4 ms·

It's basically an extension of the "it's not censorship as its a private company doing it" standpoint to include "...particularly as they have other choices".

ThrowawayR2 6y ago
I'm sorry but I'm not in favor of that argument. I'm not saying you're saying this but other people who have expressed that often, in my opinion, have a hidden implication that "other choices" really means no reputable choice would take their material, so they have to pick a disreputable choice, at which point people point to them and say "See, they have to go to a disreputable choice; they must be disreputable too." Going back to my original post, note that I didn't say I'm entirely okay with it. My argument is more along the lines is that a grassroots expression of opinion by individuals to other individuals who voluntarily want to receive it is okay but content being pushed by a source with money behind it can reasonably be treated with more suspicion because it raises questions about who exactly the money comes from and whether or not they have ulterior motives.
- ncallaway 6y ago
  > have a hidden implication that "other choices" really means no reputable choice would take their material, I don't know if it's...super hidden. Isn't that the entire point of the marketplace of ideas? You're free to espouse anything, free from government intervention. But if all reputable members of society decide not to associate with an idea...it's losing in the marketplace. Free speech isn't the right to have everyone listen to every idea. It's the freedom to enter the idea into the marketplace of ideas. But the marketplace of ideas is as cutthroat a business as any other marketplace. I _can_ understand the complaint from an anti-monopoly point of view: arguing that Facebook and Twitter have too strong a hold on that marketplace, and their influence over it should be reduced. But that strikes me more as an anti-monopoly stance that should be directed at particular actors.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > But if all reputable members of society decide not to associate with an idea...it's losing in the marketplace. This seems to highly misrepresent the situation. Actually, the reality is all "reputable members of society" who control a major publishing platform. So that takes the pool of people deciding from hundreds of millions (in the USA) down to like 3 or 4 individuals (depending on how final decision making power is distributed). > Free speech isn't the right to have everyone listen to every idea. It's the freedom to enter the idea into the marketplace of ideas. But the marketplace of ideas is as cutthroat a business as any other marketplace. An example of this is getting deplatformed from the few major "marketplace of ideas" platforms. Yes, one "can" "just" move to another platform, or roll your own, but framing this in a manner that overlooks the fact that all other things are not equal seems rather disingenuous, and this occurs extremely frequently on social & mainstream media, which is quite concerning.
    - ncallaway 6y ago
      > So that takes the pool of people deciding from hundreds of millions (in the USA) down to like 3 or 4 individuals (depending on how final decision making power is distributed). I would argue that the number of gatekeepers to nationwide mainstream dialog is much higher than 3 or 4 individuals. I think the number is too small, but 3 or 4 seems to me to be an incredibly hyperbolic number of individuals to name as gatekeepers to the entire marketplace of ideas. If you think only 3 or 4 people control the entire marketplace of ideas for "reputable members of society", then you should be able to exhaustively name them. Who are these 3 or 4 people that control all of reputable society? > An example of this is getting deplatformed from the few major "marketplace of ideas" platforms It's almost like there's a monopoly concern I raised, and that the power is concentrated in too few hands. I did advocate for treating this as an anti-monopoly issue instead of a free speech issue after all!
      - mistermann 6y ago
        > I would argue that the number of gatekeepers to nationwide mainstream dialog is much higher than 3 or 4 individuals. I think the number is too small, but 3 or 4 seems to me to be an incredibly hyperbolic number of individuals to name as gatekeepers to the entire marketplace of ideas. If you think only 3 or 4 people control the entire marketplace of ideas for "reputable members of society", then you should be able to exhaustively name them. Who are these 3 or 4 people that control all of reputable society? Hence the italicized portion from my prior comment: "So that takes the pool of people deciding from hundreds of millions (in the USA) down to like 3 or 4 individuals (depending on how final decision making power is distributed)" Let's try to minimize not acknowledging uncertainty qualifiers that are literally written within comments please. Since we seem to be now in the mode of hyper-dissection of assertions, hyperbole, etc, and I may have committed the sin of being off by a couple hundred people, what would this same level of scrutiny come up with when taken to your claim: >> But if all