3 ms·

The problem is that "lawful content" includes things like explicit support for Nazism and the KKK (not 2020 "Trump is a Nazi" kind of allegations of Nazism, but

The problem is that "lawful content" includes things like explicit support for Nazism and the KKK (not 2020 "Trump is a Nazi" kind of allegations of Nazism, but actual Nazis). Even things like abstract calls for violence are protected under the First Amendment: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio I don't think people espousing this view understand the scope of what sites need to tolerate to comply. Would reddit be a better place if they let people say, "ni\\\\s belong in shackles" and, "death to Jews"? Because that's legal speech.

rufus_3 6y ago
How might a democracy suffer if those who control the common venues for voter's political dialogue are given a monopoly over setting the bounds of acceptable speech?
- manfredo 6y ago
  I think it's an extreme stretch to say that Reddit has a monopoly. Or even Reddit + Facebook + YouTube. My response would be to tell people to rediscover personal websites, mailing lists, and IRC. I'd be more concerned if ISPs, DNS providers, and payment processors start policing users' politics (which they have, recently, see the Carl Benjamin AKA "Sargon of Akkad" situation where payment processors threatened to cease business with Patreon unless they kicked him off the site). Being kicked off of Facebook or Reddit doesn't prevent someone from publishing their content. I've always told people if you want reliably get your message across, host your own website. It's not hard to pick up some basic HTML and CSS. It's only once the ability of people to publish their own messages that I get concerned. As far as Reddit and Facebook go, understand that freedom of speech also means freedom from compelled speech. It's not just about being able to say what you want, it's about being able to not say the things you don't want to say. Making Section 230 contingent on hosting all legal content compels people so say a lot of things they don't want to say.

rufus_3 6y ago

How might a democracy suffer if those who control the common venues for voter's political dialogue are given a monopoly over setting the bounds of acceptable speech?

manfredo 6y ago
I think it's an extreme stretch to say that Reddit has a monopoly. Or even Reddit + Facebook + YouTube. My response would be to tell people to rediscover personal websites, mailing lists, and IRC. I'd be more concerned if ISPs, DNS providers, and payment processors start policing users' politics (which they have, recently, see the Carl Benjamin AKA "Sargon of Akkad" situation where payment processors threatened to cease business with Patreon unless they kicked him off the site). Being kicked off of Facebook or Reddit doesn't prevent someone from publishing their content. I've always told people if you want reliably get your message across, host your own website. It's not hard to pick up some basic HTML and CSS. It's only once the ability of people to publish their own messages that I get concerned. As far as Reddit and Facebook go, understand that freedom of speech also means freedom from compelled speech. It's not just about being able to say what you want, it's about being able to not say the things you don't want to say. Making Section 230 contingent on hosting all legal content compels people so say a lot of things they don't want to say.