9 ms·

>Companies should be free to regulate hate speech on their platforms. The government should not regulate speech in the public domain. While I agree, please dir

by daenz 6y ago

>Companies should be free to regulate hate speech on their platforms. The government should not regulate speech in the public domain. While I agree, please direct me to where I can speak "in the public domain" online.

gruez 6y ago
tor, ipfs
JoshTko 6y ago
You can create your own website and and host it yourself.
- s9w 6y ago
  We have all seen how instantly hosters, domain registrars and payment processors don't care for laws.
- maxk42 6y ago
  And yet we've seen hosts, domain registrars, and other service providers restrict certain ideas on their platforms. How practical is it in reality to be your own ISP, domain registrar, certificate authority, hosting service, web dev agency, and community moderator all in one?
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Not very. But it's what the Constitution provides. It guarantees you the right to express your thoughts using your own resources. It does not force others to do it or make it easier for you.
    - daenz 6y ago
      The Constitution assumes a public space exists, otherwise if it was all private, there would be no point to any of the Bill of Rights, since private entities would/could override all of them. The internet is a land controlled entirely by private entities.
kukx 6y ago
For example there is Parler, an alternative to Twitter. While it is not a state company, it promotes free speech. They claim "Our content is moderated based off the FCC and the Supreme court of the United States which enables free expression without violence and a lack of censorship.".
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  That's the claim, at least. The reality is quite different. https://www.iflscience.com/technology/free-speech-social-network-parler-just-set-out-its-rules-and-yeesh/ https://www.iflscience.com/technology/free-speech-social-net... > "When you disagree with someone, posting pictures of your fecal matter in the comment section WILL NOT BE TOLERATED," the first rule states, which is just a fantastic start to any list of rules. A club that has to spell that out (presumably after multiple people broke that rule) is clearly one that needs to be joined. "Your username cannot be CumDumpster," the rules continue, adding that pornography isn't allowed. Sorry, Ted. Twitter permits all of those things. Some "free speech platform".
  - kukx 6y ago
    I did not know about the implicit rules. I do not use Parler yet. However the problem with trolls is a hard one to solve on any platform, especially on the platform that wants to promote free speech. If they turn out to be a right wing version of Twitter it would be a shame. We need a platform that could accommodate both left and right wing people so that they can exchange thoughts with each other.
    - chc 6y ago
      Are trolls a problem to solve at all if your goal is to promote free speech? Trolling is one of the most commonly censored forms of speech. It seems like trolls are a core feature, not a bug, in that scenario. If you actually want to solve the problem of trolls, I think the first step would be to put away the "free speech" platitudes, sit down and figure out what kinds of speech you actually support and what kinds of speech you want to curtail and why.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dsr_ 6y ago
In the US, ISPs were a common carrier from 2015 through 2017, when the Republicans revoked that: while they might not let you say anything you want on the servers they own, they couldn't terminate your contract for you saying legal things on the servers you own. Perhaps that regulatory regime will return. Maybe even next year. Not under a Republican-led FCC, of course.
generalk 6y ago
Companies aren't the only entities allowed to publish content on the World Wide Web, you know. You're free to build whatever discussion platforms you like, or you could just, y'know, publish a website.
- daenz 6y ago
  But then I control it and can deny the free speech of others. That's not what I'm asking for.
  - generalk 6y ago
    Sure. If I own a website or a newspaper or the patch of ground in front of my house, I get to decide what information goes there. Are you arguing that there should be some legal provision that says anyone can publish anything on your website, or newspaper, or ground, and you don't get a say in it? That seems unreasonable.
    - daenz 6y ago
      I am arguing for a space online that is publicly owned, maintained by the government, easily accessible by your average person, with the same very few restrictions on free speech that exist in the real world.
      - generalk 6y ago
        I think that would be an interesting thing to have, and the implementation of it would have to solve a lot of issues (equal access to technology, etc) that need solving badly. I'm also glad we finally got to the actual thing you want to see change. Curious though: what would having this space solve?
        daenz 6y ago
        >what would having this space solve? Is this a trick question? It guarantees that any marginalized people has access to communicate easily and freely to the general public, and it cannot be denied by anyone.
ideals 6y ago
Start your own blog. The internet isnt just SV companies. There's nothing stopping you from creating your own platform that espouses your ideals.
- gruez 6y ago
  I think his point is that at the end of the day, you're going to be dependent on someone. With a self hosted blog you're dependent on at least an ISP and registrar, both of which are private entities.
  - remmargorp64 6y ago
    These are good points. It sounds like a big part of the problem is that we don't have a truly "public" internet, if the backbone of the internet is a bunch of private entities. We need a truly decentralized internet that doesn't suck like tor currently does.
  - ideals 6y ago
    Your ISP is a utility. Twitter is not. Your ISP cannot block you from hosting your own blog on your own servers. Even if your ISP did, there are places which will allow you to host whatever you want. Alex Jones is still online for example. WikiLeaks is still online. This argument is always about people complaining that they don't get to participate on the big platforms. But if there was so much demand for people shouting about racist loser shit online there would be a big platform for it. It's their responsibility to build it, not Twitter's
