7 ms·

You realise that it’s possible for entities outside of the government to censor things, right? That word isn’t only applicable to state actions, and nor should

by jpxw 6y ago

You realise that it’s possible for entities outside of the government to censor things, right? That word isn’t only applicable to state actions, and nor should it be.

bargl 6y ago
It's legal for entities outside the government to censor things. IANAL so if I'm wrong let me know. But my understanding is that censorship is perfectly fine for any company.
- jpxw 6y ago
  There’s a difference between what is legal and what is morally correct.
  - crowbahr 6y ago
    Encouraging violent insurrection against the legally elected congress isn't moral either.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - bargl 6y ago
    Agreed. And these companies are following what they believe is morally correct. Also, this isn't going to be effective Parler is a website, people can just browse to it in Chrome/Safari... We should be promoting apps that encourage and promote healthy discourse between people not echo chambers, but that's what I think is morally correct.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  It's (typically) perfectly legal, but not necessarily perfectly fine.
- ng12 6y ago
  Private market censorship is legal w.r.t. the first amendment. If it's good for society is a separate question.
- jimbob45 6y ago
  Unless you do it to a privileged group. Then it’s discrimination.
- Anon1096 6y ago
  That wasn't the question being asked.
- zucker42 6y ago
  I find undesirable to buy a phone where a company can arbitrarily decide what I am and am not allowed to run on my device. Because economies of scale make things cheaper if many people want them and because I generally believe in fighting the power of arbitrary or harmful corporate decisions, I try to convince others of the importance of this "feature" (really it's more of a lack of an anti-feature). Luckily you can still sideload apps on Android. The day they remove that feature is the day I take the time to figure out how to use an alternate OS.
  - bargl 6y ago
    I fully agree with you on this.
- 236dev 6y ago
  It also use to be legal to deny people based on their skin color. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
  - bargl 6y ago
    And the laws changed. Hopefully we'll see that. We can't expect companies to be our moral compass.
  - criddell 6y ago
    Is Google refusing to distribute Parler different from the NYT refusing to publish an article I send them?
    - agiroth 6y ago
      Yes. NYT is making an editorial decision. Google publishing an app is much more akin to you making a phone call - they are the carrier, nothing else, because they control the end of line.
      - criddell 6y ago
        Phone companies also have terms of service. Here’s AT&T’s: > AT&T may immediately terminate all or a portion of your Service or reduce or suspend Service, without notice, for conduct that AT&T believes (a) is illegal, fraudulent, harassing, abusive, or intended to intimidate or threaten; (b) constitutes a violation of any law, regulation, or tariff (including, without applicable policies or guidelines (including the Acceptable Use Policy), and AT&T may refer such use to law enforcement authorities without notice to you.
        agiroth 6y ago
        And yet somehow have never resorted to saying who can and cannot use their service based on their political beliefs. Keep trying.
        6y ago
danijelb 6y ago
Real censorship means that the government prosecutes you for speech, no matter where or how or to whom are you saying it. That was happening in parts of Europe from 1945 to 1990. This what is happening in USA right now is nowhere near that. It's just free market. If you're banned from a certain platform you can reach your audience in another way. No one is censoring your speech. It's just a certain company not wanting to serve a particular user. If it was actual censorship then you wouldn't be able to even print it on paper and distribute in your neighborhood. Free speech != guaranteed access to a company providing access to a big audience
- nilkn 6y ago
  Censorship has a very simple definition, and it can be conducted by private companies. From Wikipedia: “Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.” “Real” censorship is just censorship, and that’s the definition.
  - nnspired 6y ago
    But it’s not “true” censorship because I don’t like it either. \s
  - danijelb 6y ago
    The reason I used the word "real" is probably because of my environment (ex-communist european country). I was born after the fall of communism, but of course the environment has a big influence on the lens through which you see things (family, friends, stories, history classes, etc.) So when I see what is called censorship in US, it seems a bit funny and strange to me. I immediately think how people in my country during communism would be happy if only that was called censorship and if they had a possibility to use alternative channels to exercise free speech. But of course, I accept that this might be my biased eurocentric view of things and that from a different cultural perspective "real" means something else. Perhaps it will be like that even in Europe in a few years, who knows. We don't have much problems for now because we all use US social media and they don't really react to foreign languages, except a few universal "trigger" words like antivax. At least for smaller languages and countries (central and eastern europe)
costsNall 6y ago
Sure, by the dictionary definition of censor. Society is guided by law, not a Webster’s. At the end of the day, as free people, the people at Google are free to decide who they want to associate with.
ashtonkem 6y ago
This line of argument is always going to end up accidentally side-loading authoritarianism into the American system. The logical conclusion is that the government should force Google to carry speech, and that is a bad idea.
kmeisthax 6y ago
Yes, but that also requires adopting a rather expansionist idea of corporate power and freedom of speech, even compared to post-Citizens-United America. Restricting a private actor from removing content they don't like creates a positive duty to publish content. For example, Net Neutrality regulation was legally opposed specifically on 1st Amendment grounds, and that was a far looser regulation than what would be necessary to prohibit social media companies from making political decisions about what to publish. More concretely, YouTube has actual knowledge that extremist right-wing political views damage their brand reputation - they've gone through several waves of pulled advertising that has harmed both themselves and their relationship with their creators. Advertisers have told them in no uncertain terms that they will not have their content on the same platform as, say, KKK rallies. So now we need to extend this positive duty to publish onto anyone who does business with these platforms, in order to prevent them from exercising the power of the purse to soft-censor views they don't like. Furthermore, even this "duty to publish" standard for free speech does not always seem to meet the standards of some. I've heard people (not necessarily you, so the following is a strawman) argue that public rebuke is a form of censorship; if only because it may cause adverse publicity to have one's views opposed. This is absurd; the prescribed answer to offensive speech is counter-speech. If people decide not to do business with someone because they find their political views offensive, that shouldn't automatically be treated as censorship. Even at a "duty to publish" level (what you actually seem to be arguing for), you need to be careful to define common carriers narrowly to avoid forcing people into unwanted relationships, lest you run into this trap of "speech is consequence-free".
zmmmmm 6y ago
Look at it this way: when private companies censor something the user has the option to go elsewhere to exercise their speech. When the government does it, they can't go anywhere. In this case, if a significant number of people are disenfranchised by this, it will naturally create the market pressure for a solution that they can use. It will spur adoption of tools like F-droid and open devices etc. It'll force these people to embrace open web technologies instead of proprietary ecosystems. Which are all very positive and healthy things. It may be very inefficient, but to some extent its a healthy process that ultimately arbitrates where acceptable standards of speech sit.
- agiroth 6y ago
  If there were a large, vibrant community of public squares, I'd very much agree with you; the problem is that the network effect means that there will only ever be 2-3 big ones. It's a form of natural monopoly if not monopoly-in-fact and that has to be accounted for if "the people" are to remain in control of their ability to exercise their rights. So, one solution would be to foster an environment where Twitter et.al lose their power because they really CAN'T lock people in anymore and I would absolutely love to see such a future. But unfortunately that isn't where we are right now and the incentives around us are all set up to ensure it never changes.
  - xref 6y ago
    > If there were a large, vibrant community of public squares You’re exercising your free speech in one right now. I don’t even have an account of any of the “monopoly” ones.

