4 ms·

> Reddit is a private organization It's not okay to allow "the front page of the internet" to exist in stark opposition to the free speech values (a) that it

> Reddit is a private organization It's not okay to allow "the front page of the internet" to exist in stark opposition to the free speech values (a) that it started with and (b) of the country it is incorporated in. This bullshit, corporate-toady argument of "oh mwaaah it's a private corporation they can do whatever they want" is worse than any "bootlicker" attitude I can think of. Go ahead and give up the freedoms my ancestors fought for so that you can feel just a little bit more comfortable in your echo chamber. Never mind that it runs on infrastructure that is often paid for with public funds, on a network designed by a government that ostensibly believes in free speech. > Sure, if you host a bunch of white nationalist toxic garbage your registrar may revoke your domains. So you're totally fine with giving private, unregulated companies carte blanche to control people's ability to even register their own site? You'll reap what you sow. At some point whatever you think will also become unacceptable, and there will be nobody to stand for you.

mulmen 6y ago
> It's not okay to allow "the front page of the internet" to exist in stark opposition to the free speech values (a) that it started with and (b) of the country it is incorporated in. It's totally ok to allow that because it's a private organization. Reddit is free to claim they are from Alpha Centauri too. They can call themselves whatever they want. It up to you and me to decide if we believe them. > This bullshit, corporate-toady argument of "oh mwaaah it's a private corporation they can do whatever they want" is worse than any "bootlicker" attitude I can think of. Go ahead and give up the freedoms my ancestors fought for so that you can feel just a little bit more comfortable in your echo chamber. Never mind that it runs on infrastructure that is often paid for with public funds, on a network designed by a government that ostensibly believes in free speech. And what about the contributions of my ancestors? Or is that not relevant? Reddit is free to amplify whatever speech they want, or not, that's exactly what those freedoms you claim ownership of are promising. > So you're totally fine with giving private, unregulated companies carte blanche to control people's ability to even register their own site? Well, domain registrars are regulated. Also, I did not say I am ok with the amount of control registrars have. Please do note that these banned subreddits immediately were able to register domains. So while I agree this is a weak point in the current model I don't think it is an existential threat in 2020, especially because the Internet works even without domains. > You'll reap what you sow. At some point whatever you think will also become unacceptable, and there will be nobody to stand for you. I'm comfortable with my beliefs and my ability to introspect and change. And I am comfortable with the inherent conflict.
- core-questions 6y ago
  > It's totally ok to allow that because it's a private organization First of all, you're ignoring Section 230, which was supposed to defend free speech on these sites: if they're taking the position of not being responsible for what is said, they don't get to curate it. That's the dividing line between publisher and platform. Reddit et al are trying to have it both ways, and it hurts anyone who doesn't play by their Kafkaesque rulebook. Second of all, you're pretending Reddit is smaller than it is, or that its role is more replaceable than it is, both of which are untrue. These social media giants have become the public square, doubly so since we are locked down, and the corporations that run them have the potential for an incredibly out-sized amount of power in controlling what people see and read, which turns into controlling what we say and think. There's no reason we need to afford them editorial control at this scale. I'd sooner see them shut down than allowed to continue further down the path of editorializing discourse. > And what about the contributions of my ancestors? Or is that not relevant? Did your ancestors fight against freedom of speech? Or for it? If they fought against it, then we have a different conflict here. If they fought for it, then I hope they spit on the attitude of people like you from the afterlife. > Reddit is free to amplify whatever speech they want, or not, that's exactly what those freedoms you claim ownership of are promising. No, if they choose to be curators of the content, they become liable for everything that is posted, which is hardly something they can afford to handle at scale while still allowing people to post without everything going through manual approval. > Please do note that these banned subreddits immediately were able to register domains. We have seen registrars kick sites off. More importantly, we've seen payment processors totally lock out entire sites and alternative platforms. Even if you can set up a site, you can be locked out of any practical, scalable ability to actually keep it running via donations or paid content. > I'm comfortable with my beliefs and my ability to introspect and change. And I am comfortable with the inherent conflict. Good for you. It's easy to be comfortable when your beliefs are basically copy-pasted from the Google HR department's handbook.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    You seem to be misinformed about Section 230. This article does a better job explaining than I can. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello... From that link, the important part of the law: 47 U.S. Code § 230 (c)(1): No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Here are some additional resources: https://www.popehat.com/2019/08/29/make-no-law-deplatformed/ https://www.popehat.com/2019/08/29/make-no-law-deplatformed/
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
> It's not okay to allow "the front page of the internet" to exist in stark opposition to the free speech values (a) that it started with and (b) of the country it is incorporated in. It doesn't matter what it started with. Companies change all the time. So what? It's private property, they could shut all the servers down and replace it with something completely different. Why should an owner be punished because he decides he doesn't want certain content on his website? That is principally un-American - the right to private property is equal, if not greater, than the right to freedom of speech. You can't force a printing press, or Reddit, to allow certain speech - because this, paradoxically, is also a violation of ITS free speech.

