11 ms·

America’s big problem is lack of consequences for stuff like this. The First Amendment has long outlived its utility when you compare the US to any other well-e

America’s big problem is lack of consequences for stuff like this. The First Amendment has long outlived its utility when you compare the US to any other well-established democracy, and yet Americans take it on faith that it’s somehow the key to everything good about America. Edit: and 30s later this comment is at -2. It’s bizarre to me that so many Americans simply cannot entertain that the First Amendment might not be a net positive for the country.

AaronFriel 6y ago
We don't need to tear down the First Amendment, but our society does somewhat depend on civil society rejecting and not amplifying dangerous, uncivil, undemocratic ideas. I think the freedom of speech Bannon has is fine. He's welcome to make whatever calls he wants - though I do wonder if he may have strayed from merely "uncivil" into "incitement". But Facebook, Twitter, the New York Times... they don't need to amplify it. He is not entitled to their audiences too.
- peteretep 6y ago
  > but our society does somewhat depend on civil society rejecting and not amplifying dangerous, uncivil, undemocratic ideas I would argue that this is exactly what legal and democratic systems that work but that don’t give such primacy to 1FA offer.
  - loopz 6y ago
    Other democratic countries are not that far behind in ideology. There is however more wiggle room with more parties in play.
- wolco2 6y ago
  The amplifying point has been spreading in discussions. Facebook, twitter must not amplify one content over another or it loses it's neutral status. If it begins make decisions based on what it prefers content wise it would lose a common carrier status and should be regulated like those other entities and not be treated as neutrual platform. The New York Times is a newspaper and doesn't belong.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    There is no legal basis for this. Facebook and Twitter are explicitly permitted to amplify or suppress whatever content they wish.
    - loopz 6y ago
      Maybe there should be!
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        I disagree!
        loopz 6y ago
        Even if their algorithms threaten to destabilize society by amplification? Bear in mind these platforms come with many forms of moderation already. So I believe we're mostly talking about a spectrum of what mechanisms there are and their consequences. Ie. is it OK for the entire planet to bully anyone in public until they lose everything? This is actually hard to prevent, if no mechanisms to do so are in place, while communication is as "free" as possible.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        Ultimately, if a platform is big enough that its policies have society-destabilizing consequences, I would much prefer to see it broken up than reined in. Benevolent dictators are still dictators.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    > If it begins make decisions based on what it prefers content wise it would lose a common carrier status It can't lose what it never had to begin with. Information services post Section 230 have 0 obligation to be "neutral". You should read the law instead of listening to Internet commentators' fantasies and wishlists of "neutrality" and "censorship makes you a publisher". This is all bullcrap.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
I've entertained the idea... and rejected it. Is it bizarre to you that someone might not agree with you?
- peteretep 6y ago
  If there was any serious discussion in the US about the utility of 1FA I would be willing to believe Americans were able to entertain it. What weaknesses with it did you come up with when you entertained it?
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    What weaknesses? You know, look around. It's pretty clear that the First Amendment is having some negative effects. But my position is that not having the First Amendment also has negative effects, and those effects are worse. Such as, for example, creating a world where your post could be deleted merely for suggesting that the Constitution had a weakness. I'm going to say stuff. Some of it will go against the prevailing narrative. I want to be able to say it anyway. Sometimes, I'll even be right. I think the right to do so is important.
    - peteretep 6y ago
      > You know, look around. It's pretty clear that the First Amendment is having some negative effects. None of which you enumerated > But my position is that not having the First Amendment also has negative effects Protections of free speech are much weaker in most of the rest of the free and rich world. Why don’t those negative effects show up there?
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        > None of which you were willing to enumerate... Because it's pretty obvious. You're trying to score some cheap rhetorical points, and I decline to give them to you. > Protections of free speech are much weaker in most of the rest of the free and rich world. Why don’t those negative effects show up there? They don't at the moment show up strongly in most of the rest of the free and rich world. They show up in, for example, China. (Though negative effects show up in England from their libel laws, for example. They just aren't as flagrant as what you see in China.) To put the burden of proof on the other foot: Is there any reason to think that the absence of FA-type free speech guarantees is making things better in the rest of the free and rich world? If not, I'll keep the guarantee, because I really like being able to say what I please.
vlunkr 6y ago
Maybe we've entertained it and we still disagree.
- majormajor 6y ago
  I would agree with the parent poster that the downvotes represent a lack of entertaining the idea, because instead of engaging and arguing against it, it's merely immediately downvoted. Look how often constitutional ammendments were proposed in the past compared to today. We're fossilizing the idea of our country into a religion instead of continuing to have useful debate on why today isn't like yesterday and on what updates we need to make now.
  - nickff 6y ago
    Well, first off, from the site guidelines: >"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."[1] But to address your key point, I'd bet a lot of people are down-voting the grandparent's superior/condescending tone, as exemplified by the following fragments: >"America’s big problem... yet Americans take it on faith... Americans simply cannot entertain" [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - vlunkr 6y ago
    Lots of comments are downvoted quickly without replies, I don't think you can infer that much from it. I also don't think the rate at which amendments are proposed is a good indication of how healthy our country is. Shouldn't things stabilize and require less revision eventually?
    - majormajor 6y ago
      > I also don't think the rate at which amendments are proposed is a good indication of how healthy our country is. Shouldn't things stabilize and require less revision eventually? I don't think that's obvious at all, especially given changes in population, technology, and international situations over the same timeframe as that nation's institutional stagnation.
snypher 6y ago
>The First Amendment has long outlived its utility when you compare the US to any other well-established democracy What could you possibly mean by this? Can you provide any examples of how other nations have codified freedom of speech, expression, religion and peaceful assembly and in some different and superior way?
- peteretep 6y ago
  You are free to full throatedly criticise the government in any Western democracy while unlimited political dark money and pharmaceutical advertising so pervasive it literally stops testing against placebos working is largely banned.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
    Can you elaborate on the part about advertising and testing?
    - peteretep 6y ago
      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/placebo-effect-grows-in-u-s-thwarting-development-of-painkillers/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/placebo-effect-gr...
- slg 6y ago
  First we need to remember that this isn't a binary question of freedom versus no freedom. It is a question of where to place the line on a spectrum. Or perhaps more specifically where does the line exist between your rights and my rights. Does your right to spout hate speech about my religion infringe on my right to freely and safely practice my religion? Does your right to spend $1B on amplifying your political speech drown out my political speech and effectively nullify it? Other countries have answered yes to those questions while the US has answered no.
  - koolba 6y ago
    > Does your right to spend a $1B on political advertising drown out my political speech? On this specific one, it’s not a matter of drowning you out, it’s being able to compete with someone else spending $1B endorsing the opposite opinion. Or more importantly, being able to pay for your message to be distributed rather than having to own a media empire to get it published. If it weren’t for the Citizens United decision being decided in the correct direction, you’d be a the media landscape would be a slave to whoever owns it. People or organizations that make their money elsewhere would be stifled from expressing their opinions through advertising purchases.
ralph84 6y ago
There is a pretty long list of Americans who've faced consequences for what they've said. Calling it "America's big problem" is hyperbole, and certainly not justification for overturning a founding principle of the country.
itbeho 6y ago
The civil rights movement in America would not have made any progress without the First Amendment.
- peteretep 6y ago
  It did everywhere else, so why not in America?
- triceratops 6y ago
  Civil rights protestors were beaten, attacked by dogs, sprayed with firehoses, and put in jail. MLK had his phones tapped and his mail read. Where was the First Amendment for them?