by jpxw 6y ago

You realise that it’s possible for entities outside of the government to censor things, right? That word isn’t only applicable to state actions, and nor should it be.

bargl 6y ago

It's legal for entities outside the government to censor things. IANAL so if I'm wrong let me know. But my understanding is that censorship is perfectly fine for any company.

jpxw 6y ago
There’s a difference between what is legal and what is morally correct.
- crowbahr 6y ago
  Encouraging violent insurrection against the legally elected congress isn't moral either.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bargl 6y ago
  Agreed. And these companies are following what they believe is morally correct. Also, this isn't going to be effective Parler is a website, people can just browse to it in Chrome/Safari... We should be promoting apps that encourage and promote healthy discourse between people not echo chambers, but that's what I think is morally correct.
xyzzyz 6y ago
It's (typically) perfectly legal, but not necessarily perfectly fine.
ng12 6y ago
Private market censorship is legal w.r.t. the first amendment. If it's good for society is a separate question.
jimbob45 6y ago
Unless you do it to a privileged group. Then it’s discrimination.
Anon1096 6y ago
That wasn't the question being asked.
zucker42 6y ago
I find undesirable to buy a phone where a company can arbitrarily decide what I am and am not allowed to run on my device. Because economies of scale make things cheaper if many people want them and because I generally believe in fighting the power of arbitrary or harmful corporate decisions, I try to convince others of the importance of this "feature" (really it's more of a lack of an anti-feature). Luckily you can still sideload apps on Android. The day they remove that feature is the day I take the time to figure out how to use an alternate OS.
- bargl 6y ago
  I fully agree with you on this.
236dev 6y ago
It also use to be legal to deny people based on their skin color. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
- bargl 6y ago
  And the laws changed. Hopefully we'll see that. We can't expect companies to be our moral compass.
- criddell 6y ago
  Is Google refusing to distribute Parler different from the NYT refusing to publish an article I send them?
  - agiroth 6y ago
    Yes. NYT is making an editorial decision. Google publishing an app is much more akin to you making a phone call - they are the carrier, nothing else, because they control the end of line.
    - criddell 6y ago
      Phone companies also have terms of service. Here’s AT&T’s: > AT&T may immediately terminate all or a portion of your Service or reduce or suspend Service, without notice, for conduct that AT&T believes (a) is illegal, fraudulent, harassing, abusive, or intended to intimidate or threaten; (b) constitutes a violation of any law, regulation, or tariff (including, without applicable policies or guidelines (including the Acceptable Use Policy), and AT&T may refer such use to law enforcement authorities without notice to you.
      - agiroth 6y ago
        And yet somehow have never resorted to saying who can and cannot use their service based on their political beliefs. Keep trying.
        6y ago

danijelb 6y ago

Real censorship means that the government prosecutes you for speech, no matter where or how or to whom are you saying it. That was happening in parts of Europe from 1945 to 1990. This what is happening in USA right now is nowhere near that. It's just free market. If you're banned from a certain platform you can reach your audience in another way. No one is censoring your speech. It's just a certain company not wanting to serve a particular user. If it was actual censorship then you wouldn't be able to even print it on paper and distribute in your neighborhood. Free speech != guaranteed access to a company providing access to a big audience

nilkn 6y ago
Censorship has a very simple definition, and it can be conducted by private companies. From Wikipedia: “Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.” “Real” censorship is just censorship, and that’s the definition.
- nnspired 6y ago
  But it’s not “true” censorship because I don’t like it either. \s
- danijelb 6y ago
  The reason I used the word "real" is probably because of my environment (ex-communist european country). I was born after the fall of communism, but of course the environment has a big influence on the lens through which you see things (family, friends, stories, history classes, etc.) So when I see what is called censorship in US, it seems a bit funny and strange to me. I immediately think how people in my country during communism would be happy if only that was called censorship and if they had a possibility to use alternative channels to exercise free speech. But of course, I accept that this might be my biased eurocentric view of things and that from a different cultural perspective "real" means something else. Perhaps it will be like that even in Europe in a few years, who knows. We don't have much problems for now because we all use US social media and they don't really react to foreign languages, except a few universal "trigger" words like antivax. At least for smaller languages and countries (central and eastern europe)

costsNall 6y ago

Sure, by the dictionary definition of censor. Society is guided by law, not a Webster’s. At the end of the day, as free people, the people at Google are free to decide who they want to associate with.

ashtonkem 6y ago

This line of argument is always going to end up accidentally side-loading authoritarianism into the American system. The logical conclusion is that the government should force Google to carry speech, and that is a bad idea.

kmeisthax 6y ago

Yes, but that also requires adopting a rather expansionist idea of corporate power and freedom of speech, even compared to post-Citizens-United America. Restricting a private actor from removing content they don't like creates a positive duty to publish content. For example, Net Neutrality regulation was legally opposed specifically on 1st Amendment grounds, and that was a far looser regulation than what would be necessary to prohibit social media companies from making political decisions about what to publish. More concretely, YouTube has actual knowledge that extremist right-wing political views damage their brand reputation - they've gone through several waves of pulled advertising that has harmed both themselves and their relationship with their creators. Advertisers have told them in no uncertain terms that they will not have their content on the same platform as, say, KKK rallies. So now we need to extend this positive duty to publish onto anyone who does business with these platforms, in order to prevent them from exercising the power of the purse to soft-censor views they don't like. Furthermore, even this "duty to publish" standard for free speech does not always seem to meet the standards of some. I've heard people (not necessarily you, so the following is a strawman) argue that public rebuke is a form of censorship; if only because it may cause adverse publicity to have one's views opposed. This is absurd; the prescribed answer to offensive speech is counter-speech. If people decide not to do business with someone because they find their political views offensive, that shouldn't automatically be treated as censorship. Even at a "duty to publish" level (what you actually seem to be arguing for), you need to be careful to define common carriers narrowly to avoid forcing people into unwanted relationships, lest you run into this trap of "speech is consequence-free".

zmmmmm 6y ago

Look at it this way: when private companies censor something the user has the option to go elsewhere to exercise their speech. When the government does it, they can't go anywhere. In this case, if a significant number of people are disenfranchised by this, it will naturally create the market pressure for a solution that they can use. It will spur adoption of tools like F-droid and open devices etc. It'll force these people to embrace open web technologies instead of proprietary ecosystems. Which are all very positive and healthy things. It may be very inefficient, but to some extent its a healthy process that ultimately arbitrates where acceptable standards of speech sit.

agiroth 6y ago
If there were a large, vibrant community of public squares, I'd very much agree with you; the problem is that the network effect means that there will only ever be 2-3 big ones. It's a form of natural monopoly if not monopoly-in-fact and that has to be accounted for if "the people" are to remain in control of their ability to exercise their rights. So, one solution would be to foster an environment where Twitter et.al lose their power because they really CAN'T lock people in anymore and I would absolutely love to see such a future. But unfortunately that isn't where we are right now and the incentives around us are all set up to ensure it never changes.
- xref 6y ago
  > If there were a large, vibrant community of public squares You’re exercising your free speech in one right now. I don’t even have an account of any of the “monopoly” ones.