10 ms·

You are free to speak and exercise your freedom of speech no one really disputes that. You are not, however, anywhere guaranteed or granted the liberty to a pla

You are free to speak and exercise your freedom of speech no one really disputes that. You are not, however, anywhere guaranteed or granted the liberty to a platform for your dialog. That is the problem that we are encountering today, people are thinking that there are attacks to freedom of speech and confusing that with the freedom of an establishment to defend their property from damages. I think we can all agree that art is a medium for free speech but if you graffiti private property without the permission of the owner of said property than the owner of that property has the right to remove the graffiti. Likewise the operator of a website has the same right to remove content they may consider damaging to the value of their property. The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make. It does not preserve the right to defame, demean, or slander others or their property or to damage the property in a way contrary to the desires of the owner of that property. No one is stopping you though from making your own platform to spread your own message. Although it is also the right of those you may purchase services from to terminate those services if they feel that it devalues their property. For instance if a dns provider decides that website is offensive it is their prerogative to terminate services as a private owner. Same with any content provider, isp, hosting service or social media website. No where in the law does anything grant you an unlimited ability to say anything you want in a private forum and any private forum is entitled to moderating the content on its properties. I wish people would stop conflating free speech as some sort of absolute. It is not. The only case where a platform must provide services outside of the strictest sense of an intended audience is in through US Code Titles that may be applicable by law such ADA accessibilities (these codes are of course regional and may not apply outside the region in which that service is provided). Edit: Free speech absolutists, isn't down-voting my comment moderation? Ironic. How about just replying instead. I'm willing to engage in debate. EditEdit: I'm trying to reply to everything as quickly as I can but HN is telling me I'm posting to fast.