    - daenz 6y ago
      >people shouting about racist loser shit This is exactly what I was talking about here[0]. You don't want a place to post freely to exist because you already have a preconceived idea of what people will say, and you are against that. This kind of attitude is hidden behind so many of the "but you can already do X, kinda" responses I've seen before in these discussions. Why not just lead by saying you don't think a government maintained platform for free speech should exist because you don't want to hear what people who want it would have to say? 0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23716909 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23716909
throwaway_USD 6y ago
>While I agree, please direct me to where I can speak "in the public domain" online. Same place as with pre-online TV and radio I suppose. Free speech doesn't guarantee you an audience at the time and place of your choosing. Take public buildings like a Courthouse or City hall, sure you have Free Speech rights, but good luck interrupting a court hearing to get your message out (without being held in contempt by the Judge (the government) and thrown in jail). Or try getting your message out at mid-night when the building is closed. Then as others have said, what is stopping you from registering your own domain and posting your message there? If the government infringing your rights in that regard?
- daenz 6y ago
  Do you not believe that people can stand on a public street corner and express their ideas freely, where many people will likely see and hear them? Your examples are edge cases (court rooms at midnight) that seem designed to suggest that no such places exists. They do exist, and I am asking where is there online version. Are you suggesting that the only way to exchange free speech online is for each passerby to create their own website and respond on their respective websites? I've seen people claim voter suppression for fewer hurdles. Or are you suggesting that it is the responsibility of a private entity to create and maintain a public square? Where is the online public square? That's the point I am trying to make. And as others have pointed out, if you think having domain name and hosting is a public square, then you are ignoring all of the precedents of those things being removed by private entities.
  - remmargorp64 6y ago
    The online "public square" is the internet itself. If you want to say something in public, simply create a web site and publish it. My understanding is that anything you say on your own web site will be protected via the same laws as public speech.
  - throwaway_USD 6y ago
    >Do you not believe that people can stand on a public street corner and express their ideas freely, where many people will likely see and hear them? The Government can restrict you on the street corner too. Take Covid, states/counties/cities/municipalities across the country are enacting curfews, so violate the curfew and they will arrest your chilling your speech...assuming you consider that an edge case as well, then just read the case law from the good old "soap box" days, which deal exactly with people setting up their soap boxes on the corner to talk to the public and yes the government can regulate that speech to a certain extent. >Are you suggesting that the only way to exchange free speech online is for each passerby to create their own website and respond on their respective websites? Do you have a website? Can I freely post on your website without your consent? >Where is the online public square? The web is the public square, you want to set up your own soap box (website) do it, but you have no right to take over someone else's soap box (website), and if they do give you some rights to stand on their soap box they certainly can place restrictions. >if you think having domain name and hosting is a public square, then you are ignoring all of the precedents of those things being removed by private entities. You are ignoring self hosting from private servers.
remmargorp64 6y ago
Easy. Set up your own web site and put whatever you want to say on it. If the hosting company takes you down, host it yourself. If ICANN takes it down, host it on Tor. There are always ways to bypass corporate control of speech. You may have to completely forgo the benefits provided by the corporate web sites, but nothing is stopping you from making your own platform.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > If the hosting company takes you down, host it yourself. If ICANN takes it down, host it on Tor. That's a bit like "if the police beats you up in public, you're still free to speak your mind in your basement" though.
  - acdha 6y ago
    Except that it’s not a public space and the harm is far less than a beating. A hosting company can have terms of service just like any other business and the only real restrictions are legally-protected classes, and even that has context. Think of it like going to a coffee shop: they can’t kick you out for being Catholic or male but they can ask you to leave if you are harassing other people, not following public health codes, etc.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > Except that it’s not a public space and the harm is far less than a beating. As in "you can't speak any more, because your website is offline". A gag is the offline equivalent. > Think of it like going to a coffee shop I believe that example would be more accurate if we all lived in company towns, where no public space exists and your presence, and speech, is merely tolerated under normal circumstances, but you have no right to either being there nor speaking your mind, and can be removed at any moment, should anyone "in charge" have an issue with your behavior. That also has the angle that you lose a lot more than just your ability to speak: you lose your home and need to find a new place that will take you in, need to tell everybody you know and do business with about your new address etc, like when Google shuts down your Gmail account.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
brnt 6y ago
Thats the downside of the modern web largely Boeing created in the US, its highly commercialized.