AaronFriel 6y ago

We don't need to tear down the First Amendment, but our society does somewhat depend on civil society rejecting and not amplifying dangerous, uncivil, undemocratic ideas. I think the freedom of speech Bannon has is fine. He's welcome to make whatever calls he wants - though I do wonder if he may have strayed from merely "uncivil" into "incitement". But Facebook, Twitter, the New York Times... they don't need to amplify it. He is not entitled to their audiences too.

peteretep 6y ago
> but our society does somewhat depend on civil society rejecting and not amplifying dangerous, uncivil, undemocratic ideas I would argue that this is exactly what legal and democratic systems that work but that don’t give such primacy to 1FA offer.
- loopz 6y ago
  Other democratic countries are not that far behind in ideology. There is however more wiggle room with more parties in play.
wolco2 6y ago
The amplifying point has been spreading in discussions. Facebook, twitter must not amplify one content over another or it loses it's neutral status. If it begins make decisions based on what it prefers content wise it would lose a common carrier status and should be regulated like those other entities and not be treated as neutrual platform. The New York Times is a newspaper and doesn't belong.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  There is no legal basis for this. Facebook and Twitter are explicitly permitted to amplify or suppress whatever content they wish.
  - loopz 6y ago
    Maybe there should be!
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      I disagree!
      - loopz 6y ago
        Even if their algorithms threaten to destabilize society by amplification? Bear in mind these platforms come with many forms of moderation already. So I believe we're mostly talking about a spectrum of what mechanisms there are and their consequences. Ie. is it OK for the entire planet to bully anyone in public until they lose everything? This is actually hard to prevent, if no mechanisms to do so are in place, while communication is as "free" as possible.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        Ultimately, if a platform is big enough that its policies have society-destabilizing consequences, I would much prefer to see it broken up than reined in. Benevolent dictators are still dictators.
- triceratops 6y ago
  > If it begins make decisions based on what it prefers content wise it would lose a common carrier status It can't lose what it never had to begin with. Information services post Section 230 have 0 obligation to be "neutral". You should read the law instead of listening to Internet commentators' fantasies and wishlists of "neutrality" and "censorship makes you a publisher". This is all bullcrap.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

