6 ms·

I was going to say, refusing to host on your own platform something you find objectionable is not in any way an infringement on speech, but forcing someone to h

I was going to say, refusing to host on your own platform something you find objectionable is not in any way an infringement on speech, but forcing someone to host it tramples all over free speech.

kanox 6y ago
Completely disagree: the rights of individual authors should trump the rights of platforms, otherwise we will find ourselves in a situation where free-speech only applies to Facebook, Google and assorted media companies. It is incorrect to conflate "hosting" with "speech", it is already obvious that being hosted on YouTube is not an endorsement by Alphabet corporation.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  Individual authors have no constitutional right to have their views published on platforms privately owned by others, so there is no right they have which could trump the rights of platforms. In order for there to be a contest of rights here, a constitutional amendment would be needed to grant the right to have one's views promulgated on private platforms.
  - kanox 6y ago
    Large platforms (for example >10m users) should be forced by law to publish everything which is not otherwise illegal.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      Sure, it's fine to have that belief. Just, to make it work in a world where the Citizens United precedent exists, you really need a constitutional amendment. Or a supreme court willing to make a really creative interpretation of the constitution and precedent landscape. This isn't a normative statement about what ought and ought not to be. It's just an observation of what is.
    - _dibly 6y ago
      What if a large platform has strict posting rights to cultivate a specific community standard that has nothing to do with the law? If my power-washing forum gets to over 10m users I'm now legally obligated to publish everything that doesn't violate US law, regardless of my site's content moderation policy? What about large platforms based in other countries with a strong user base in the US, or vice versa? Do you force tech companies based internationally to comply with US law for content moderation purposes globally, or just for US residents? If not, what's to stop Facebook from moving their offices to Canada and continuing their business model as-is? I fail to see how this is an even remotely reasonable assertion.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- RuggedPineapple 6y ago
  If someone wants to give a sermon on top of your kitchen table over dinner time, would you object to being able to throw them out? Does an author have the right to come print their work out on your printer, using your ink and paper?
  - kanox 6y ago
    This should be specifically targeted at large internet platforms and service providers (like ISPs). Some sort of cutoff can be found based on revenue, there are plenty of other regulations which only target companies above a certain size.
    - ChrisLomont 6y ago
      >there are plenty of other regulations which only target companies above a certain size. Conversely, there's even more regulations and more importantly, rights, that apply to every company. One of those is freedom of speech, i.e., the ability to not be forced to publish on a private platform the views of everyone.
- _dibly 6y ago
  The platform is private, so the 'individual author' isn't having their free speech restricted by being restricted from a single private platform. If someone gets banned from Twitter for posting statements inciting violence, there's nothing stopping that person from going to other outlets like Reddit or Facebook, or even starting their own site/newsletter. But if a private company were legally incapable of removing content that they determined was unacceptable on their platform, that would be totally okay with you?
  - wolco2 6y ago
    A platform is neutral by nature or it's not a platform. Like a standard can be used by all. Or a Foss project can be used by all.
    - RuggedPineapple 6y ago
      This isn't true in the slightest. Your 'neutrality' or whatever isn't important at all. Every single paper and pamphlet the people writing the first amendment were familiar with was deeply, intrinsically partisan. Those 17th century platforms still expressly retained the right to decide who featured inside their pages.
    - _dibly 6y ago
      Neither of those things are owned and moderated by a private company, and private companies definitely don't orient their product on the basis of neutrality.
- emteycz 6y ago
  Absolutely disagree. Platforms are owned by people just like you and me, and there are small-scale platforms too. I can even foresee myself running one, and I don't want to lose my rights over my property just because somebody thinks large platforms are wrong.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
tomp 6y ago
This is a fallacious argument often brought up in this discussion. It's not about forcing someone. It's about forcing mega-corporations that provide what could be termed essential infrastructure to modern life. There is a lot of precedent. Banks, electricity companies, railway operators, ... cannot arbitrarily refuse to serve customers. I see nothing immoral and fully support extending this to big tech (while not suppressing competition of course, i.e. it should only affect companies once they reach a certain size).
- emteycz 6y ago
  Banks can and do arbitrarily refuse service to customers, E. g. based on account size, etc. Railways, electricity lines etc are monopolies, there is just one possibility, it's not feasible to build a new one. These should be regulated. Facebook, Google, etc are not providing anything crucial, there are billions of people living without it, and there are thousands of (worse but functioning) alternatives, and anyone can switch by simply entering a different address into the address bar.
- ewillbefull 6y ago
  > Banks, electricity companies, railway operators These are bad examples in a discussion about speech protections... those businesses are providing services, not just engaging in speech. Also, those businesses _do_ act to arbitrarily refuse to serve people. My bank sent me a letter last year saying that in ~10 days my account will be closed and they'll send me a check with the account contents. No reason, no appeals.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  Banks, electric companies, and railway lines do not publish speech as their main service, so it's kind of a different story. Regulation of commerce and speech in the US are different, legally and culturally, for better or worse.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > I see nothing immoral and fully support extending this to big tech (while not suppressing competition of course, i.e. it should only affect companies once they reach a certain size). The problem here isn't really Section 230 in particular, it's the market power these companies have in general. It's not just censorship, it's also high fees and lack of customer service and lock-in / barriers to entry created by vertical integration. And this isn't a natural monopoly like the power grid. Federation gives the same economies of scale as long as the dominant network is federated. So the better solution to these companies isn't to mess with Section 230, it's to break them up.
quotemstr 6y ago
A public square doesn't stop being a public square merely because it's privately owned. The reasoning in Marsh v. Alabama still seems valid to me, even if the court has softened on it in the past few decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama When public communication is dominated by a few forums that happen to be privately owned and being banned from these forums ensures that nobody hears you, then actual practical exercise of free speech requires that these forums be viewpoint-neutral. I'm convinced that all these people who show up on every HN and cheerlead for private censorship would be ecstatic about repealing the first amendment itself. Either you support the ability of ordinary people to express unpopular ideas as a practical matter or you don't. I've met nobody with a principled commitment to free speech who nevertheless argues that the likes of Google and Facebook should be able to control the public conversation.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_Corp._v._Halleck https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_C... A more recent and more relevant precedent that cuts against your argument. Btw I would be sad to see the first repealed, but I'm happy enough with Google and Facebook's moderation powers. So now you've met one person who has a principled commitment to free speech who thinks that Google and facebook should be allowed to moderate content.
  - quotemstr 6y ago
    I know the SCOTUS has walked back that precedent --- I said that I liked the reasoning in Marsh, not that I think it's still in force and not watered down. As for your support for Google and Facebook moderation: don't you think support for the purpose of free speech requires that people be capable of exercising that freedom at a practical level? What's the point of the first amendment protections free speech protections when it's a dead letter from the perspective of message dissemination?
    - RuggedPineapple 6y ago

