3 ms·

> The reason why freedom of speech ... is important This view is (IMO) far too narrow. Freedom of expression, particularly political expression, is absolutely

by Reelin 6y ago

> The reason why freedom of speech ... is important This view is (IMO) far too narrow. Freedom of expression, particularly political expression, is absolutely essential to the functioning of western society as it currently exists. Personally, I also see it as an ideal to be pursued in and of itself regardless of any functional need for it. Government regulation has a high potential for abuse for a number of reasons (the monopoly on violence is merely one) so it makes sense to take steps to constrain it in certain critical cases. Note that this doesn't imply anything about private entities; it is simply a logical consequence of a functional need or ideal in the context of our current system. As to private entities (businesses, etc) things vary based on context. Certainly I don't have any wish (for example) to force YouTube to host pornographic content. However there may well exist cases where broader freedom of expression (either the functional need or the ideal) requires protection against private entities. California actually has such a law - an employer is not permitted to take actions that would "influence or tend to influence" their employees political activities outside of the workplace. This can get very complicated (as you might imagine) when an employer takes an official political stance on an issue. US telecoms are also subject to regulation of this sort (ie common carrier laws). Personally I think that infrastructure companies (Cloudflare and other CDNs, as well as those providing the physical layer) ought to be subject to something broadly similar. It would help protect usage of and access to the underlying infrastructure for everyone by shielding the relevant companies from negative public opinion (public outrage campaigns accomplish nothing if the company is legally required to serve all customers). > ... have turned into the cesspools of the internet Broadly, I think you are tending to conflate infrastructure providers with social networks (and similar end user sites). There are important differences (for example) between FedEx and an online retailer, even though they might both be involved in getting a physical product to you.

ygjb 6y ago
> Government regulation has a high potential for abuse for a number of reasons Can you identify any government regulation that is enforceable where that enforcement isn't rooted in the monopoly on violence? Note that violence doesn't just mean capital or corporal punishment, it also depriving individuals of their possessions (for example, fines, asset forfeiture, etc), or their freedom. Each case where government can impose regulation carries the full weight of the threat of violence. If not for that threat of violence, the regulation would have no meaningful impact. > However there may well exist cases where broader freedom of expression requires (...) protection against private entities. I agree with you, but I don't think the answer here is to give government a mandate to dictate a policy of freedom of expression, I think the correct step is to evaluate whether a business has grown sufficiently large to constitute a threat to expression in society, and I think the model of being a monopoly is close to that. Disney is a stellar example; they don't own all of the movie studios, but their enormous size and ownership of the intellectual property rights to such a huge swath of cultural history for the last century, and the way they use those rights is growing increasingly harmful. I don't think it's right for government to say that Disney should start distributing adult films, but I certainly think it's appropriate to introduce regulations governing how a company like Disney can negotiate for, or more practically, dictate terms to movie theatres and retail outfits to carry or distribute their products. > Broadly, I think you are tending to conflate infrastructure providers with social networks (and similar end user sites) I do, but that is a separate discussion around the way that major platforms, cloud service providers, content studios, transit providers, and online retailers have become interconnected through acquisitions and competition that it has gotten to the point where I treat any online service as a "temporarily disenfranchised critical infrastructure". This is largely due to the idea that for many online services the end goal is to either achieve enough market share to become a competitor to another internet company, or to be acquired trying.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
You're missing the thread here. Suppose a guy walks into a grocery store with a shaved head and swastika tattoos. He wants to buy a bag of apples. The store owner doesn't like the cut of his jib and asks him to leave. That's fine, the guy goes to the grocery store across the street and buys the apples there. The store owner across the street doesn't care what kind of tattoos a man has and is willing to sell apples to anybody. That's fine too, right? But then an angry mob descends on the store, filling the entrances and harassing the customers, accusing the store owner of being a complicit racist for doing business with Nazis. The store owner does some simple math and realizes that selling a bag of apples a month isn't worth this kind of trouble, so they start to turn the man away too. Then the angry mob does the same thing to anyone who will do business with the man at all. He can't buy food, electricity, clothes, medicine, nothing, or the merchant will be the subject of a harassment campaign which will cost them more than they could get from his business. This is clearly just as coercive as anything the government could do, if not more. Even they're not allowed to deprive you of food and medicine. And as much as we might like the idea of making life impossible for Nazis, the target is only the current whim of the mob. Nothing guarantees that a given target is actually evil. Or that they're paying enough attention to notice that the guy with the shaved head and swastika tattoos is a Buddhist monk and not a Nazi at all. Which is why, when the government does it, they have an obligation to give you a fair trial and access to an attorney and respect your constitutional rights. None of which the mob gives you.
- Reelin 6y ago
  I think you meant to reply to @ygjb? But yep, this is pretty much my thinking as well - that being ruled by the whims of the mob is hardly desirable from a societal standpoint because it ultimately results in many of the same issues that government restrictions on expression do.