reputable members of society decide not to associate with an idea...it's losing in the marketplace. Which of these two numbers would be larger in your estimation? ([All members of society] - [People who control a major publishing platform]) ([People who control a major publishing platform] - [4]) ...where [All adult members of society - USA] = ~250 million ...where [Twitter Users - USA] = ~68 million ...where [Facebook Users - USA] = ~235 million ...where [YouTube Users - USA] = ~126 million https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta... https://www.statista.com/statistics/242606/number-of-active-twitter-users-in-selected-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/242606/number-of-active-... https://www.statista.com/statistics/408971/number-of-us-facebook-users/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/408971/number-of-us-face... https://www.statista.com/statistics/296227/us-youtube-reach-age-gender/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/296227/us-youtube-reach-... > It's almost like there's a monopoly concern I raised, and that the power is concentrated in too few hands. I would say it's exactly that, and also other things. I don't consider myself in disagreement on that point. > I did advocate for treating this as an anti-monopoly issue instead of a free speech issue after all! It is literally both, so I think we should treat it as both. I wonder though...might the problem be not so much my math, but more so that I happen to hold an unacceptable opinion on the matter of censorship, in general? Based on voting patterns on anti-censorship comments (most of which contain no mathematics), I'm leaning towards the latter. Considering the way the wind is blowing on such matters, maybe people like me should start toeing the party line around here, lest the very topic of conversation pays a personal visit to our doorstep.
- gruez 6y ago
  >I'm sorry but I'm not in favor of that argument. I'm not saying you're saying this but other people who have expressed that often, in my opinion, have a hidden implication that "other choices" really means no reputable choice would take their material, so they have to pick a disreputable choice, at which point people point to them and say "See, they have to go to a disreputable choice; they must be disreputable too." And that's fine, right? How is this any different than not being able to publish in the most prestigious science journals because you're a crank?
  - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
    I don't think that's a good example. The science crank has repeatable and falsifiable evidence against their opinion. For political opinions, well, remember that MLK was widely disliked at the time of his death (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-martin-luther-king-had-75-percent-disapproval-rating-year-he-died-180968664/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-martin-luther-kin...). Should his opinions have been kept out of the press? Believe me, after the last few years, I'm all for keeping cranks out of power but not at the cost of creating a mechanism that can be used to suppress grassroots movements, regardless of stripe. That's dangerous; "what goes around, comes around" eventually.
    - confidantlake 6y ago
      Depends on what kept out of the press means. If that means the government should forbid the press from publishing opinions no, the government should not do that. But if it means not having the government force the press to carry his opinions then yes.
- sanderjd 6y ago
  You are trying to draw a bright line that doesn't exist. Individuals can (and do) use mailchimp to expand their reach to a broader audience, and moneyed interests can (and do) use platforms like twitter to push their message. There is no policy you can write that takes into account the ulterior motives of platform usage. The motive is always "reach an audience".
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  That is freedom of assocition essentially for better or worse - the lack of it isn't stable and is effectively unavoidable as people will still have their own definitions of "disreputable" and apply them the best they can. I liken it to a school with actual gangs in tbe area (as opposed to suburban hysteria) trying to make low level organized crime go away with school uniforms alone.
srdev 6y ago
From my point of view, its not just about whether the company is private but also how easy it is to substitute the service. Twitter and Facebook are not close to the only means of publishing information. I don't think that people deserve any particular audience for their speech, so the ability to substitute other publishing methods alleviates concerns about censorship on my part. On the other hand, its much more difficult to switch ISPs, so I would be very concerned about censorship at that level. Things like search engines which are substitute-able but held by few hands and difficult to replicate privately are more of a grey area in my opinion.
tehwebguy 6y ago
So what? Those that wish to may form their own private company and use it to tell lies. Mailchimp doesn't want any part of it though, and I'm glad.

