3 ms·

It’s a private business, not the federal government. It should have the right to regulate its services to protect both its users and the quality of its network.

It’s a private business, not the federal government. It should have the right to regulate its services to protect both its users and the quality of its network. The fact that sites like Reclaim the Net willfully misunderstand this to drum up anger hurts the cause of digital freedom, rather than helping it.

heavyset_go 6y ago
> The fact that sites like Reclaim the Net willfully misunderstand this to drum up anger hurts the cause of digital freedom, rather than helping it. Not only that, but the proposed solution of repealing Section 230 of the CDA would make hosting free speech impossible for anyone other than trillion dollar corporations that can throw billions at making sure users never use their services to upload illegal content.
thu2111 6y ago
Where does Reclaim the Net claim Mailchimp is the federal government, or does not have a right to make these decisions? Nowhere: that appears to be a strawman. It is perfectly legitimate to be angry when companies start restricting their services to political allies, or arbitrarily blocking communication for people who disagree on who to vote for. Freedom of speech is a value encoded in the constitution because it is important, and because societies have learned over and over what happens when it's lost. It's the first thing dictatorships get rid of for a reason.
- shortformblog 6y ago
  If you start screaming at the top of your lungs inside of a Walmart, they will kick you out because you are on private property. But you can still scream outside.
  - eropple 6y ago
    After one watches enough of the "censorship!" crowd wring their hands, it starts to become obvious that the agitation is not for the freedom and the liberty to speak, but for the freedom and the liberty to require your attention. I think back to this article a lot: https://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/southern_values_revived/ https://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/southern_values_revived/
  - thu2111 6y ago
    Nobody is screaming in a Walmart. That analogy doesn't work at all, especially not for mailing lists where the users requested to be on it.
- Falling3 6y ago
  RTN's focus on freedom of speech while condemning Mailchimp's actions is absolutely meant as an equivocation that tries to apply Constitutional protections in an argument where they don't apply. And your comment does the exact same thing only more explicitly. The First Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. And it's very telling that people would prefer to focus on platforms regulating their content and "cancel culture" than addressing the very real and consistent attacks on the First Amendment by the current administration.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    Read my post again. Yes, the FA doesn't apply to companies. But it exists because the underlying principle is very important. Important for everyone, not just the government. It is entirely reasonable to point out that if something is so important it's written into the constitution, then it's important across wider society as well, and that what Mailchimp and other US tech firms are doing here is not right, wise or good.
anonunivgrad 6y ago
People always trot out that line. And it’s always the same people who have plenty of disdain for the rights of private businesses in every other context. Do you think that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate on racial grounds, religious grounds, sexual grounds? Do you think businesses have the right to run their workplace however they want, including encouraging sexist and racist jokes? Be consistent. This is such a low effort take, such obviously motivated reasoning, that wouldn’t deserve response but for being so prevalent as a way for otherwise thoughtful people to stop thinking and not confront the hypocrisy of supporting mass corporate censorship because it supports their favorite political party. Which is not to say there’s not a nuanced argument to be had, but your one-dimensional argument isn’t that.
- shortformblog 6y ago
  People trot out this line … because it’s literally how it works in the real world, buddy. If you create a disturbance inside of a coffee shop, you will be kicked out, because the owner has the right to do so as the owner of private property. But if you do it outside, you’re fine. Sometimes it’s not a low-effort take … but simply reflective of the way legal precedent works.
  - anonunivgrad 6y ago
    I’m not your “buddy” and you didn’t respond to anything I said except with an irrelevant analogy. Like I point out, society imposes plenty of restrictions on private businesses. You don’t actually control who gets to sit at your restaurant’s lunch counter.
    - shortformblog 6y ago
      Physical world regulations match the digital world unless laws state otherwise.
      - anonunivgrad 6y ago
        That’s what this whole argument is about, what the law should be.
dsabanin 6y ago
So to get this straight, free speech laws only apply online to open public forums that are not using private platforms? We're in quite a situation then. Let's look at the options for forums with protected speech. * If only publicly funded communication channels have protections of freedom of speech. Can you tell me where I can find a public social network with free speech protections? * Private media doesn't owe anyone almost anything lately. They publish whatever they want and will not talk about what's not convenient for the stories they tell. We've seen too much of it this year. * Even if there was this great publicly-funded unbiased media source. Public funded usually means government. Twitter, Facebook, and others are now explicitly marking all the government-funded media and sources, as a way of implying bias. Essentially, bit by bit discrediting these platforms. * All the private social platform don't owe you anything and will kick you out at will without any need for explanation. If we agree that free speech is a critically important value of a civil, prosperous, modern civilization, then we're in big trouble. Most if not all the discourse these days is happening online and all the communication channels that people use belong either to: * private corporations that are not bound by free speech laws * non-profits overrun by often biased volunteers * privately owned media companies pushing their agenda without any boundaries or common sense * biased government sources pushing their propaganda So where is the avenue for free speech in the 21st century? Shouting on the street outside?