by daenz 6y ago

gruez 6y ago

tor, ipfs

JoshTko 6y ago

You can create your own website and and host it yourself.

s9w 6y ago
We have all seen how instantly hosters, domain registrars and payment processors don't care for laws.
maxk42 6y ago
And yet we've seen hosts, domain registrars, and other service providers restrict certain ideas on their platforms. How practical is it in reality to be your own ISP, domain registrar, certificate authority, hosting service, web dev agency, and community moderator all in one?
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Not very. But it's what the Constitution provides. It guarantees you the right to express your thoughts using your own resources. It does not force others to do it or make it easier for you.
  - daenz 6y ago
    The Constitution assumes a public space exists, otherwise if it was all private, there would be no point to any of the Bill of Rights, since private entities would/could override all of them. The internet is a land controlled entirely by private entities.

kukx 6y ago

For example there is Parler, an alternative to Twitter. While it is not a state company, it promotes free speech. They claim "Our content is moderated based off the FCC and the Supreme court of the United States which enables free expression without violence and a lack of censorship.".

ceejayoz 6y ago
That's the claim, at least. The reality is quite different. https://www.iflscience.com/technology/free-speech-social-network-parler-just-set-out-its-rules-and-yeesh/ https://www.iflscience.com/technology/free-speech-social-net... > "When you disagree with someone, posting pictures of your fecal matter in the comment section WILL NOT BE TOLERATED," the first rule states, which is just a fantastic start to any list of rules. A club that has to spell that out (presumably after multiple people broke that rule) is clearly one that needs to be joined. "Your username cannot be CumDumpster," the rules continue, adding that pornography isn't allowed. Sorry, Ted. Twitter permits all of those things. Some "free speech platform".
- kukx 6y ago
  I did not know about the implicit rules. I do not use Parler yet. However the problem with trolls is a hard one to solve on any platform, especially on the platform that wants to promote free speech. If they turn out to be a right wing version of Twitter it would be a shame. We need a platform that could accommodate both left and right wing people so that they can exchange thoughts with each other.
  - chc 6y ago
    Are trolls a problem to solve at all if your goal is to promote free speech? Trolling is one of the most commonly censored forms of speech. It seems like trolls are a core feature, not a bug, in that scenario. If you actually want to solve the problem of trolls, I think the first step would be to put away the "free speech" platitudes, sit down and figure out what kinds of speech you actually support and what kinds of speech you want to curtail and why.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dsr_ 6y ago

In the US, ISPs were a common carrier from 2015 through 2017, when the Republicans revoked that: while they might not let you say anything you want on the servers they own, they couldn't terminate your contract for you saying legal things on the servers you own. Perhaps that regulatory regime will return. Maybe even next year. Not under a Republican-led FCC, of course.

generalk 6y ago

Companies aren't the only entities allowed to publish content on the World Wide Web, you know. You're free to build whatever discussion platforms you like, or you could just, y'know, publish a website.

daenz 6y ago
But then I control it and can deny the free speech of others. That's not what I'm asking for.
- generalk 6y ago
  Sure. If I own a website or a newspaper or the patch of ground in front of my house, I get to decide what information goes there. Are you arguing that there should be some legal provision that says anyone can publish anything on your website, or newspaper, or ground, and you don't get a say in it? That seems unreasonable.
  - daenz 6y ago
    I am arguing for a space online that is publicly owned, maintained by the government, easily accessible by your average person, with the same very few restrictions on free speech that exist in the real world.
    - generalk 6y ago
      I think that would be an interesting thing to have, and the implementation of it would have to solve a lot of issues (equal access to technology, etc) that need solving badly. I'm also glad we finally got to the actual thing you want to see change. Curious though: what would having this space solve?
      - daenz 6y ago
        >what would having this space solve? Is this a trick question? It guarantees that any marginalized people has access to communicate easily and freely to the general public, and it cannot be denied by anyone.

ideals 6y ago

Start your own blog. The internet isnt just SV companies. There's nothing stopping you from creating your own platform that espouses your ideals.