cptskippy 6y ago
> The only case where a platform must provide services outside of the strictest sense of an intended audience is in through US Code Titles that may be applicable by law such ADA accessibilities (these codes are of course regional and may not apply outside the region in which that service is provided). So we're going to start see ADA accommodations for white supremacists claiming they're mentally handicapped and therefore shouldn't be censored?
- stillbourne 6y ago
  While I'm willing to engage in debate I don't see reductio ad absurdum as a valid argument.
  - ReptileMan 6y ago
    SCOTUS uses it regularly to create inventive decisions that defy common sense. Is it absurd chromium browsers to have a blacklist of hate sites to which it refuses to connect? It is google driven project. Private property. So yes - if you claim that you are lead by consistent rule based framework - finding the most extreme edge case makes sense (not saying that it makes good policy though) But declaring the digital monopolists as public fora is a good idea. California already does it with the private property of the malls. The public discourse is where the people are. No one should be forced to listen to you, but if person A wants to hear what person B wants to say - the platform C should have no right to interfere, just because they are medium. If you are platform - you should be dumb pipe should be valid on all levels of the osi model.
syshum 6y ago
>>The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make I agreed with you until this point. You seem to make the common miskate many "but it is private company" people make. Free Speech is not limited to the 1st amendment. The concept of Free Expression exist outside of the US Constitution If society does not have respect for Free Expression (and clearly we no longer do) then the constitution can not protect that. The law, and the constitution is simply a reflection of society, at some point if society demands it the 1st amendment will be modified or abolished This is why intrusions on the concept in wider society also should be opposed not simply only opposing legal intrusions on speech For YT and other "platforms" the issue is the fact they market themselves as open to everyone, open to all speech, open to all ideas. Even if in 6pt font in legalese they give them selves the authority to suppress any speech they dislike This IMO is a Deceptive Business practice, if nothing else. YT should have Clearly define, very objected rules around content that are CLEARLY displayed that every reasonable person should be able to understand, and when content is banned they should point to the exact rule that was violated in the suppression notification Finally one can disagree with YT censorship with out demanding the law come in to stop them. I am generally not in favor of government intervention in YT, I am in favor of Sec 230 Reform (or rather abolishment) and I am in favor of people speaking out agaist YT Censorship. but I would not want some kind content regulation by the government
- stillbourne 6y ago
  >>>The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make >I agreed with you until this point. You seem to make the common miskate many "but it is private company" people make. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). Would disagree with your statement https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...
  - syshum 6y ago
    I am not sure why you believe that case refutes my statements in any way. Clearly you did not read my statement at all. My entire post is about the different between Free Speech (a concept) and the 1st amendment (the law)
searchableguy 6y ago
I have an easy answer to that: Youtube has more users than there are people in US. If you had a service that was used by whole of US, shouldn't that be public? Imagine there was a single food stall in the entire US. Should you allow food stall which is really controlled by a few share holders and executives at the top to decide whom to feed or not? Again, the problem is not huge platforms banning toxic people. It's that only a minority has a final say on who gets censored. That's not me, that's not you and many of the hners here. Edit: I am not saying this in defense of people in the post. I think they are terrible people. I think we can't help some of them but we should help whoever we can by offering rehabilitation and therapy. Many of the viewers of those channels and conspiracy theories need help. Censoring them without lending help to them in any way to improve them always backfires.
- RangerScience 6y ago
  > It's that only a minority has a final say on who gets censored. Not passing judgement either way, just asking: are there any circumstances or platforms in which this ISN'T true?
- alistairSH 6y ago
  Somebody would open a competing grocery. Likewise, racist and bigots can build their own internet platform.
  - disposekinetics 6y ago
    Competition seems to get shut down whenever this happens.
  - searchableguy 6y ago
    That's a confusing answer to what I said. I am not defending anyone in the post here but just yesterday, visa banned gab's CEO and his family. Now you need to build a payment processor which is not possible for any individual to do so. To how deep you want to go here? Put your own cables in the sea?
    - 6y ago
ryall 6y ago
Not sure why you're getting down voted. HN users once again mistaking disagreement for "comment doesn't provide quality debate"
gotoeleven 6y ago
I dont think people would have flocked to these platforms if they'd known that they'd be banned for politically incorrect speech down the road.
- RangerScience 6y ago
  "Civil rights isn't politics", so, speech against civil rights isn't politically incorrect. (there's also definitely PC/P!C speech, but AFAIK that's not what's getting banned).
  - gotoeleven 6y ago
    Thats a great trick just label anything you don't want debated a "right."
    - birdyrooster 6y ago
      To your point, rights only exist if people in society uphold them for you. There isn't anything magical about calling something a right. Speech can be both politically incorrect and incite flamewars or violence. At some point, public health and safety is the concern beyond politics. I think we want politically incorrect speech to have a space on Twitter so that it can be publicly challenged but it should stop short of encouraging violence like we saw in Charlottesville.
    - RangerScience 6y ago
      Thanks, learned from the best - the Declaration of Independence. /snark In all seriousness, what do you view as debatable about civil rights?
- empath75 6y ago