ThrowawayR2 6y ago

I'm sorry but I'm not in favor of that argument. I'm not saying you're saying this but other people who have expressed that often, in my opinion, have a hidden implication that "other choices" really means no reputable choice would take their material, so they have to pick a disreputable choice, at which point people point to them and say "See, they have to go to a disreputable choice; they must be disreputable too." Going back to my original post, note that I didn't say I'm entirely okay with it. My argument is more along the lines is that a grassroots expression of opinion by individuals to other individuals who voluntarily want to receive it is okay but content being pushed by a source with money behind it can reasonably be treated with more suspicion because it raises questions about who exactly the money comes from and whether or not they have ulterior motives.

ncallaway 6y ago
> have a hidden implication that "other choices" really means no reputable choice would take their material, I don't know if it's...super hidden. Isn't that the entire point of the marketplace of ideas? You're free to espouse anything, free from government intervention. But if all reputable members of society decide not to associate with an idea...it's losing in the marketplace. Free speech isn't the right to have everyone listen to every idea. It's the freedom to enter the idea into the marketplace of ideas. But the marketplace of ideas is as cutthroat a business as any other marketplace. I _can_ understand the complaint from an anti-monopoly point of view: arguing that Facebook and Twitter have too strong a hold on that marketplace, and their influence over it should be reduced. But that strikes me more as an anti-monopoly stance that should be directed at particular actors.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > But if all reputable members of society decide not to associate with an idea...it's losing in the marketplace. This seems to highly misrepresent the situation. Actually, the reality is all "reputable members of society" who control a major publishing platform. So that takes the pool of people deciding from hundreds of millions (in the USA) down to like 3 or 4 individuals (depending on how final decision making power is distributed). > Free speech isn't the right to have everyone listen to every idea. It's the freedom to enter the idea into the marketplace of ideas. But the marketplace of ideas is as cutthroat a business as any other marketplace. An example of this is getting deplatformed from the few major "marketplace of ideas" platforms. Yes, one "can" "just" move to another platform, or roll your own, but framing this in a manner that overlooks the fact that all other things are not equal seems rather disingenuous, and this occurs extremely frequently on social & mainstream media, which is quite concerning.
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    > So that takes the pool of people deciding from hundreds of millions (in the USA) down to like 3 or 4 individuals (depending on how final decision making power is distributed). I would argue that the number of gatekeepers to nationwide mainstream dialog is much higher than 3 or 4 individuals. I think the number is too small, but 3 or 4 seems to me to be an incredibly hyperbolic number of individuals to name as gatekeepers to the entire marketplace of ideas. If you think only 3 or 4 people control the entire marketplace of ideas for "reputable members of society", then you should be able to exhaustively name them. Who are these 3 or 4 people that control all of reputable society? > An example of this is getting deplatformed from the few major "marketplace of ideas" platforms It's almost like there's a monopoly concern I raised, and that the power is concentrated in too few hands. I did advocate for treating this as an anti-monopoly issue instead of a free speech issue after all!
    - mistermann 6y ago
      > I would argue that the number of gatekeepers to nationwide mainstream dialog is much higher than 3 or 4 individuals. I think the number is too small, but 3 or 4 seems to me to be an incredibly hyperbolic number of individuals to name as gatekeepers to the entire marketplace of ideas. If you think only 3 or 4 people control the entire marketplace of ideas for "reputable members of society", then you should be able to exhaustively name them. Who are these 3 or 4 people that control all of reputable society? Hence the italicized portion from my prior comment: "So that takes the pool of people deciding from hundreds of millions (in the USA) down to like 3 or 4 individuals (depending on how final decision making power is distributed)" Let's try to minimize not acknowledging uncertainty qualifiers that are literally written within comments please. Since we seem to be now in the mode of hyper-dissection of assertions, hyperbole, etc, and I may have committed the sin of being off by a couple hundred people, what would this same level of scrutiny come up with when taken to your claim: >> But if all reputable members of society decide not to