gruez 6y ago
I think his point is that at the end of the day, you're going to be dependent on someone. With a self hosted blog you're dependent on at least an ISP and registrar, both of which are private entities.
- remmargorp64 6y ago
  These are good points. It sounds like a big part of the problem is that we don't have a truly "public" internet, if the backbone of the internet is a bunch of private entities. We need a truly decentralized internet that doesn't suck like tor currently does.
- ideals 6y ago
  Your ISP is a utility. Twitter is not. Your ISP cannot block you from hosting your own blog on your own servers. Even if your ISP did, there are places which will allow you to host whatever you want. Alex Jones is still online for example. WikiLeaks is still online. This argument is always about people complaining that they don't get to participate on the big platforms. But if there was so much demand for people shouting about racist loser shit online there would be a big platform for it. It's their responsibility to build it, not Twitter's
  - daenz 6y ago
    >people shouting about racist loser shit This is exactly what I was talking about here[0]. You don't want a place to post freely to exist because you already have a preconceived idea of what people will say, and you are against that. This kind of attitude is hidden behind so many of the "but you can already do X, kinda" responses I've seen before in these discussions. Why not just lead by saying you don't think a government maintained platform for free speech should exist because you don't want to hear what people who want it would have to say? 0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23716909 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23716909

throwaway_USD 6y ago

>While I agree, please direct me to where I can speak "in the public domain" online. Same place as with pre-online TV and radio I suppose. Free speech doesn't guarantee you an audience at the time and place of your choosing. Take public buildings like a Courthouse or City hall, sure you have Free Speech rights, but good luck interrupting a court hearing to get your message out (without being held in contempt by the Judge (the government) and thrown in jail). Or try getting your message out at mid-night when the building is closed. Then as others have said, what is stopping you from registering your own domain and posting your message there? If the government infringing your rights in that regard?

daenz 6y ago
Do you not believe that people can stand on a public street corner and express their ideas freely, where many people will likely see and hear them? Your examples are edge cases (court rooms at midnight) that seem designed to suggest that no such places exists. They do exist, and I am asking where is there online version. Are you suggesting that the only way to exchange free speech online is for each passerby to create their own website and respond on their respective websites? I've seen people claim voter suppression for fewer hurdles. Or are you suggesting that it is the responsibility of a private entity to create and maintain a public square? Where is the online public square? That's the point I am trying to make. And as others have pointed out, if you think having domain name and hosting is a public square, then you are ignoring all of the precedents of those things being removed by private entities.
- remmargorp64 6y ago
  The online "public square" is the internet itself. If you want to say something in public, simply create a web site and publish it. My understanding is that anything you say on your own web site will be protected via the same laws as public speech.
- throwaway_USD 6y ago
  >Do you not believe that people can stand on a public street corner and express their ideas freely, where many people will likely see and hear them? The Government can restrict you on the street corner too. Take Covid, states/counties/cities/municipalities across the country are enacting curfews, so violate the curfew and they will arrest your chilling your speech...assuming you consider that an edge case as well, then just read the case law from the good old "soap box" days, which deal exactly with people setting up their soap boxes on the corner to talk to the public and yes the government can regulate that speech to a certain extent. >Are you suggesting that the only way to exchange free speech online is for each passerby to create their own website and respond on their respective websites? Do you have a website? Can I freely post on your website without your consent? >Where is the online public square? The web is the public square, you want to set up your own soap box (website) do it, but you have no right to take over someone else's soap box (website), and if they do give you some rights to stand on their soap box they certainly can place restrictions. >if you think having domain name and hosting is a public square, then you are ignoring all of the precedents of those things being removed by private entities. You are ignoring self hosting from private servers.

remmargorp64 6y ago

Easy. Set up your own web site and put whatever you want to say on it. If the hosting company takes you down, host it yourself. If ICANN takes it down, host it on Tor. There are always ways to bypass corporate control of speech. You may have to completely forgo the benefits provided by the corporate web sites, but nothing is stopping you from making your own platform.

luckylion 6y ago
> If the hosting company takes you down, host it yourself. If ICANN takes it down, host it on Tor. That's a bit like "if the police beats you up in public, you're still free to speak your mind in your basement" though.
- acdha 6y ago
  Except that it’s not a public space and the harm is far less than a beating. A hosting company can have terms of service just like any other business and the only real restrictions are legally-protected classes, and even that has context. Think of it like going to a coffee shop: they can’t kick you out for being Catholic or male but they can ask you to leave if you are harassing other people, not following public health codes, etc.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > Except that it’s not a public space and the harm is far less than a beating. As in "you can't speak any more, because your website is offline". A gag is the offline equivalent. > Think of it like going to a coffee shop I believe that example would be more accurate if we all lived in company towns, where no public space exists and your presence, and speech, is merely tolerated under normal circumstances, but you have no right to either being there nor speaking your mind, and can be removed at any moment, should anyone "in charge" have an issue with your behavior. That also has the angle that you lose a lot more than just your ability to speak: you lose your home and need to find a new place that will take you in, need to tell everybody you know and do business with about your new address etc, like when Google shuts down your Gmail account.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

brnt 6y ago

Thats the downside of the modern web largely Boeing created in the US, its highly commercialized.