6 ms·

If we're going to have a marketplace of ideas, then some ideas will become popular and win, and some ideas will become unpopular and lose. This is how marketpla

If we're going to have a marketplace of ideas, then some ideas will become popular and win, and some ideas will become unpopular and lose. This is how marketplaces are supposed to work. If we want a forum for speech where every idea is always welcome, and platformed, and no one is allowed to lose no matter how unpopular they are, I don't know what you'd call that. I'd call it a form of hell, personally. Philosophically, I believe the First Amendment is properly addressed at restraining the power of the government, rather than at propping up unpopular ideas.

rayiner 6y ago
Obviously the First Amendment is directed to the government. I’m not making a legal argument here. But we don’t abide by the first amendment merely because we throw up our hands and say “this is a terrible idea but we’re stuck with it.” There is an underlying principle there, and that principle isn’t necessarily limited to the government. (As a matter of what is good policy, not what is the minimum legally required protection.) I don’t agree with your characterization that not shutting down subreddits or Twitter accounts is identical to forcing speech on anyone. There are a lot of Neo-marxists hanging out on Reddit calling for violence whose ideas I find extremely offensive and dangerous. But I choose not to wander into those subreddits. I don’t see why those subreddits need to be wiped out.
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  It's up to the people who run Reddit. If they want to wipe out some subreddits, who is to say they can't? Any mechanism you can imagine to prevent them from doing so would have the effect of forcing speech upon them. A website declining to carry some content seems perfectly in line with American values and traditions of free speech, in much the same way that Fox News is free to choose not to carry Rachel Maddow's show.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    I’m not saying they can’t, I’m saying they shouldn’t. I disagree that reddit can be analogized to serial television media for these purposes.
  - fapjacks 6y ago
    ... Except for some people, though, right? I have an idea how you feel about the guy refusing to sell (decorate) the gay marriage cake (not trying to be pithy here, just tried to do a bit of footwork before replying). Do you absolve that guy under those "American values and traditions of free speech" as you would a website in this case? For me, second-order consequences are as important as whether or not this particular guy must sell this particular cake, when it comes to issues as critical to a functioning free and democratic society (such as speech). So "fair" abstractions (those which don't hide or ignore contradiction) aren't just important, but obligatory. This is an issue that can be reasoned to completion without introducing "protected classes" of human being, because the reasoning and conclusion are the same regardless (and for the same reason more concise mathematical proofs are preferred over those predicated on "complications" such as Riemann). The guy selling the cake argued that he was being compelled to express an opinion (decorate a cake in celebration of an idea his religious beliefs dictated were unethical), thus making it compelled speech. So, is Youtube being compelled to express a particular opinion, if they do not ban users from the platform, when those users say things people find abhorrent? I do not think so, because Youtube bills itself as a platform where users create content and then publish the content on the platform for other users. Youtube does not purport to be a merchant of the content itself (obligatory reference to criticality of Section 230 protections). But according to his legal defense, the cake guy is selling the decoration of the cake in addition to the cake itself; his artwork as an expression of himself. In other words, Youtube is selling the medium and not the message. But the cake guy is selling the message (in addition to the medium). He is billing his cake decoration as part of his services, whereas Youtube and every other "platform" specifically denies in legal long-form that the content on their platform(s) reflect the views and opinions of the companies creating them. That is the critical distinction, and why I feel strongly that any platform which displays in its ToS that users agree that the views expressed on its platform are not the views held by the company, is violating the right of free expression to the users they ban from their platforms for the speech those users express on their platforms. Importantly, a big part of my reasoning here is that, subscribing to stoic thought, I place accountability for any perceived "damage" from words on the shoulders of the person interpreting them. I mention this here because I've found this is so divergent from the dominant worldview that it's rejected often with much of the same forcefulness as if I'd stated a value judgment predicated on the color of a person's skin. And this seems to me to be symptomatic, and I'm not sure how this fits into the broader discussion of how the internet fits into our culture. But it's a core proposition which I hope will be addressed directly instead of indirectly, because the implications are clear (you are ceding control of your mind to others, when you allow their words to dictate your thoughts).
- tptacek 6y ago
  In Democracy and Distrust, Ely says rules like the First Amendment are important because they secure the channels of democracy; in his framing, it's important that the government not suppress speech because doing so prevents the people from governing. It's not because speech is an intrinsic or natural right, which is an idea he argues against. That made sense to me when I read it. The idea of a universal principle of reverence for speech, regardless of its substance, makes no sense to me. In fact, it doesn't make sense to most people. Even on HN, you can find people arguing for decriminalizing child pornography. You have no trouble with that idea being suppressed. Why is white supremacy less loathsome? That's what we say when we suggest white supremacist speech be tolerated. (Violent neo-Marxism and Shining Path Maoism is trendy among left-edgelords and is equally intolerable).
  - phonypc 6y ago
    I would/do have a problem with that idea being supressed. The path to defeating a truly bad idea is to publicly flog it, not pretend it doesn't exist.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      No. It takes more time to rebut ridiculous ideas than to generate them. At some point along the spectrum of consensus, the burden shifts to the person propagating the idea; otherwise, all we're doing is wasting time feeding the trolls.
      - phonypc 6y ago
        Trolls can be ignored. Bad ideas can be expressed in good faith.
        tptacek 6y ago
        In neither case are we obligated to tolerate them.
        6y ago
JamesBarney 6y ago
I think the idea of marketplace of ideas is that an idea loses by being unpopular, not by another idea persuading large institutions to ban it. Your interpretation, that persuading a large institution to ban opposition ideas is winning, and being banned is losing, is entirely consistent with getting rid of the 1st amendment.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
pnako 6y ago
In a marketplace of ideas, unpopular views would get... unpopular view counts (on Youtube and elsewhere). If you want to keep with this analogy, censorship is a form of protectionism, so your marketplace of ideas is not a free market.