associate with an idea...it's losing in the marketplace. Which of these two numbers would be larger in your estimation? ([All members of society] - [People who control a major publishing platform]) ([People who control a major publishing platform] - [4]) ...where [All adult members of society - USA] = ~250 million ...where [Twitter Users - USA] = ~68 million ...where [Facebook Users - USA] = ~235 million ...where [YouTube Users - USA] = ~126 million https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta... https://www.statista.com/statistics/242606/number-of-active-twitter-users-in-selected-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/242606/number-of-active-... https://www.statista.com/statistics/408971/number-of-us-facebook-users/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/408971/number-of-us-face... https://www.statista.com/statistics/296227/us-youtube-reach-age-gender/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/296227/us-youtube-reach-... > It's almost like there's a monopoly concern I raised, and that the power is concentrated in too few hands. I would say it's exactly that, and also other things. I don't consider myself in disagreement on that point. > I did advocate for treating this as an anti-monopoly issue instead of a free speech issue after all! It is literally both, so I think we should treat it as both. I wonder though...might the problem be not so much my math, but more so that I happen to hold an unacceptable opinion on the matter of censorship, in general? Based on voting patterns on anti-censorship comments (most of which contain no mathematics), I'm leaning towards the latter. Considering the way the wind is blowing on such matters, maybe people like me should start toeing the party line around here, lest the very topic of conversation pays a personal visit to our doorstep.
gruez 6y ago
>I'm sorry but I'm not in favor of that argument. I'm not saying you're saying this but other people who have expressed that often, in my opinion, have a hidden implication that "other choices" really means no reputable choice would take their material, so they have to pick a disreputable choice, at which point people point to them and say "See, they have to go to a disreputable choice; they must be disreputable too." And that's fine, right? How is this any different than not being able to publish in the most prestigious science journals because you're a crank?
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  I don't think that's a good example. The science crank has repeatable and falsifiable evidence against their opinion. For political opinions, well, remember that MLK was widely disliked at the time of his death (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-martin-luther-king-had-75-percent-disapproval-rating-year-he-died-180968664/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-martin-luther-kin...). Should his opinions have been kept out of the press? Believe me, after the last few years, I'm all for keeping cranks out of power but not at the cost of creating a mechanism that can be used to suppress grassroots movements, regardless of stripe. That's dangerous; "what goes around, comes around" eventually.
  - confidantlake 6y ago
    Depends on what kept out of the press means. If that means the government should forbid the press from publishing opinions no, the government should not do that. But if it means not having the government force the press to carry his opinions then yes.
sanderjd 6y ago
You are trying to draw a bright line that doesn't exist. Individuals can (and do) use mailchimp to expand their reach to a broader audience, and moneyed interests can (and do) use platforms like twitter to push their message. There is no policy you can write that takes into account the ulterior motives of platform usage. The motive is always "reach an audience".
Nasrudith 6y ago
That is freedom of assocition essentially for better or worse - the lack of it isn't stable and is effectively unavoidable as people will still have their own definitions of "disreputable" and apply them the best they can. I liken it to a school with actual gangs in tbe area (as opposed to suburban hysteria) trying to make low level organized crime go away with school uniforms alone.

srdev 6y ago

From my point of view, its not just about whether the company is private but also how easy it is to substitute the service. Twitter and Facebook are not close to the only means of publishing information. I don't think that people deserve any particular audience for their speech, so the ability to substitute other publishing methods alleviates concerns about censorship on my part. On the other hand, its much more difficult to switch ISPs, so I would be very concerned about censorship at that level. Things like search engines which are substitute-able but held by few hands and difficult to replicate privately are more of a grey area in my opinion.

tehwebguy 6y ago

So what? Those that wish to may form their own private company and use it to tell lies. Mailchimp doesn't want any part of it though, and I'm glad.