6 ms·

This shows a double sided approach to the services like Twitter and Reddit. The social media companies argue they are not common spaces where free speech is re

by mfer 6y ago

This shows a double sided approach to the services like Twitter and Reddit. The social media companies argue they are not common spaces where free speech is required. This way they can moderate as they choose. It serves them. But, they also argue that visa applicants sharing their social media details chills first amendment free speech. The social media companies are inconsistent here and it appears they are looking out for their best financial interests.

anewdirection 6y ago
Bingo. This exemplifies why the current situation, however you feel about it, is untennable from both sides of the issue.
- amerine 6y ago
  Exemplifies what exactly?
nightcracker 6y ago
No it's not inconsistent. You simply do not understand. The first amendment protects you from censorship by the government: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The social media companies argue they are not common spaces so they can maintain 'jurisdiction' over their own sites. This isn't related to the first amendment at all, as they are not a government entity. Being asked to share social media does chill first amendment free speech, because it's the government that gets to see everything you do and say online and thus there is an incentive to self-censor in fear of later retaliation. The whole point of the first amendment isn't that you can say anything you want at any time anywhere, it's that you don't have to fear retaliation from the government. But let's assume that your issue is with 'free speech' online in general, not just in the context of the first amendment. Then there is still a huge difference between the two. If, say, Reddit censors the speech you wish to spread, you don't suffer any consequences beyond being unable to use Reddit as your platform. You're free to use any other social media to spread your message. If the government requests all social media accounts your speech is chilled everywhere, effectively censoring you, the person.
- SkyBelow 6y ago
  So would a site like Reddit selectively choosing what speech to report to the government create a chilling effect on the First Amendment, given that they may report speech that isn't illegal but still results in an investigation and maybe even court fight, and they may choose to do so based on the political leanings of individual posters (which isn't out of line with other behavior already demonstrated to be politically motivated, such as editing users comments to change what they were saying)?
  - nightcracker 6y ago
    > So would a site like Reddit selectively choosing what speech to report to the government create a chilling effect on the First Amendment, given that they may report speech that isn't illegal but still results in an investigation and maybe even court fight That's not how the system we were discussing works. You are supposed to self-report your social media accounts, and then the government looks into those social media accounts. The platform is never asked to report anything at all. Or are you describing an entirely different scenario, in which a site like Reddit voluntarily reports on its users (selectively or not)? In which case I don't see how that creates a chilling effect of speech more than anyone else. Any motivated individual can check your social media accounts and report anything they see to the police if it's illegal or suspicious. And they can choose to do this as selectively as they want.
    - SkyBelow 6y ago
      >That's not how the system we were discussing works. I'm talking more generically. >The platform is never asked to report anything at all. I thought platforms routinely work with the government to report potentially illegal content. >Or are you describing an entirely different scenario, in which a site like Reddit voluntarily reports on its users (selectively or not)? Discussing the existing system and what the logic being used in this context means when applied elsewhere. >Any motivated individual can check your social media accounts and report anything they see to the police if it's illegal or suspicious. And they can choose to do this as selectively as they want. Generally other individuals don't have access to things like IP addresses. And while those don't correlate to a person, it doesn't stop the government from treating it like it does and forcing you to fight it out in court.

by mfer 6y ago

anewdirection 6y ago

Bingo. This exemplifies why the current situation, however you feel about it, is untennable from both sides of the issue.

amerine 6y ago
Exemplifies what exactly?

nightcracker 6y ago

No it's not inconsistent. You simply do not understand. The first amendment protects you from censorship by the government: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The social media companies argue they are not common spaces so they can maintain 'jurisdiction' over their own sites. This isn't related to the first amendment at all, as they are not a government entity. Being asked to share social media does chill first amendment free speech, because it's the government that gets to see everything you do and say online and thus there is an incentive to self-censor in fear of later retaliation. The whole point of the first amendment isn't that you can say anything you want at any time anywhere, it's that you don't have to fear retaliation from the government. But let's assume that your issue is with 'free speech' online in general, not just in the context of the first amendment. Then there is still a huge difference between the two. If, say, Reddit censors the speech you wish to spread, you don't suffer any consequences beyond being unable to use Reddit as your platform. You're free to use any other social media to spread your message. If the government requests all social media accounts your speech is chilled everywhere, effectively censoring you, the person.

SkyBelow 6y ago
So would a site like Reddit selectively choosing what speech to report to the government create a chilling effect on the First Amendment, given that they may report speech that isn't illegal but still results in an investigation and maybe even court fight, and they may choose to do so based on the political leanings of individual posters (which isn't out of line with other behavior already demonstrated to be politically motivated, such as editing users comments to change what they were saying)?
- nightcracker 6y ago
  > So would a site like Reddit selectively choosing what speech to report to the government create a chilling effect on the First Amendment, given that they may report speech that isn't illegal but still results in an investigation and maybe even court fight That's not how the system we were discussing works. You are supposed to self-report your social media accounts, and then the government looks into those social media accounts. The platform is never asked to report anything at all. Or are you describing an entirely different scenario, in which a site like Reddit voluntarily reports on its users (selectively or not)? In which case I don't see how that creates a chilling effect of speech more than anyone else. Any motivated individual can check your social media accounts and report anything they see to the police if it's illegal or suspicious. And they can choose to do this as selectively as they want.
  - SkyBelow 6y ago
    >That's not how the system we were discussing works. I'm talking more generically. >The platform is never asked to report anything at all. I thought platforms routinely work with the government to report potentially illegal content. >Or are you describing an entirely different scenario, in which a site like Reddit voluntarily reports on its users (selectively or not)? Discussing the existing system and what the logic being used in this context means when applied elsewhere. >Any motivated individual can check your social media accounts and report anything they see to the police if it's illegal or suspicious. And they can choose to do this as selectively as they want. Generally other individuals don't have access to things like IP addresses. And while those don't correlate to a person, it doesn't stop the government from treating it like it does and forcing you to fight it out in court.