6 ms·

This is why large social media platforms need to have their hands tied when it comes to free speech. They either have it or they don't. This kind of back and fo

This is why large social media platforms need to have their hands tied when it comes to free speech. They either have it or they don't. This kind of back and forth where they claim to support free speech, but any time somebody says something they don't like it becomes "an issue that must be addressed" needs to stop. The end result of this is that some people's speech is free, but others' isn't. Either you have free speech for everyone or you just don't have free speech. I do applaud him for standing up for his convictions.

oiasdjfoiasd 6y ago
This this this.
jjjensen90 6y ago
There is no free speech on private social media platforms
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  But there could be. And there should be.
  - freen 6y ago
    You could allow Nazis at your personal house party also. It is legal, due to the first amendment, but it sure does say a lot about you as a person.
  - httpsterio 6y ago
    Why? If I'm running a platform, I would run it with my personal values which might or might not be the same as what's considered moral or right by the eyes of law. As long as my values are not directly illegal, I won't compromise on the values nor let anyone else use my product or platform for that. I think it should be allowed to take a moral stand, which is why your freedom of speech has nothing to do with social media and I'm glad about it as well.
    - programmarchy 6y ago
      Sorry but it's not so simple. If you follow that line of logic, should an owner of a restaurant be able to discriminate (race, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.) against customers, based on their "personal values"? This line of thought leads right back to the era of segregation.
      - jjjensen90 6y ago
        You already cannot discriminate against a customer because of certain characteristics of who they are (race, orientation, etc). You can however kick someone out of your restaurant for what they say, how they act, or what they do, similar to being banned or fact checked on private social media platforms.
        ThrowawayR2 6y ago
        > "You already cannot discriminate against a customer because of certain characteristics of who they are (race, orientation, etc)." Those laws are relatively recent. By your very own argument, doing all those things was perfectly A-OK before the laws that barred discrimination went into place. Oops.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - PKop 6y ago
      Corporate monopolies over the discourse. Though it wouldn't be "the government", why would should the massive power of a $billion/trillion corporations have no check? What recourse does the average citizen have to abuse from these entities? Think of all the ways Google or Facebook could screw you over or even shape the social/political narrative. This should be a free-for-all? "Just build your own global social platform"... yea, not possible. In the mean time, they can abuse their power while you get up and running, or never do. Think of it another way. If the government is constrained, but massive corporations (who pay off politicians) aren't, doesn't this clearly seem an end-around for "government" to encourage private companies to do the censorship they want, enact favorable policies for them in return, and the powerless individual, or small groups suffer similar consequences as if the government themselves censored them? It's an easy hack for the 1st amendment.
- xwdv 6y ago
  There absolutely should be as a matter of principle to avoid problems like this.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  There can be. There's no legal right to free speech on social media platforms, but a platform can (and I'll argue should) support free speech. I think if a platform wants to not support free speech, that's a fair choice to make, but as a user I want them to communicate that in abundance. I don't expect the Disney Club to support sex workers describing their autobiographies, but I would expect them to not pretend they are a bastion of free speech or a platform for the world.
  - rorykoehler 6y ago
    For that to work it needs to be one person one profile with real identities. No bots.
    - sangnoir 6y ago
      That might be easier to do with a national ID system, and maybe a government ID attestation service... just to be thorough.
      - dd36 6y ago
        Why? We have sufficient ways to ID.
    - vorpalhex 6y ago
      To be anonymous is necessary for free speech. You should never confuse social media for the public opinion.
      - rorykoehler 6y ago
        What we have now is a DDOS on free speech. How to solve it?
        vorpalhex 6y ago
        A DDOS is an attack because it removes resources. Other people having opinions that disagree with yours isn't removing resources from you. Whether it's newspapers or a town square, there have always been people who have been loud. Loud does not mean right. It also doesn't mean you need to muzzle the people who are loud.