mulmen 6y ago

> It's not okay to allow "the front page of the internet" to exist in stark opposition to the free speech values (a) that it started with and (b) of the country it is incorporated in. It's totally ok to allow that because it's a private organization. Reddit is free to claim they are from Alpha Centauri too. They can call themselves whatever they want. It up to you and me to decide if we believe them. > This bullshit, corporate-toady argument of "oh mwaaah it's a private corporation they can do whatever they want" is worse than any "bootlicker" attitude I can think of. Go ahead and give up the freedoms my ancestors fought for so that you can feel just a little bit more comfortable in your echo chamber. Never mind that it runs on infrastructure that is often paid for with public funds, on a network designed by a government that ostensibly believes in free speech. And what about the contributions of my ancestors? Or is that not relevant? Reddit is free to amplify whatever speech they want, or not, that's exactly what those freedoms you claim ownership of are promising. > So you're totally fine with giving private, unregulated companies carte blanche to control people's ability to even register their own site? Well, domain registrars are regulated. Also, I did not say I am ok with the amount of control registrars have. Please do note that these banned subreddits immediately were able to register domains. So while I agree this is a weak point in the current model I don't think it is an existential threat in 2020, especially because the Internet works even without domains. > You'll reap what you sow. At some point whatever you think will also become unacceptable, and there will be nobody to stand for you. I'm comfortable with my beliefs and my ability to introspect and change. And I am comfortable with the inherent conflict.

core-questions 6y ago
> It's totally ok to allow that because it's a private organization First of all, you're ignoring Section 230, which was supposed to defend free speech on these sites: if they're taking the position of not being responsible for what is said, they don't get to curate it. That's the dividing line between publisher and platform. Reddit et al are trying to have it both ways, and it hurts anyone who doesn't play by their Kafkaesque rulebook. Second of all, you're pretending Reddit is smaller than it is, or that its role is more replaceable than it is, both of which are untrue. These social media giants have become the public square, doubly so since we are locked down, and the corporations that run them have the potential for an incredibly out-sized amount of power in controlling what people see and read, which turns into controlling what we say and think. There's no reason we need to afford them editorial control at this scale. I'd sooner see them shut down than allowed to continue further down the path of editorializing discourse. > And what about the contributions of my ancestors? Or is that not relevant? Did your ancestors fight against freedom of speech? Or for it? If they fought against it, then we have a different conflict here. If they fought for it, then I hope they spit on the attitude of people like you from the afterlife. > Reddit is free to amplify whatever speech they want, or not, that's exactly what those freedoms you claim ownership of are promising. No, if they choose to be curators of the content, they become liable for everything that is posted, which is hardly something they can afford to handle at scale while still allowing people to post without everything going through manual approval. > Please do note that these banned subreddits immediately were able to register domains. We have seen registrars kick sites off. More importantly, we've seen payment processors totally lock out entire sites and alternative platforms. Even if you can set up a site, you can be locked out of any practical, scalable ability to actually keep it running via donations or paid content. > I'm comfortable with my beliefs and my ability to introspect and change. And I am comfortable with the inherent conflict. Good for you. It's easy to be comfortable when your beliefs are basically copy-pasted from the Google HR department's handbook.
- mulmen 6y ago
  You seem to be misinformed about Section 230. This article does a better job explaining than I can. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello... From that link, the important part of the law: 47 U.S. Code § 230 (c)(1): No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Here are some additional resources: https://www.popehat.com/2019/08/29/make-no-law-deplatformed/ https://www.popehat.com/2019/08/29/make-no-law-deplatformed/

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

> It's not okay to allow "the front page of the internet" to exist in stark opposition to the free speech values (a) that it started with and (b) of the country it is incorporated in. It doesn't matter what it started with. Companies change all the time. So what? It's private property, they could shut all the servers down and replace it with something completely different. Why should an owner be punished because he decides he doesn't want certain content on his website? That is principally un-American - the right to private property is equal, if not greater, than the right to freedom of speech. You can't force a printing press, or Reddit, to allow certain speech - because this, paradoxically, is also a violation of ITS free speech.