow and what to block.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bregma 6y ago
  A publisher has the right to regulate the content they publish. A common carrier must strictly avoid regulating the content of their carriage. There are different regulations in place for different businesses. A common carrier must scrupulously avoid even the appearance of modifying or restricting the information they carry. The grey areas lurk in what publishers condone and promote: what constitutes hate speech or child pornography and is subject to reasonable restrictions on speech in a free and democratic society at one end of the spectrum, and what constitutes political campaigning and is subject to campaign finance and political contribution laws at another.
  - AgentME 6y ago
    Does "common carrier" describe any social media website? All social media sites, besides choosing what content to allow, make many decisions about what to promote. (These decisions are usually made algorithmically, but not exclusively, and the choice of what algorithms to use and how to tune them is still very opinionated.) The common carrier rules seem intended for companies like phone providers and ISPs that don't make any decisions about what people should use on the platform. In comparison, social media sites seem like more open versions of newspapers and TV stations.
    - bregma 6y ago
      I think it's clear that organizations that publish content to the web are publishers. They just don't want to be saddled with the responsibility of more traditional publishers and all that that entails. They're "disruptors" for gosh sake, not media presenting content to consumers as a means to generate revenue.
- syshum 6y ago
  A Publisher of content has the right to regulate their content for sure a Platform that want special legal status from liability that other people do not get well that liability shield should and does come with strings attached and one of those strings should be neutrality One Suggestion that I have seen talked about is to modify Sec 230 to says that a platform will only get immunity from liability if follow the the First Amendment of the US Constitution as if they were a US Government Agency, Thus only illegal content would be prohibited
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Lammy 6y ago
  I only ever seem to see this argument as a justification for censorship that has already occurred, as in I was “just doing my job” and following the rules on what we’re allowed to think. Where do I cast my vote that I think this kind of moderation is inhumane toward all participants and that I would prefer to participate in communities where we discuss things instead of supporting the chilling effect of Zero Thought Tolerance?
  - AgentME 6y ago
    If this is what you believe, why do you participate in the heavily-moderated HN instead of barely-moderated alternatives like 4chan or 8chan? If it's because you think there's a better standard of conversation here, then I'd argue that's not unrelated to the moderation that happens.
    - Lammy 6y ago
      I didn't realize I had to choose between communities. How do you know I don't already participate in those too? e: At least when I disagree with somebody on an imageboard they don't go through my user profile and downvote every comment I've made in the past day like somebody just did to me here =p
      - AgentME 6y ago
        I guess it would weaken my point if you were posting on this subject on both HN and 4chan now. My point was intended as a rhetorical one to highlight that people generally post to HN because they're looking for a certain kind of audience or quality of discussion that you won't find anywhere near as consistently on less moderated places like 4chan.
        Lammy 6y ago
        Yep, I do participate in HN because I find value in its unique audience and discussion quality, and I do think the moderation is necessary to maintain those unique qualities. I also appreciate the enrichment and access to totally-new ideas that I get from existing in other worlds with differing norms like 4chan/9chan. HN is a well-maintained and enjoyable bubble, but still a bubble. They supplement each other more than they compete, and I feel more able to tolerate the moderated world thanks to the less-moderated ones.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deegles 6y ago
Responsible as in "speech we are not responsible for," right?

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> not like these companies particularly care about the First Amendment Free speech versus the First Amendment. One can believe private platforms have the right to regulate their content while holding the government doesn’t.