  i don't think people would have flocked to these platforms if they knew it'd be shared with nazis.
drewbug 6y ago
The principle of free speech is older than the United States government.
- stillbourne 6y ago
  Yes and so are the philosophies of the extents to which freedom of expression has limits. See John Stuart Mill, Joel Feinberg, Thomas Hobbes. Not even John Locke supported universal toleration, although in his case he wanted to silence atheists. Not enough? How about Herbert Marcuse: Universal toleration becomes questionable when its rationale no longer prevails, when tolerance is administered to manipulated and indoctrinated individuals who parrot, as their own, the opinion of their masters, for whom heteronomy has become autonomy. I believe in freedom of expression, I do not believe in or advocate, however, universal tolerance for expressions on private forums. You wish to make a statement, do so on your own. It is the right of the platform to be able to moderate such contents as posted if they desire, its their platform.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
It's not about the legalities. It's about whether we have the kind of society that fights bad ideas by showing why they're wrong, or fights bad ideas by screaming and blocking them. These bans seem very much like part of a trend towards the second kind of society.
- stillbourne 6y ago
  It is absolutely about legalities. Look at the complaints that are made when defending this type of content. The call it cancel culture in an attempt to victimize the aggressors as being unduly treated because of their opinion. The boycott has always been a tool to defend civility and putting your money where you're values are. Calling it 'Cancel Culture' is just a new phrase to delegitimize the right of people to stand up for civil discourse and to respond to tyranny with their wallets.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    They call it "cancel culture" in an attempt to express that people are too willing to boycott nowadays. Certainly a boycott is sometimes justified, but it's a problem if people start organizing a boycott every time they hear an offensive statement.
    - stillbourne 6y ago
      Please give some examples of where cancel culture has taken things too far.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        A Hispanic man in my state got fired 2 weeks ago, because an activist mistakenly thought he looked white and was making an OK sign. But really, even banning people from Youtube for saying offensive things is too far. The slogan "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" used to be a powerful summary of an ideal we aspired to. Nowadays, I get the impression that most people can't even process it; I expect you'd argue that defending Molyneux's right to spread his obnoxious views means I'm approving of those views.
DiffEq 6y ago
Not sure why people would down vote you - these are private companies we are talking about and they can do what they want I suppose. However I think the real rub here, that people seem to to have a hard time expressing, is that these platforms are blatantly hypocritical in what they allow or don't allow.
- luckylion 6y ago
  I also don't believe that society generally shares the "private companies can do what they want" point. The Hollywood Blacklist isn't considered as "okay, well, private companies", it's considered wrong. Many people seem to agree that private companies should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as what private companies want to do is essentially what they want those companies to do. If the company actions change, so does their stance.
- sintaxi 6y ago
  Probably getting down-voted because no one appears to be claiming that it is the government doing the censoring.
- syshum 6y ago
  >Not sure why people would down vote you Because the entire argument is a strawman that censorship advocates often use "bruh its a private platform they can do what they want" has the implication that people are calling for the government to step in to block YT actions No one has, people are critical of YT's policy, simply because they have a "right" to do it does not exclude them from public criticism Saying "bruh its a private platform they can do what they want" is a pointless observation in the context of this discussion
  - stillbourne 6y ago
    I didn't say that private platforms can do what they want. I said private platforms have a right to moderation of content on their platform. Does that not count as freedom of expression? The ability remove content contrary to the intended audience seems like something anyone should be granted. If I host a website for children can anyone post smut? Well I just have to keep it because the poster has a right to post smut, that's their freedom and I guess I can just never violate that ever because free speech is absolute and immutable. Likewise if I host a website for sharing videos can I not moderate what content I want shown? What if I don't want people suing me because someone posted pirated videos on my site. Guess there is nothing I can do, its there and it is immutable and I can never remove it because if I did I would be violating the freedom of expression of the user that posted the content. How is that any different from delisting users that post hate speech? Of course we should delist that content if we don't want it. It's my party and I can cry if I want to.
devmunchies 6y ago
> Edit: Free speech absolutists, isn't down-voting my comment moderation? Ironic. How about just replying instead. I'm willing to engage in debate. Hey if you don't like it, build your own hacker news.
- stillbourne 6y ago
  Except in this case its not moderators of the site removing my content, its just people who can't think for themselves slapping the down button on any contrary opinion while saying they support contrary opinions except the contrary opinions that they support of full of hate speech and parroted fascist dog whistles while trying to squash any semblance of reasonable discourse.
  - devmunchies 6y ago
    > full of hate speech and parroted fascist dog whistles > trying to squash any semblance of reasonable discourse pot. kettle. The fact that you jump to "fascist dog whistles" demonstrates that you are the one doing the parroting. Do you think liberal democracy and globalized capitalism are somehow less "evil"? Meanwhile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction I myself subscribe to deep ecology, so I see this political name-calling and spineless finger pointing as short-sighted and victim to herd mentality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology

cptskippy 6y ago

> The only case where a platform must provide services outside of the strictest sense of an intended audience is in through US Code Titles that may be applicable by law such ADA accessibilities (these codes are of course regional and may not apply outside the region in which that service is provided). So we're going to start see ADA accommodations for white supremacists claiming they're mentally handicapped and therefore shouldn't be censored?

stillbourne 6y ago
While I'm willing to engage in debate I don't see reductio ad absurdum as a valid argument.
- ReptileMan 6y ago
  SCOTUS uses it regularly to create inventive decisions that defy common sense. Is it absurd chromium browsers to have a blacklist of hate sites to which it refuses to connect? It is google driven project. Private property. So yes - if you claim that you are lead by consistent rule based framework - finding the most extreme edge case makes sense (not saying that it makes good policy though) But declaring the digital monopolists as public fora is a good idea. California already does it with the private property of the malls. The public discourse is where the people are. No one should be forced to listen to you, but if person A wants to hear what person B wants to say - the platform C should have no right to interfere, just because they are medium. If you are platform - you should be dumb pipe should be valid on all levels of the osi model.

syshum 6y ago

>>The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make I agreed with you until this point. You seem to make the common miskate many "but it is private company" people make. Free Speech is not limited to the 1st amendment. The concept of Free Expression exist outside of the US Constitution If society does not have respect for Free Expression (and clearly we no longer do) then the constitution can not protect that. The law, and the constitution is simply a reflection of society, at some point if society demands it the 1st amendment will be modified or abolished This is why intrusions on the concept in wider society also should be opposed not simply only opposing legal intrusions on speech For YT and other "platforms" the issue is the fact they market themselves as open to everyone, open to all speech, open to all ideas. Even if in 6pt font in legalese they give them selves the authority to suppress any speech they dislike This IMO is a Deceptive Business practice, if nothing else. YT should have Clearly define, very objected rules around content that are CLEARLY displayed that every reasonable person should be able to understand, and when content is banned they should point to the exact rule that was violated in the suppression notification Finally one can disagree with YT censorship with out demanding the law come in to stop them. I am generally not in favor of government intervention in YT, I am in favor of Sec 230 Reform (or rather abolishment) and I am in favor of people speaking out agaist YT Censorship. but I would not want some kind content regulation by the government

stillbourne 6y ago
>>>The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make >I agreed with you until this point. You seem to make the common miskate many "but it is private company" people make. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). Would disagree with your statement https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...
- syshum 6y ago
  I am not sure why you believe that case refutes my statements in any way. Clearly you did not read my statement at all. My entire post is about the different between Free Speech (a concept) and the 1st amendment (the law)

searchableguy 6y ago

I have an easy answer to that: Youtube has more users than there are people in US. If you had a service that was used by whole of US, shouldn't that be public? Imagine there was a single food stall in the entire US. Should you allow food stall which is really controlled by a few share holders and executives at the top to decide whom to feed or not? Again, the problem is not huge platforms banning toxic people. It's that only a minority has a final say on who gets censored. That's not me, that's not you and many of the hners here. Edit: I am not saying this in defense of people in the post. I think they are terrible people. I think we can't help some of them but we should help whoever we can by offering rehabilitation and therapy. Many of the viewers of those channels and conspiracy theories need help. Censoring them without lending help to them in any way to improve them always backfires.

RangerScience 6y ago
> It's that only a minority has a final say on who gets censored. Not passing judgement either way, just asking: are there any circumstances or platforms in which this ISN'T true?
alistairSH 6y ago
Somebody would open a competing grocery. Likewise, racist and bigots can build their own internet platform.
- disposekinetics 6y ago
  Competition seems to get shut down whenever this happens.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  That's a confusing answer to what I said. I am not defending anyone in the post here but just yesterday, visa banned gab's CEO and his family. Now you need to build a payment processor which is not possible for any individual to do so. To how deep you want to go here? Put your own cables in the sea?
  - 6y ago

ryall 6y ago

Not sure why you're getting down voted. HN users once again mistaking disagreement for "comment doesn't provide quality debate"

gotoeleven 6y ago

I dont think people would have flocked to these platforms if they'd known that they'd be banned for politically incorrect speech down the road.

RangerScience 6y ago
"Civil rights isn't politics", so, speech against civil rights isn't politically incorrect. (there's also definitely PC/P!C speech, but AFAIK that's not what's getting banned).
- gotoeleven 6y ago
  Thats a great trick just label anything you don't want debated a "right."
  - birdyrooster 6y ago
    To your point, rights only exist if people in society uphold them for you. There isn't anything magical about calling something a right. Speech can be both politically incorrect and incite flamewars or violence. At some point, public health and safety is the concern beyond politics. I think we want politically incorrect speech to have a space on Twitter so that it can be publicly challenged but it should stop short of encouraging violence like we saw in Charlottesville.
  - RangerScience 6y ago
    Thanks, learned from the best - the Declaration of Independence. /snark In all seriousness, what do you view as debatable about civil rights?
empath75 6y ago
i don't think people would have flocked to these platforms if they knew it'd be shared with nazis.

drewbug 6y ago

The principle of free speech is older than the United States government.

stillbourne 6y ago
Yes and so are the philosophies of the extents to which freedom of expression has limits. See John Stuart Mill, Joel Feinberg, Thomas Hobbes. Not even John Locke supported universal toleration, although in his case he wanted to silence atheists. Not enough? How about Herbert Marcuse: Universal toleration becomes questionable when its rationale no longer prevails, when tolerance is administered to manipulated and indoctrinated individuals who parrot, as their own, the opinion of their masters, for whom heteronomy has become autonomy. I believe in freedom of expression, I do not believe in or advocate, however, universal tolerance for expressions on private forums. You wish to make a statement, do so on your own. It is the right of the platform to be able to moderate such contents as posted if they desire, its their platform.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