I was going to say, refusing to host on your own platform something you find objectionable is not in any way an infringement on speech, but forcing someone to host it tramples all over free speech.

kanox 6y ago

Completely disagree: the rights of individual authors should trump the rights of platforms, otherwise we will find ourselves in a situation where free-speech only applies to Facebook, Google and assorted media companies. It is incorrect to conflate "hosting" with "speech", it is already obvious that being hosted on YouTube is not an endorsement by Alphabet corporation.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Individual authors have no constitutional right to have their views published on platforms privately owned by others, so there is no right they have which could trump the rights of platforms. In order for there to be a contest of rights here, a constitutional amendment would be needed to grant the right to have one's views promulgated on private platforms.
- kanox 6y ago
  Large platforms (for example >10m users) should be forced by law to publish everything which is not otherwise illegal.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    Sure, it's fine to have that belief. Just, to make it work in a world where the Citizens United precedent exists, you really need a constitutional amendment. Or a supreme court willing to make a really creative interpretation of the constitution and precedent landscape. This isn't a normative statement about what ought and ought not to be. It's just an observation of what is.
  - _dibly 6y ago
    What if a large platform has strict posting rights to cultivate a specific community standard that has nothing to do with the law? If my power-washing forum gets to over 10m users I'm now legally obligated to publish everything that doesn't violate US law, regardless of my site's content moderation policy? What about large platforms based in other countries with a strong user base in the US, or vice versa? Do you force tech companies based internationally to comply with US law for content moderation purposes globally, or just for US residents? If not, what's to stop Facebook from moving their offices to Canada and continuing their business model as-is? I fail to see how this is an even remotely reasonable assertion.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
RuggedPineapple 6y ago
If someone wants to give a sermon on top of your kitchen table over dinner time, would you object to being able to throw them out? Does an author have the right to come print their work out on your printer, using your ink and paper?
- kanox 6y ago
  This should be specifically targeted at large internet platforms and service providers (like ISPs). Some sort of cutoff can be found based on revenue, there are plenty of other regulations which only target companies above a certain size.
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    >there are plenty of other regulations which only target companies above a certain size. Conversely, there's even more regulations and more importantly, rights, that apply to every company. One of those is freedom of speech, i.e., the ability to not be forced to publish on a private platform the views of everyone.
_dibly 6y ago
The platform is private, so the 'individual author' isn't having their free speech restricted by being restricted from a single private platform. If someone gets banned from Twitter for posting statements inciting violence, there's nothing stopping that person from going to other outlets like Reddit or Facebook, or even starting their own site/newsletter. But if a private company were legally incapable of removing content that they determined was unacceptable on their platform, that would be totally okay with you?
- wolco2 6y ago
  A platform is neutral by nature or it's not a platform. Like a standard can be used by all. Or a Foss project can be used by all.
  - RuggedPineapple 6y ago
    This isn't true in the slightest. Your 'neutrality' or whatever isn't important at all. Every single paper and pamphlet the people writing the first amendment were familiar with was deeply, intrinsically partisan. Those 17th century platforms still expressly retained the right to decide who featured inside their pages.
  - _dibly 6y ago
    Neither of those things are owned and moderated by a private company, and private companies definitely don't orient their product on the basis of neutrality.
emteycz 6y ago
Absolutely disagree. Platforms are owned by people just like you and me, and there are small-scale platforms too. I can even foresee myself running one, and I don't want to lose my rights over my property just because somebody thinks large platforms are wrong.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

tomp 6y ago

This is a fallacious argument often brought up in this discussion. It's not about forcing someone. It's about forcing mega-corporations that provide what could be termed essential infrastructure to modern life. There is a lot of precedent. Banks, electricity companies, railway operators, ... cannot arbitrarily refuse to serve customers. I see nothing immoral and fully support extending this to big tech (while not suppressing competition of course, i.e. it should only affect companies once they reach a certain size).

emteycz 6y ago
Banks can and do arbitrarily refuse service to customers, E. g. based on account size, etc. Railways, electricity lines etc are monopolies, there is just one possibility, it's not feasible to build a new one. These should be regulated. Facebook, Google, etc are not providing anything crucial, there are billions of people living without it, and there are thousands of (worse but functioning) alternatives, and anyone can switch by simply entering a different address into the address bar.
ewillbefull 6y ago
> Banks, electricity companies, railway operators These are bad examples in a discussion about speech protections... those businesses are providing services, not just engaging in speech. Also, those businesses _do_ act to arbitrarily refuse to serve people. My bank sent me a letter last year saying that in ~10 days my account will be closed and they'll send me a check with the account contents. No reason, no appeals.
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Banks, electric companies, and railway lines do not publish speech as their main service, so it's kind of a different story. Regulation of commerce and speech in the US are different, legally and culturally, for better or worse.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> I see nothing immoral and fully support extending this to big tech (while not suppressing competition of course, i.e. it should only affect companies once they reach a certain size). The problem here isn't really Section 230 in particular, it's the market power these companies have in general. It's not just censorship, it's also high fees and lack of customer service and lock-in / barriers to entry created by vertical integration. And this isn't a natural monopoly like the power grid. Federation gives the same economies of scale as long as the dominant network is federated. So the better solution to these companies isn't to mess with Section 230, it's to break them up.

quotemstr 6y ago

A public square doesn't stop being a public square merely because it's privately owned. The reasoning in Marsh v. Alabama still seems valid to me, even if the court has softened on it in the past few decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama When public communication is dominated by a few forums that happen to be privately owned and being banned from these forums ensures that nobody hears you, then actual practical exercise of free speech requires that these forums be viewpoint-neutral. I'm convinced that all these people who show up on every HN and cheerlead for private censorship would be ecstatic about repealing the first amendment itself. Either you support the ability of ordinary people to express unpopular ideas as a practical matter or you don't. I've met nobody with a principled commitment to free speech who nevertheless argues that the likes of Google and Facebook should be able to control the public conversation.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_Corp._v._Halleck https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_C... A more recent and more relevant precedent that cuts against your argument. Btw I would be sad to see the first repealed, but I'm happy enough with Google and Facebook's moderation powers. So now you've met one person who has a principled commitment to free speech who thinks that Google and facebook should be allowed to moderate content.
- quotemstr 6y ago
  I know the SCOTUS has walked back that precedent --- I said that I liked the reasoning in Marsh, not that I think it's still in force and not watered down. As for your support for Google and Facebook moderation: don't you think support for the purpose of free speech requires that people be capable of exercising that freedom at a practical level? What's the point of the first amendment protections free speech protections when it's a dead letter from the perspective of message dissemination?
  - RuggedPineapple 6y ago