- dx87 6y ago
  Free speech wasn't created by the US government.
- programmarchy 6y ago
  Civil rights apply to private companies, so why not free speech?
  - SamuelAdams 6y ago
    No one can define what "free speech" really is in clear, unbiased terms. China and the USA have vastly different interpretations of free speech. Which do you engineer your platform to support? Will you continue to use moderators? If speech is truly free, there will be no need for content moderators. And yet as technologists we know that as soon as moderators stop doing their job, a significant amount of questionable or uncomfortable type of content will come in. Whereas civil rights have a basic coalition of countries that support a finite number of things to protect, namely protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, age, political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, and disability;
- jerf 6y ago
  But the platforms are pretending there is. Not necessarily overtly, but implicitly in their guidance they give to Wall Street. If Facebook explicitly came out and said "Facebook - Where You Can Share Any Silicon-Valley-Liberal Approved Viewpoint And Not Much Else" they'd have to accompany that with guidance indicating future shrinkage. I realize a lot of people here in the bubble may not realize this, but it's not "the entire world minus some weirdos in my country" that don't fit into that. It's most of the world, except some of the US and some of Europe and misc folk elsewhere that add up to much less than those two. You can't both actively enforce this ideology that perhaps 10% of the world agrees to while projecting growth into the 75% range. The President was elected by a lot of people who currently have Facebook accounts, and a lot of them are still planning to vote for him again. If you declare that political viewpoint verboten, well, let's just say you're probably going to get a lot more significantly less "voluntary" resignations from Facebook once the money stops coming in because the eyeballs left.
  - dd36 6y ago
    Where do you gather FB wants to ban Trump voters? The way people twist this is entertaining.
- Gunax 6y ago
  This discussion always goes in circles. Usually when people are talking about Twitter endorsing free speech, they are not asking for a law, but moreso asking Twitter to do so out of principle. I don't like these arguments because they seem to end up revolving around one's interpretation of 'free speech' when both sides are really in agreement.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- xster 6y ago
  The supreme court in [Marsh v. Alabama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama) disagrees.
  - jjjensen90 6y ago
    Marsh v. Alabama is not relevant in this case, so says the Supreme court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_Corp._v._Halleck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_Cor...
uniqueid 6y ago
> Either you have free speech for everyone > or you just don't have free speech. This would be a platitude except it's untrue, so it's more of an empty falsehood. American law already places restrictions on speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions Aside from that, your comment implies that a private company should have no say over which people (and organizations, racist groups, terror cells, criminal gangs, etc) it bankrolls. Even if I valued "free speech on the internet" as highly today as I did a decade ago, that speech includes the liberty of a company to choose its TOS and not pay to host content that goes against them. Finally, my "high order bit" these days, when it comes to internet speech, is for humanity to survive. When Patrick Henry said "give me liberty or give me death!" the internet didn't even exist. My version is "give me liberty AFK or give me death!"
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  Should I surmise that you don't believe liberty in online engagements should be protected at all. Freedom to speak in the high-street (ie IRL/AFK public arenas) is all well and good but what if everyone else is speaking in the pseudo-public online spaces and a company has excluded you from those spaces. Don't we need a legal framework that respects cyberspace as more than just the domain of company mores, that allows democratic standards to govern principal online meeting spaces?
- koheripbal 6y ago
  This is an oversimplification and not the point. I don't mind reasonable limitations on speech - the point is that I don't want an oligopoly of corporations to be the judges of what is allowed. It should be an elected body, or no restrictions at all. The only reason anyone thinks these censorship rulings are a good idea is because they haven't been censored themselves (yet).
rmc 6y ago
Pornography is protected speech under the first amendment. Facebook ban it. Should they be forced to host it and not filter it at all?