coldcode 6y ago
People always forget that the Bill Of Rights is about the relationship between the Federal government and the people within the US. Applicability to the relationship between businesses and the people can be extended by Congress and the Courts but is not the reason the Bill Of Rights exists.
Hermel 6y ago
Of course, Reddit has the right to fight for free speech while at the same time suppressing it on its own platform, or at least tolerating the suppression of a free discourse in the most popular subreddit. But doing so makes it seem reddit cares first and foremost about its own freedom, and less about freedom of speech in general. It also means reddit is a poor choice if you want to run a forum that leans conservative.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > doing so makes it seem reddit cares first and foremost about its own freedom, and less about freedom of speech in general It’s a company. Of course that’s its motive. I’d argue this is true for most people, too. Which is fine. It is incumbent upon those users whose free speech Reddit impinges upon to rectify the situation, but bringing other users to support their cause or setting up a competitor. Either way, this is all orthogonal to the First Amendment concern of this case.
- Scarnface 6y ago
  Reddit is global so its censorship makes it a poor choice for any group that doesn't support the narrative.
trashburger 6y ago
>One can believe private platforms have the right to regulate their content while holding the government doesn’t. This article makes it look like they are in support of the former (free speech) when in fact they are in support of their own butts.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > article makes it look like they are in support of the former (free speech) Fighting for the First Amendment does promote feee speech. Without the First Amendment, free speech is dead. With it, it has a chance (but is not guaranteed).
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    I would argue that free speech as a concept is just as dead in a world where most communication platforms are owned by large companies who enforce their politics on their users.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  The same principle that allows individuals to say what they want also allows companies like Reddit to disallow certain speech on their platform. It's not as though they're fighting for it to virtue signal. Besides that, you want to keep the flow of speech open, even if you bottleneck it yourself, because it gives you more range on what to allow and what to block.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bregma 6y ago
A publisher has the right to regulate the content they publish. A common carrier must strictly avoid regulating the content of their carriage. There are different regulations in place for different businesses. A common carrier must scrupulously avoid even the appearance of modifying or restricting the information they carry. The grey areas lurk in what publishers condone and promote: what constitutes hate speech or child pornography and is subject to reasonable restrictions on speech in a free and democratic society at one end of the spectrum, and what constitutes political campaigning and is subject to campaign finance and political contribution laws at another.
- AgentME 6y ago
  Does "common carrier" describe any social media website? All social media sites, besides choosing what content to allow, make many decisions about what to promote. (These decisions are usually made algorithmically, but not exclusively, and the choice of what algorithms to use and how to tune them is still very opinionated.) The common carrier rules seem intended for companies like phone providers and ISPs that don't make any decisions about what people should use on the platform. In comparison, social media sites seem like more open versions of newspapers and TV stations.
  - bregma 6y ago
    I think it's clear that organizations that publish content to the web are publishers. They just don't want to be saddled with the responsibility of more traditional publishers and all that that entails. They're "disruptors" for gosh sake, not media presenting content to consumers as a means to generate revenue.
syshum 6y ago
A Publisher of content has the right to regulate their content for sure a Platform that want special legal status from liability that other people do not get well that liability shield should and does come with strings attached and one of those strings should be neutrality One Suggestion that I have seen talked about is to modify Sec 230 to says that a platform will only get immunity from liability if follow the the First Amendment of the US Constitution as if they were a US Government Agency, Thus only illegal content would be prohibited
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Lammy 6y ago
I only ever seem to see this argument as a justification for censorship that has already occurred, as in I was “just doing my job” and following the rules on what we’re allowed to think. Where do I cast my vote that I think this kind of moderation is inhumane toward all participants and that I would prefer to participate in communities where we discuss things instead of supporting the chilling effect of Zero Thought Tolerance?
- AgentME 6y ago
  If this is what you believe, why do you participate in the heavily-moderated HN instead of barely-moderated alternatives like 4chan or 8chan? If it's because you think there's a better standard of conversation here, then I'd argue that's not unrelated to the moderation that happens.
  - Lammy 6y ago
    I didn't realize I had to choose between communities. How do you know I don't already participate in those too? e: At least when I disagree with somebody on an imageboard they don't go through my user profile and downvote every comment I've made in the past day like somebody just did to me here =p
    - AgentME 6y ago
      I guess it would weaken my point if you were posting on this subject on both HN and 4chan now. My point was intended as a rhetorical one to highlight that people generally post to HN because they're looking for a certain kind of audience or quality of discussion that you won't find anywhere near as consistently on less moderated places like 4chan.
      - Lammy 6y ago
        Yep, I do participate in HN because I find value in its unique audience and discussion quality, and I do think the moderation is necessary to maintain those unique qualities. I also appreciate the enrichment and access to totally-new ideas that I get from existing in other worlds with differing norms like 4chan/9chan. HN is a well-maintained and enjoyable bubble, but still a bubble. They supplement each other more than they compete, and I feel more able to tolerate the moderated world thanks to the less-moderated ones.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deegles 6y ago

Responsible as in "speech we are not responsible for," right?