It's not about the legalities. It's about whether we have the kind of society that fights bad ideas by showing why they're wrong, or fights bad ideas by screaming and blocking them. These bans seem very much like part of a trend towards the second kind of society.

stillbourne 6y ago
It is absolutely about legalities. Look at the complaints that are made when defending this type of content. The call it cancel culture in an attempt to victimize the aggressors as being unduly treated because of their opinion. The boycott has always been a tool to defend civility and putting your money where you're values are. Calling it 'Cancel Culture' is just a new phrase to delegitimize the right of people to stand up for civil discourse and to respond to tyranny with their wallets.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  They call it "cancel culture" in an attempt to express that people are too willing to boycott nowadays. Certainly a boycott is sometimes justified, but it's a problem if people start organizing a boycott every time they hear an offensive statement.
  - stillbourne 6y ago
    Please give some examples of where cancel culture has taken things too far.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      A Hispanic man in my state got fired 2 weeks ago, because an activist mistakenly thought he looked white and was making an OK sign. But really, even banning people from Youtube for saying offensive things is too far. The slogan "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" used to be a powerful summary of an ideal we aspired to. Nowadays, I get the impression that most people can't even process it; I expect you'd argue that defending Molyneux's right to spread his obnoxious views means I'm approving of those views.

DiffEq 6y ago

Not sure why people would down vote you - these are private companies we are talking about and they can do what they want I suppose. However I think the real rub here, that people seem to to have a hard time expressing, is that these platforms are blatantly hypocritical in what they allow or don't allow.

luckylion 6y ago
I also don't believe that society generally shares the "private companies can do what they want" point. The Hollywood Blacklist isn't considered as "okay, well, private companies", it's considered wrong. Many people seem to agree that private companies should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as what private companies want to do is essentially what they want those companies to do. If the company actions change, so does their stance.
sintaxi 6y ago
Probably getting down-voted because no one appears to be claiming that it is the government doing the censoring.
syshum 6y ago
>Not sure why people would down vote you Because the entire argument is a strawman that censorship advocates often use "bruh its a private platform they can do what they want" has the implication that people are calling for the government to step in to block YT actions No one has, people are critical of YT's policy, simply because they have a "right" to do it does not exclude them from public criticism Saying "bruh its a private platform they can do what they want" is a pointless observation in the context of this discussion
- stillbourne 6y ago
  I didn't say that private platforms can do what they want. I said private platforms have a right to moderation of content on their platform. Does that not count as freedom of expression? The ability remove content contrary to the intended audience seems like something anyone should be granted. If I host a website for children can anyone post smut? Well I just have to keep it because the poster has a right to post smut, that's their freedom and I guess I can just never violate that ever because free speech is absolute and immutable. Likewise if I host a website for sharing videos can I not moderate what content I want shown? What if I don't want people suing me because someone posted pirated videos on my site. Guess there is nothing I can do, its there and it is immutable and I can never remove it because if I did I would be violating the freedom of expression of the user that posted the content. How is that any different from delisting users that post hate speech? Of course we should delist that content if we don't want it. It's my party and I can cry if I want to.

devmunchies 6y ago

> Edit: Free speech absolutists, isn't down-voting my comment moderation? Ironic. How about just replying instead. I'm willing to engage in debate. Hey if you don't like it, build your own hacker news.

stillbourne 6y ago
Except in this case its not moderators of the site removing my content, its just people who can't think for themselves slapping the down button on any contrary opinion while saying they support contrary opinions except the contrary opinions that they support of full of hate speech and parroted fascist dog whistles while trying to squash any semblance of reasonable discourse.
- devmunchies 6y ago
  > full of hate speech and parroted fascist dog whistles > trying to squash any semblance of reasonable discourse pot. kettle. The fact that you jump to "fascist dog whistles" demonstrates that you are the one doing the parroting. Do you think liberal democracy and globalized capitalism are somehow less "evil"? Meanwhile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction I myself subscribe to deep ecology, so I see this political name-calling and spineless finger pointing as short-sighted and victim to herd mentality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology