4 ms·

This is contradictory. If you tell Twitter what its platform can/can't support you are violating its freedom of speech. The 1st amendment applies to the governm

This is contradictory. If you tell Twitter what its platform can/can't support you are violating its freedom of speech. The 1st amendment applies to the government restricting speech - not private corporations. In the 1800s not everyone had a newspaper to spread their ideas. That is not a violation of freedom of speech for the ones who can't afford a newspaper. They aren't entitled to a platform - they're entitled to the government not restricting their platform. What about a property on a busy road - a sign there has more impact than a sign at a house off the beaten path. You're essentially arguing that because that property has more visibility, it is unfair to the other who doesn't have that same location. This just isn't how the constitution works.

ttt0 6y ago
For example in EU banks are legally required to provide you a basic service. I don't see how this is contradictory to freedom of speech. > What about a property on a busy road - a sign there has more impact than a sign at a house off the beaten path. You're essentially arguing that because that property has more visibility, it is unfair to the other who doesn't have that same location. In US there were a couple of court cases that ruled that free speech applies to places that are technically private. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R... And if I'm not mistaken, you already have plenty of FCC regulations regarding means of communications like TV, radio and internet, that probably could be construed as violations of either freedom of speech or freedom of association. We could spend all day arguing about legalities and whether it's constitutional or not. Under current laws it is in fact exactly as you say, but this is a huge problem. I live in one of post-soviet countries, so it shouldn't be a surprise that a lot of people here, including me, are against socialism. But I have to admit that the left has a point. Or at the very least had a point, since I sometimes encounter people who will say how capitalists are evil and then proceed to explain how social media are a private property and corporations are free to do whatever they want with them. If we don't do something about this, we might very soon find out how truly dystopian capitalism can be.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Providing a service to fit the definition of a unit of society is not the same as forcing endorsement of a particular point of view, and even so, there is no law requiring social media from offering fair POVs. You're arguing for a fairness doctrine - e.g. Fox News should be forced to show the other side an equal amount of time.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    That's a really weird way of looking at this. HN is not endorsing my point of view by letting me publish comments here. Isn't that what the Section 230 is all about, by the way? I know there is no law preventing social media from censoring people. If there was, we wouldn't be arguing about this right now. What I'm saying is that free speech should be extended to social media.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      Section 230 affords protections to HN - that doesn't mean HN doesn't moderate. It does, which involves removing potentially harmful posts. Is this censorship to you? Now regardless of 230, if the government says "twitter, you can not moderate." That is a violation of Twitter's freedom of speech. It can moderate content however it pleases as of now. > I know there is no law preventing social media from censoring people. If there was, we wouldn't be arguing about this right now. What I'm saying is that free speech should be extended to social media. The reason there is no law is because it's unconstitutional. The government can't force speech on platforms, even if said platforms are not responsible for its content.
      - ttt0 6y ago
        > Section 230 affords protections to HN - that doesn't mean HN doesn't moderate. Sure it doesn't, I brought 230 up because you've equated the ability to post content with endorsement of that content. And again, I'm not sure where do you got this "censoring you is actually my freedom of speech" thing from. I already posted a wikipedia article proving that in fact yes, you can legally "force speech". I'm not a lawyer, I don't know the law, but it seems to me that we have all those politicians wasting time on nonsensical stuff like trying to ban E2E encryption, so why shouldn't they for once do something useful and ensure that corporations cannot abuse their powers?

ttt0 6y ago

For example in EU banks are legally required to provide you a basic service. I don't see how this is contradictory to freedom of speech. > What about a property on a busy road - a sign there has more impact than a sign at a house off the beaten path. You're essentially arguing that because that property has more visibility, it is unfair to the other who doesn't have that same location. In US there were a couple of court cases that ruled that free speech applies to places that are technically private. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R... And if I'm not mistaken, you already have plenty of FCC regulations regarding means of communications like TV, radio and internet, that probably could be construed as violations of either freedom of speech or freedom of association. We could spend all day arguing about legalities and whether it's constitutional or not. Under current laws it is in fact exactly as you say, but this is a huge problem. I live in one of post-soviet countries, so it shouldn't be a surprise that a lot of people here, including me, are against socialism. But I have to admit that the left has a point. Or at the very least had a point, since I sometimes encounter people who will say how capitalists are evil and then proceed to explain how social media are a private property and corporations are free to do whatever they want with them. If we don't do something about this, we might very soon find out how truly dystopian capitalism can be.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
Providing a service to fit the definition of a unit of society is not the same as forcing endorsement of a particular point of view, and even so, there is no law requiring social media from offering fair POVs. You're arguing for a fairness doctrine - e.g. Fox News should be forced to show the other side an equal amount of time.
- ttt0 6y ago
  That's a really weird way of looking at this. HN is not endorsing my point of view by letting me publish comments here. Isn't that what the Section 230 is all about, by the way? I know there is no law preventing social media from censoring people. If there was, we wouldn't be arguing about this right now. What I'm saying is that free speech should be extended to social media.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Section 230 affords protections to HN - that doesn't mean HN doesn't moderate. It does, which involves removing potentially harmful posts. Is this censorship to you? Now regardless of 230, if the government says "twitter, you can not moderate." That is a violation of Twitter's freedom of speech. It can moderate content however it pleases as of now. > I know there is no law preventing social media from censoring people. If there was, we wouldn't be arguing about this right now. What I'm saying is that free speech should be extended to social media. The reason there is no law is because it's unconstitutional. The government can't force speech on platforms, even if said platforms are not responsible for its content.
    - ttt0 6y ago
      > Section 230 affords protections to HN - that doesn't mean HN doesn't moderate. Sure it doesn't, I brought 230 up because you've equated the ability to post content with endorsement of that content. And again, I'm not sure where do you got this "censoring you is actually my freedom of speech" thing from. I already posted a wikipedia article proving that in fact yes, you can legally "force speech". I'm not a lawyer, I don't know the law, but it seems to me that we have all those politicians wasting time on nonsensical stuff like trying to ban E2E encryption, so why shouldn't they for once do something useful and ensure that corporations cannot abuse their powers?