I've entertained the idea... and rejected it. Is it bizarre to you that someone might not agree with you?

peteretep 6y ago
If there was any serious discussion in the US about the utility of 1FA I would be willing to believe Americans were able to entertain it. What weaknesses with it did you come up with when you entertained it?
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  What weaknesses? You know, look around. It's pretty clear that the First Amendment is having some negative effects. But my position is that not having the First Amendment also has negative effects, and those effects are worse. Such as, for example, creating a world where your post could be deleted merely for suggesting that the Constitution had a weakness. I'm going to say stuff. Some of it will go against the prevailing narrative. I want to be able to say it anyway. Sometimes, I'll even be right. I think the right to do so is important.
  - peteretep 6y ago
    > You know, look around. It's pretty clear that the First Amendment is having some negative effects. None of which you enumerated > But my position is that not having the First Amendment also has negative effects Protections of free speech are much weaker in most of the rest of the free and rich world. Why don’t those negative effects show up there?
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      > None of which you were willing to enumerate... Because it's pretty obvious. You're trying to score some cheap rhetorical points, and I decline to give them to you. > Protections of free speech are much weaker in most of the rest of the free and rich world. Why don’t those negative effects show up there? They don't at the moment show up strongly in most of the rest of the free and rich world. They show up in, for example, China. (Though negative effects show up in England from their libel laws, for example. They just aren't as flagrant as what you see in China.) To put the burden of proof on the other foot: Is there any reason to think that the absence of FA-type free speech guarantees is making things better in the rest of the free and rich world? If not, I'll keep the guarantee, because I really like being able to say what I please.

vlunkr 6y ago

Maybe we've entertained it and we still disagree.

majormajor 6y ago
I would agree with the parent poster that the downvotes represent a lack of entertaining the idea, because instead of engaging and arguing against it, it's merely immediately downvoted. Look how often constitutional ammendments were proposed in the past compared to today. We're fossilizing the idea of our country into a religion instead of continuing to have useful debate on why today isn't like yesterday and on what updates we need to make now.
- nickff 6y ago
  Well, first off, from the site guidelines: >"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."[1] But to address your key point, I'd bet a lot of people are down-voting the grandparent's superior/condescending tone, as exemplified by the following fragments: >"America’s big problem... yet Americans take it on faith... Americans simply cannot entertain" [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- vlunkr 6y ago
  Lots of comments are downvoted quickly without replies, I don't think you can infer that much from it. I also don't think the rate at which amendments are proposed is a good indication of how healthy our country is. Shouldn't things stabilize and require less revision eventually?
  - majormajor 6y ago
    > I also don't think the rate at which amendments are proposed is a good indication of how healthy our country is. Shouldn't things stabilize and require less revision eventually? I don't think that's obvious at all, especially given changes in population, technology, and international situations over the same timeframe as that nation's institutional stagnation.

snypher 6y ago

>The First Amendment has long outlived its utility when you compare the US to any other well-established democracy What could you possibly mean by this? Can you provide any examples of how other nations have codified freedom of speech, expression, religion and peaceful assembly and in some different and superior way?

peteretep 6y ago
You are free to full throatedly criticise the government in any Western democracy while unlimited political dark money and pharmaceutical advertising so pervasive it literally stops testing against placebos working is largely banned.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  Can you elaborate on the part about advertising and testing?
  - peteretep 6y ago
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/placebo-effect-grows-in-u-s-thwarting-development-of-painkillers/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/placebo-effect-gr...
slg 6y ago
First we need to remember that this isn't a binary question of freedom versus no freedom. It is a question of where to place the line on a spectrum. Or perhaps more specifically where does the line exist between your rights and my rights. Does your right to spout hate speech about my religion infringe on my right to freely and safely practice my religion? Does your right to spend $1B on amplifying your political speech drown out my political speech and effectively nullify it? Other countries have answered yes to those questions while the US has answered no.
- koolba 6y ago
  > Does your right to spend a $1B on political advertising drown out my political speech? On this specific one, it’s not a matter of drowning you out, it’s being able to compete with someone else spending $1B endorsing the opposite opinion. Or more importantly, being able to pay for your message to be distributed rather than having to own a media empire to get it published. If it weren’t for the Citizens United decision being decided in the correct direction, you’d be a the media landscape would be a slave to whoever owns it. People or organizations that make their money elsewhere would be stifled from expressing their opinions through advertising purchases.

ralph84 6y ago

There is a pretty long list of Americans who've faced consequences for what they've said. Calling it "America's big problem" is hyperbole, and certainly not justification for overturning a founding principle of the country.

itbeho 6y ago

The civil rights movement in America would not have made any progress without the First Amendment.

peteretep 6y ago
It did everywhere else, so why not in America?
triceratops 6y ago
Civil rights protestors were beaten, attacked by dogs, sprayed with firehoses, and put in jail. MLK had his phones tapped and his mail read. Where was the First Amendment for them?