heavyset_go 6y ago

> The fact that sites like Reclaim the Net willfully misunderstand this to drum up anger hurts the cause of digital freedom, rather than helping it. Not only that, but the proposed solution of repealing Section 230 of the CDA would make hosting free speech impossible for anyone other than trillion dollar corporations that can throw billions at making sure users never use their services to upload illegal content.

thu2111 6y ago

Where does Reclaim the Net claim Mailchimp is the federal government, or does not have a right to make these decisions? Nowhere: that appears to be a strawman. It is perfectly legitimate to be angry when companies start restricting their services to political allies, or arbitrarily blocking communication for people who disagree on who to vote for. Freedom of speech is a value encoded in the constitution because it is important, and because societies have learned over and over what happens when it's lost. It's the first thing dictatorships get rid of for a reason.

shortformblog 6y ago
If you start screaming at the top of your lungs inside of a Walmart, they will kick you out because you are on private property. But you can still scream outside.
- eropple 6y ago
  After one watches enough of the "censorship!" crowd wring their hands, it starts to become obvious that the agitation is not for the freedom and the liberty to speak, but for the freedom and the liberty to require your attention. I think back to this article a lot: https://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/southern_values_revived/ https://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/southern_values_revived/
- thu2111 6y ago
  Nobody is screaming in a Walmart. That analogy doesn't work at all, especially not for mailing lists where the users requested to be on it.
Falling3 6y ago
RTN's focus on freedom of speech while condemning Mailchimp's actions is absolutely meant as an equivocation that tries to apply Constitutional protections in an argument where they don't apply. And your comment does the exact same thing only more explicitly. The First Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. And it's very telling that people would prefer to focus on platforms regulating their content and "cancel culture" than addressing the very real and consistent attacks on the First Amendment by the current administration.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Read my post again. Yes, the FA doesn't apply to companies. But it exists because the underlying principle is very important. Important for everyone, not just the government. It is entirely reasonable to point out that if something is so important it's written into the constitution, then it's important across wider society as well, and that what Mailchimp and other US tech firms are doing here is not right, wise or good.

anonunivgrad 6y ago

People always trot out that line. And it’s always the same people who have plenty of disdain for the rights of private businesses in every other context. Do you think that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate on racial grounds, religious grounds, sexual grounds? Do you think businesses have the right to run their workplace however they want, including encouraging sexist and racist jokes? Be consistent. This is such a low effort take, such obviously motivated reasoning, that wouldn’t deserve response but for being so prevalent as a way for otherwise thoughtful people to stop thinking and not confront the hypocrisy of supporting mass corporate censorship because it supports their favorite political party. Which is not to say there’s not a nuanced argument to be had, but your one-dimensional argument isn’t that.

shortformblog 6y ago
People trot out this line … because it’s literally how it works in the real world, buddy. If you create a disturbance inside of a coffee shop, you will be kicked out, because the owner has the right to do so as the owner of private property. But if you do it outside, you’re fine. Sometimes it’s not a low-effort take … but simply reflective of the way legal precedent works.
- anonunivgrad 6y ago
  I’m not your “buddy” and you didn’t respond to anything I said except with an irrelevant analogy. Like I point out, society imposes plenty of restrictions on private businesses. You don’t actually control who gets to sit at your restaurant’s lunch counter.
  - shortformblog 6y ago
    Physical world regulations match the digital world unless laws state otherwise.
    - anonunivgrad 6y ago
      That’s what this whole argument is about, what the law should be.

dsabanin 6y ago

So to get this straight, free speech laws only apply online to open public forums that are not using private platforms? We're in quite a situation then. Let's look at the options for forums with protected speech. * If only publicly funded communication channels have protections of freedom of speech. Can you tell me where I can find a public social network with free speech protections? * Private media doesn't owe anyone almost anything lately. They publish whatever they want and will not talk about what's not convenient for the stories they tell. We've seen too much of it this year. * Even if there was this great publicly-funded unbiased media source. Public funded usually means government. Twitter, Facebook, and others are now explicitly marking all the government-funded media and sources, as a way of implying bias. Essentially, bit by bit discrediting these platforms. * All the private social platform don't owe you anything and will kick you out at will without any need for explanation. If we agree that free speech is a critically important value of a civil, prosperous, modern civilization, then we're in big trouble. Most if not all the discourse these days is happening online and all the communication channels that people use belong either to: * private corporations that are not bound by free speech laws * non-profits overrun by often biased volunteers * privately owned media companies pushing their agenda without any boundaries or common sense * biased government sources pushing their propaganda So where is the avenue for free speech in the 21st century? Shouting on the street outside?