4 ms·

We're okay with social media companies regulating free speech, but draw the line at governments. Ironic, isn't it? And yes, I'm well aware that Governments sho

We're okay with social media companies regulating free speech, but draw the line at governments. Ironic, isn't it? And yes, I'm well aware that Governments should endorse and not stifle free speech, but this message is propagated on social media platforms. The very systems that enable voice and disable voices because it's a violation of "Terms of Services" or in other words, revenue. But then again, governments grant rights, and social media tech companies, don't. Right?

msla 6y ago
> We're okay with social media companies regulating free speech, but draw the line at governments. > Ironic, isn't it? Not unless you're Alanis Morissette. The difference is the concept of monopoly: A government has a monopoly on being a government in a given region. That's pretty fundamental to what a government even is, as per Weber and Westphalia. A social media company isn't a monopoly on being a social media company. You can talk online without using Twitter, or Reddit, or Facebook, or even Hacker News.
- Sargos 6y ago
  You can talk in the physical world without being in any particular country so none of the governments have a monopoly either. With that definition we don't even really need the concept of free speech as you always have a choice of where to speak. Social media sites have network effects and if you make your own site to put your speech on then nobody will ever see it. If you actually want to interact with others then you need to go on a big site that has a monopoly on the speech of that group of people. It's not that much different than a government and if we want to keep the concept of freedom of speech then we need to discuss whether those rights also apply in some way to public forums.
jkingsbery 6y ago
>governments grant rights Perhaps a subtle point, but I think it has consequences... there is a difference between a government granting rights and securing them. The [US Declaration of Independence](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip...) puts forth the opinion that governments are instituted "to secure these rights." I think the regulation of speech is an example where it makes a difference what you believe - if the government grants you rights, it can take them away. If our rights pre-exist the government, then the government can only succeed or fail at accomplishing what it was instituted to do.
dfxm12 6y ago
The very systems that enable voice and disable voices because it's a violation of "Terms of Services" or in other words, revenue. Democracy enables voice. Capitalism, vis-a-vis putting revenue above all else, disables it.

msla 6y ago

> We're okay with social media companies regulating free speech, but draw the line at governments. > Ironic, isn't it? Not unless you're Alanis Morissette. The difference is the concept of monopoly: A government has a monopoly on being a government in a given region. That's pretty fundamental to what a government even is, as per Weber and Westphalia. A social media company isn't a monopoly on being a social media company. You can talk online without using Twitter, or Reddit, or Facebook, or even Hacker News.

Sargos 6y ago
You can talk in the physical world without being in any particular country so none of the governments have a monopoly either. With that definition we don't even really need the concept of free speech as you always have a choice of where to speak. Social media sites have network effects and if you make your own site to put your speech on then nobody will ever see it. If you actually want to interact with others then you need to go on a big site that has a monopoly on the speech of that group of people. It's not that much different than a government and if we want to keep the concept of freedom of speech then we need to discuss whether those rights also apply in some way to public forums.

jkingsbery 6y ago

>governments grant rights Perhaps a subtle point, but I think it has consequences... there is a difference between a government granting rights and securing them. The [US Declaration of Independence](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip...) puts forth the opinion that governments are instituted "to secure these rights." I think the regulation of speech is an example where it makes a difference what you believe - if the government grants you rights, it can take them away. If our rights pre-exist the government, then the government can only succeed or fail at accomplishing what it was instituted to do.

dfxm12 6y ago

The very systems that enable voice and disable voices because it's a violation of "Terms of Services" or in other words, revenue. Democracy enables voice. Capitalism, vis-a-vis putting revenue above all else, disables it.