4 ms·

Right, that's what the debate that is coming to. Are the platforms the townsquare for speech and should we hold them to a standard of free speech that doesn't j

Right, that's what the debate that is coming to. Are the platforms the townsquare for speech and should we hold them to a standard of free speech that doesn't just mean "no interference from government"? Also, a difference of degree can be such that it becomes a difference in kind.

Apocryphon 6y ago
It's just strange to me that the Internet free speech debate is getting so heated after it's been around for as long as the Internet- or at least the Web- has. People are acting like they suddenly realized websites have TOS that include clauses on acceptable content.
- bezmenov 6y ago
  It's the selective enforcement of such clauses which a causing a stir.
- manigandham 6y ago
  You keep skipping over the reason. It's like saying the internet is nothing new because we had radio before. That's how big of a change social media is with the scale and reach. It all basically happened in a decade, and especially grew in the last few years where even presidents are making news on Twitter first. And when the CEO of Twitter says social media is a right, it further begs the question of what access and moderation really mean.
- viklove 6y ago
  People aren't in disagreement over what social platforms can do, they're in disagreement over what they ought to do. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    It's hard to understand why they're acting like they woke up yesterday when "Free Speech on the Internet" has been a hotly-debated issue that's existed for as long as the Internet. Why wasn't there mass anger in the AOL days, at least among the web-surfing public? Facebook has existed for over a decade and a half. Why did it take until now for this issue to peak?
    - viklove 6y ago
      You really can't figure it out? It's because today, and not a decade ago, the internet is the primary place for discourse. If you're banned from FB or Twitter, you're effectively banned from having a conversation. 10 years ago this wasn't the case -- only a minority of the population was using the internet as the primary place of discourse, and even then there was far greater stratification over various discussion boards. This issue has peaked because a few massive corporations have consolidated the internet discussion market share, and they now wield massive power because of it. People want that power to be limited.
      - Apocryphon 6y ago
        It's strange to me because it feels like I've been seen articles about the topic for at least a decade, and people just shrugged their shoulders until the polarization from the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the subsequent culture wars, and deplatforming becoming a major tactic used in the culture wars, kicked it into overdrive. Pieces like this one [0] read so very quaint now. I suppose, just like social media's detrimental effects on mental health [1], these advance warnings were just collectively ignored by society- and the tech companies themselves- until very recently. Odd, that. [0] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/12/facebook-ban.html http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/12/facebook-... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=664351 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=664351
      - tzs 6y ago
        > If you're banned from FB or Twitter, you're effectively banned from having a conversation. You can still have conversations with ease by email, IM, phone, and on your own forums on a server you control (or non-electronically such as in person or by paper mail). What an FB or Twitter ban effectively takes away is broadcasting your material to a vast audience for free.

Apocryphon 6y ago

It's just strange to me that the Internet free speech debate is getting so heated after it's been around for as long as the Internet- or at least the Web- has. People are acting like they suddenly realized websites have TOS that include clauses on acceptable content.

bezmenov 6y ago
It's the selective enforcement of such clauses which a causing a stir.
manigandham 6y ago
You keep skipping over the reason. It's like saying the internet is nothing new because we had radio before. That's how big of a change social media is with the scale and reach. It all basically happened in a decade, and especially grew in the last few years where even presidents are making news on Twitter first. And when the CEO of Twitter says social media is a right, it further begs the question of what access and moderation really mean.
viklove 6y ago
People aren't in disagreement over what social platforms can do, they're in disagreement over what they ought to do. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  It's hard to understand why they're acting like they woke up yesterday when "Free Speech on the Internet" has been a hotly-debated issue that's existed for as long as the Internet. Why wasn't there mass anger in the AOL days, at least among the web-surfing public? Facebook has existed for over a decade and a half. Why did it take until now for this issue to peak?
  - viklove 6y ago
    You really can't figure it out? It's because today, and not a decade ago, the internet is the primary place for discourse. If you're banned from FB or Twitter, you're effectively banned from having a conversation. 10 years ago this wasn't the case -- only a minority of the population was using the internet as the primary place of discourse, and even then there was far greater stratification over various discussion boards. This issue has peaked because a few massive corporations have consolidated the internet discussion market share, and they now wield massive power because of it. People want that power to be limited.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      It's strange to me because it feels like I've been seen articles about the topic for at least a decade, and people just shrugged their shoulders until the polarization from the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the subsequent culture wars, and deplatforming becoming a major tactic used in the culture wars, kicked it into overdrive. Pieces like this one [0] read so very quaint now. I suppose, just like social media's detrimental effects on mental health [1], these advance warnings were just collectively ignored by society- and the tech companies themselves- until very recently. Odd, that. [0] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/12/facebook-ban.html http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/12/facebook-... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=664351 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=664351
    - tzs 6y ago
      > If you're banned from FB or Twitter, you're effectively banned from having a conversation. You can still have conversations with ease by email, IM, phone, and on your own forums on a server you control (or non-electronically such as in person or by paper mail). What an FB or Twitter ban effectively takes away is broadcasting your material to a vast audience for free.