oiasdjfoiasd 6y ago

This this this.

jjjensen90 6y ago

There is no free speech on private social media platforms

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
commandlinefan 6y ago
But there could be. And there should be.
- freen 6y ago
  You could allow Nazis at your personal house party also. It is legal, due to the first amendment, but it sure does say a lot about you as a person.
- httpsterio 6y ago
  Why? If I'm running a platform, I would run it with my personal values which might or might not be the same as what's considered moral or right by the eyes of law. As long as my values are not directly illegal, I won't compromise on the values nor let anyone else use my product or platform for that. I think it should be allowed to take a moral stand, which is why your freedom of speech has nothing to do with social media and I'm glad about it as well.
  - programmarchy 6y ago
    Sorry but it's not so simple. If you follow that line of logic, should an owner of a restaurant be able to discriminate (race, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.) against customers, based on their "personal values"? This line of thought leads right back to the era of segregation.
    - jjjensen90 6y ago
      You already cannot discriminate against a customer because of certain characteristics of who they are (race, orientation, etc). You can however kick someone out of your restaurant for what they say, how they act, or what they do, similar to being banned or fact checked on private social media platforms.
      - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
        > "You already cannot discriminate against a customer because of certain characteristics of who they are (race, orientation, etc)." Those laws are relatively recent. By your very own argument, doing all those things was perfectly A-OK before the laws that barred discrimination went into place. Oops.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - PKop 6y ago
    Corporate monopolies over the discourse. Though it wouldn't be "the government", why would should the massive power of a $billion/trillion corporations have no check? What recourse does the average citizen have to abuse from these entities? Think of all the ways Google or Facebook could screw you over or even shape the social/political narrative. This should be a free-for-all? "Just build your own global social platform"... yea, not possible. In the mean time, they can abuse their power while you get up and running, or never do. Think of it another way. If the government is constrained, but massive corporations (who pay off politicians) aren't, doesn't this clearly seem an end-around for "government" to encourage private companies to do the censorship they want, enact favorable policies for them in return, and the powerless individual, or small groups suffer similar consequences as if the government themselves censored them? It's an easy hack for the 1st amendment.
xwdv 6y ago
There absolutely should be as a matter of principle to avoid problems like this.
vorpalhex 6y ago
There can be. There's no legal right to free speech on social media platforms, but a platform can (and I'll argue should) support free speech. I think if a platform wants to not support free speech, that's a fair choice to make, but as a user I want them to communicate that in abundance. I don't expect the Disney Club to support sex workers describing their autobiographies, but I would expect them to not pretend they are a bastion of free speech or a platform for the world.
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  For that to work it needs to be one person one profile with real identities. No bots.
  - sangnoir 6y ago
    That might be easier to do with a national ID system, and maybe a government ID attestation service... just to be thorough.
    - dd36 6y ago
      Why? We have sufficient ways to ID.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    To be anonymous is necessary for free speech. You should never confuse social media for the public opinion.
    - rorykoehler 6y ago
      What we have now is a DDOS on free speech. How to solve it?
      - vorpalhex 6y ago
        A DDOS is an attack because it removes resources. Other people having opinions that disagree with yours isn't removing resources from you. Whether it's newspapers or a town square, there have always been people who have been loud. Loud does not mean right. It also doesn't mean you need to muzzle the people who are loud.
dx87 6y ago
Free speech wasn't created by the US government.
programmarchy 6y ago
Civil rights apply to private companies, so why not free speech?
- SamuelAdams 6y ago
  No one can define what "free speech" really is in clear, unbiased terms. China and the USA have vastly different interpretations of free speech. Which do you engineer your platform to support? Will you continue to use moderators? If speech is truly free, there will be no need for content moderators. And yet as technologists we know that as soon as moderators stop doing their job, a significant amount of questionable or uncomfortable type of content will come in. Whereas civil rights have a basic coalition of countries that support a finite number of things to protect, namely protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, age, political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, and disability;
jerf 6y ago
But the platforms are pretending there is. Not necessarily overtly, but implicitly in their guidance they give to Wall Street. If Facebook explicitly came out and said "Facebook - Where You Can Share Any Silicon-Valley-Liberal Approved Viewpoint And Not Much Else" they'd have to accompany that with guidance indicating future shrinkage. I realize a lot of people here in the bubble may not realize this, but it's not "the entire world minus some weirdos in my country" that don't fit into that. It's most of the world, except some of the US and some of Europe and misc folk elsewhere that add up to much less than those two. You can't both actively enforce this ideology that perhaps 10% of the world agrees to while projecting growth into the 75% range. The President was elected by a lot of people who currently have Facebook accounts, and a lot of them are still planning to vote for him again. If you declare that political viewpoint verboten, well, let's just say you're probably going to get a lot more significantly less "voluntary" resignations from Facebook once the money stops coming in because the eyeballs left.
- dd36 6y ago
  Where do you gather FB wants to ban Trump voters? The way people twist this is entertaining.
Gunax 6y ago
This discussion always goes in circles. Usually when people are talking about Twitter endorsing free speech, they are not asking for a law, but moreso asking Twitter to do so out of principle. I don't like these arguments because they seem to end up revolving around one's interpretation of 'free speech' when both sides are really in agreement.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
xster 6y ago
The supreme court in [Marsh v. Alabama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama) disagrees.
- jjjensen90 6y ago
  Marsh v. Alabama is not relevant in this case, so says the Supreme court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_Corp._v._Halleck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_Cor...

uniqueid 6y ago

> Either you have free speech for everyone > or you just don't have free speech. This would be a platitude except it's untrue, so it's more of an empty falsehood. American law already places restrictions on speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions Aside from that, your comment implies that a private company should have no say over which people (and organizations, racist groups, terror cells, criminal gangs, etc) it bankrolls. Even if I valued "free speech on the internet" as highly today as I did a decade ago, that speech includes the liberty of a company to choose its TOS and not pay to host content that goes against them. Finally, my "high order bit" these days, when it comes to internet speech, is for humanity to survive. When Patrick Henry said "give me liberty or give me death!" the internet didn't even exist. My version is "give me liberty AFK or give me death!"

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Should I surmise that you don't believe liberty in online engagements should be protected at all. Freedom to speak in the high-street (ie IRL/AFK public arenas) is all well and good but what if everyone else is speaking in the pseudo-public online spaces and a company has excluded you from those spaces. Don't we need a legal framework that respects cyberspace as more than just the domain of company mores, that allows democratic standards to govern principal online meeting spaces?
koheripbal 6y ago
This is an oversimplification and not the point. I don't mind reasonable limitations on speech - the point is that I don't want an oligopoly of corporations to be the judges of what is allowed. It should be an elected body, or no restrictions at all. The only reason anyone thinks these censorship rulings are a good idea is because they haven't been censored themselves (yet).

rmc 6y ago

Pornography is protected speech under the first amendment. Facebook ban it. Should they be forced to host it and not filter it at all?