rayiner 6y ago

Obviously the First Amendment is directed to the government. I’m not making a legal argument here. But we don’t abide by the first amendment merely because we throw up our hands and say “this is a terrible idea but we’re stuck with it.” There is an underlying principle there, and that principle isn’t necessarily limited to the government. (As a matter of what is good policy, not what is the minimum legally required protection.) I don’t agree with your characterization that not shutting down subreddits or Twitter accounts is identical to forcing speech on anyone. There are a lot of Neo-marxists hanging out on Reddit calling for violence whose ideas I find extremely offensive and dangerous. But I choose not to wander into those subreddits. I don’t see why those subreddits need to be wiped out.

snowwrestler 6y ago
It's up to the people who run Reddit. If they want to wipe out some subreddits, who is to say they can't? Any mechanism you can imagine to prevent them from doing so would have the effect of forcing speech upon them. A website declining to carry some content seems perfectly in line with American values and traditions of free speech, in much the same way that Fox News is free to choose not to carry Rachel Maddow's show.
- rayiner 6y ago
  I’m not saying they can’t, I’m saying they shouldn’t. I disagree that reddit can be analogized to serial television media for these purposes.
- fapjacks 6y ago
  ... Except for some people, though, right? I have an idea how you feel about the guy refusing to sell (decorate) the gay marriage cake (not trying to be pithy here, just tried to do a bit of footwork before replying). Do you absolve that guy under those "American values and traditions of free speech" as you would a website in this case? For me, second-order consequences are as important as whether or not this particular guy must sell this particular cake, when it comes to issues as critical to a functioning free and democratic society (such as speech). So "fair" abstractions (those which don't hide or ignore contradiction) aren't just important, but obligatory. This is an issue that can be reasoned to completion without introducing "protected classes" of human being, because the reasoning and conclusion are the same regardless (and for the same reason more concise mathematical proofs are preferred over those predicated on "complications" such as Riemann). The guy selling the cake argued that he was being compelled to express an opinion (decorate a cake in celebration of an idea his religious beliefs dictated were unethical), thus making it compelled speech. So, is Youtube being compelled to express a particular opinion, if they do not ban users from the platform, when those users say things people find abhorrent? I do not think so, because Youtube bills itself as a platform where users create content and then publish the content on the platform for other users. Youtube does not purport to be a merchant of the content itself (obligatory reference to criticality of Section 230 protections). But according to his legal defense, the cake guy is selling the decoration of the cake in addition to the cake itself; his artwork as an expression of himself. In other words, Youtube is selling the medium and not the message. But the cake guy is selling the message (in addition to the medium). He is billing his cake decoration as part of his services, whereas Youtube and every other "platform" specifically denies in legal long-form that the content on their platform(s) reflect the views and opinions of the companies creating them. That is the critical distinction, and why I feel strongly that any platform which displays in its ToS that users agree that the views expressed on its platform are not the views held by the company, is violating the right of free expression to the users they ban from their platforms for the speech those users express on their platforms. Importantly, a big part of my reasoning here is that, subscribing to stoic thought, I place accountability for any perceived "damage" from words on the shoulders of the person interpreting them. I mention this here because I've found this is so divergent from the dominant worldview that it's rejected often with much of the same forcefulness as if I'd stated a value judgment predicated on the color of a person's skin. And this seems to me to be symptomatic, and I'm not sure how this fits into the broader discussion of how the internet fits into our culture. But it's a core proposition which I hope will be addressed directly instead of indirectly, because the implications are clear (you are ceding control of your mind to others, when you allow their words to dictate your thoughts).
tptacek 6y ago
In Democracy and Distrust, Ely says rules like the First Amendment are important because they secure the channels of democracy; in his framing, it's important that the government not suppress speech because doing so prevents the people from governing. It's not because speech is an intrinsic or natural right, which is an idea he argues against. That made sense to me when I read it. The idea of a universal principle of reverence for speech, regardless of its substance, makes no sense to me. In fact, it doesn't make sense to most people. Even on HN, you can find people arguing for decriminalizing child pornography. You have no trouble with that idea being suppressed. Why is white supremacy less loathsome? That's what we say when we suggest white supremacist speech be tolerated. (Violent neo-Marxism and Shining Path Maoism is trendy among left-edgelords and is equally intolerable).
- phonypc 6y ago
  I would/do have a problem with that idea being supressed. The path to defeating a truly bad idea is to publicly flog it, not pretend it doesn't exist.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    No. It takes more time to rebut ridiculous ideas than to generate them. At some point along the spectrum of consensus, the burden shifts to the person propagating the idea; otherwise, all we're doing is wasting time feeding the trolls.
    - phonypc 6y ago
      Trolls can be ignored. Bad ideas can be expressed in good faith.
      - tptacek 6y ago
        In neither case are we obligated to tolerate them.
        6y ago

JamesBarney 6y ago

I think the idea of marketplace of ideas is that an idea loses by being unpopular, not by another idea persuading large institutions to ban it. Your interpretation, that persuading a large institution to ban opposition ideas is winning, and being banned is losing, is entirely consistent with getting rid of the 1st amendment.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

pnako 6y ago

In a marketplace of ideas, unpopular views would get... unpopular view counts (on Youtube and elsewhere). If you want to keep with this analogy, censorship is a form of protectionism, so your marketplace of ideas is not a free market.