by Reelin 6y ago

ygjb 6y ago

> Government regulation has a high potential for abuse for a number of reasons Can you identify any government regulation that is enforceable where that enforcement isn't rooted in the monopoly on violence? Note that violence doesn't just mean capital or corporal punishment, it also depriving individuals of their possessions (for example, fines, asset forfeiture, etc), or their freedom. Each case where government can impose regulation carries the full weight of the threat of violence. If not for that threat of violence, the regulation would have no meaningful impact. > However there may well exist cases where broader freedom of expression requires (...) protection against private entities. I agree with you, but I don't think the answer here is to give government a mandate to dictate a policy of freedom of expression, I think the correct step is to evaluate whether a business has grown sufficiently large to constitute a threat to expression in society, and I think the model of being a monopoly is close to that. Disney is a stellar example; they don't own all of the movie studios, but their enormous size and ownership of the intellectual property rights to such a huge swath of cultural history for the last century, and the way they use those rights is growing increasingly harmful. I don't think it's right for government to say that Disney should start distributing adult films, but I certainly think it's appropriate to introduce regulations governing how a company like Disney can negotiate for, or more practically, dictate terms to movie theatres and retail outfits to carry or distribute their products. > Broadly, I think you are tending to conflate infrastructure providers with social networks (and similar end user sites) I do, but that is a separate discussion around the way that major platforms, cloud service providers, content studios, transit providers, and online retailers have become interconnected through acquisitions and competition that it has gotten to the point where I treat any online service as a "temporarily disenfranchised critical infrastructure". This is largely due to the idea that for many online services the end goal is to either achieve enough market share to become a competitor to another internet company, or to be acquired trying.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

You're missing the thread here. Suppose a guy walks into a grocery store with a shaved head and swastika tattoos. He wants to buy a bag of apples. The store owner doesn't like the cut of his jib and asks him to leave. That's fine, the guy goes to the grocery store across the street and buys the apples there. The store owner across the street doesn't care what kind of tattoos a man has and is willing to sell apples to anybody. That's fine too, right? But then an angry mob descends on the store, filling the entrances and harassing the customers, accusing the store owner of being a complicit racist for doing business with Nazis. The store owner does some simple math and realizes that selling a bag of apples a month isn't worth this kind of trouble, so they start to turn the man away too. Then the angry mob does the same thing to anyone who will do business with the man at all. He can't buy food, electricity, clothes, medicine, nothing, or the merchant will be the subject of a harassment campaign which will cost them more than they could get from his business. This is clearly just as coercive as anything the government could do, if not more. Even they're not allowed to deprive you of food and medicine. And as much as we might like the idea of making life impossible for Nazis, the target is only the current whim of the mob. Nothing guarantees that a given target is actually evil. Or that they're paying enough attention to notice that the guy with the shaved head and swastika tattoos is a Buddhist monk and not a Nazi at all. Which is why, when the government does it, they have an obligation to give you a fair trial and access to an attorney and respect your constitutional rights. None of which the mob gives you.

Reelin 6y ago
I think you meant to reply to @ygjb? But yep, this is pretty much my thinking as well - that being ruled by the whims of the mob is hardly desirable from a societal standpoint because it ultimately results in many of the same issues that government restrictions on expression do.