5 ms·

It's going to be exhausting watching people explain how the First Amendment works, ad nauseam, over the next few days.

by mullingitover 6y ago

mmastrac 6y ago
To explain and completely misunderstand how it works, as well.
DonHopkins 6y ago
And the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.
ng12 6y ago
Rather a conflating of the concept of free speech with the First Amendment.
kortilla 6y ago
It’s going to be exhausting hearing people explain how censorship is cool because it’s not the government doing it.
- tjr225 6y ago
  That’s exactly how it is intended to work. Twitter doesn’t owe me or even the president anything.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  You're entitled to free speech, you're not entitled to someone else's platform. Stormfront has been an openly racist community forum, spouting hate speech unimpeded for 24 years. Their one weird trick: they're not relying on someone else's platform to do it.
  - nr2x 6y ago
    Yup, and they had their own little shitty corner of the Internet until social media showed up and let them out. Time to send the trolls back to the caves.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    No shit. That doesn’t alter the discussion around how dangerous it is to have a censorship on a nationwide platform with more reach than any government forum.
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      Stormfront has just as much reach as Facebook. They're on the internet, after all, so the whole world can see their forum. The only problem is you won't get as much of an audience if you post on Stormfront. Except that's not a problem at all, let alone "dangerous." You're entitled to free speech, you're not entitled to 'reach' or any audience for that matter.
tonystubblebine 6y ago
I would like to see people who are advocating for free speech on private platforms to expand what they are saying to also cover their position on property rights. Fine, fine, I get that a lot of people here are chilled by threats to open discussion. But please go further, how do you balance that with a private company's right to do what they want with their own product? I personally find it very threatening as a product developer that there might be laws requiring me to allow people to use my products in ways that are abhorrent to me. Yes, the government has defined protected classes and I will respect those (not hard for me). But if a bunch of Trumpers wanted to use my software to organize a coup, do people really think I have to support that? Where is that line?
- valvar 6y ago
  It's easy to draw an arbitrary line based on market dominance. Compare to abortion laws — at some point, a fetus is considered a person. The exact point is contentious and arbitrary, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
- sixothree 6y ago
  Imagine if HN was not allowed to moderate its posts. They give a wider berth to comments than they need to, including some I have made (apologies and thank you hn). But I can't imagine I would want to be here if Trump's post were an unfiltered part of the experience. edit: and to be clear the thing I am most disappointed in my comments is the brevity. I am disappointed in myself the most for making terse comments.
  - tonystubblebine 6y ago
    Exactly. There are many, many curated experiences that we all appreciate. Curation is good. I'm so sick of open commons. Not all voices are equal and, IMO, fringe opinions should have to work extra hard to earn their way into the mainstream. Speaking strictly as a consumer, I appreciate and pay for curators as a way to save time.
- unityByFreedom 6y ago
  > how do you balance that with a private company's right to do what they want with their own product? You're asking for logic from people who learned from a young age that doing bad things gets them attention. Trump is their icon. He was quick and happy after the "capitol storm" riot to finally say there will be a peaceful transition on the 20th. Why? Because he was asked to do it and he feels he is being helpful by complying. Nevermind that he created the problem in the first place. He's always felt, since a young age, that he didn't get enough attention, and only received it when he acted out. Like, when you use your fork to eat food for the first time and dad doesn't even look at you. Then you throw it on the floor and Dad is suddenly alert. Boom, that's a life lesson. Repeat that scenario 1,000 times, give the child a billion dollars and you get someone like Trump.
valvar 6y ago
It's already exhausting to explain that free speech is not a technicality, and that the constitution is not a formalistic document.
jcranmer 6y ago
A quote I saw (attribution: https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/1347687216303263746 https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/1347687216303263746): > Now that Twitter has booted Trump, the next 24 hours will be devoted exclusively to people who don't understand the First Amendment explaining the First Amendment to people who do. With a corollary I want to add that "everyone will believe themselves to be in the latter category." Let's just avoid social media for a while and enjoy peace of mind.

It's going to be exhausting watching people explain how the First Amendment works, ad nauseam, over the next few days.

mmastrac 6y ago

To explain and completely misunderstand how it works, as well.

DonHopkins 6y ago

And the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

ng12 6y ago

Rather a conflating of the concept of free speech with the First Amendment.

kortilla 6y ago

It’s going to be exhausting hearing people explain how censorship is cool because it’s not the government doing it.

tjr225 6y ago
That’s exactly how it is intended to work. Twitter doesn’t owe me or even the president anything.
mullingitover 6y ago
You're entitled to free speech, you're not entitled to someone else's platform. Stormfront has been an openly racist community forum, spouting hate speech unimpeded for 24 years. Their one weird trick: they're not relying on someone else's platform to do it.
- nr2x 6y ago
  Yup, and they had their own little shitty corner of the Internet until social media showed up and let them out. Time to send the trolls back to the caves.
- kortilla 6y ago
  No shit. That doesn’t alter the discussion around how dangerous it is to have a censorship on a nationwide platform with more reach than any government forum.
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    Stormfront has just as much reach as Facebook. They're on the internet, after all, so the whole world can see their forum. The only problem is you won't get as much of an audience if you post on Stormfront. Except that's not a problem at all, let alone "dangerous." You're entitled to free speech, you're not entitled to 'reach' or any audience for that matter.

tonystubblebine 6y ago

I would like to see people who are advocating for free speech on private platforms to expand what they are saying to also cover their position on property rights. Fine, fine, I get that a lot of people here are chilled by threats to open discussion. But please go further, how do you balance that with a private company's right to do what they want with their own product? I personally find it very threatening as a product developer that there might be laws requiring me to allow people to use my products in ways that are abhorrent to me. Yes, the government has defined protected classes and I will respect those (not hard for me). But if a bunch of Trumpers wanted to use my software to organize a coup, do people really think I have to support that? Where is that line?

valvar 6y ago
It's easy to draw an arbitrary line based on market dominance. Compare to abortion laws — at some point, a fetus is considered a person. The exact point is contentious and arbitrary, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
sixothree 6y ago
Imagine if HN was not allowed to moderate its posts. They give a wider berth to comments than they need to, including some I have made (apologies and thank you hn). But I can't imagine I would want to be here if Trump's post were an unfiltered part of the experience. edit: and to be clear the thing I am most disappointed in my comments is the brevity. I am disappointed in myself the most for making terse comments.
- tonystubblebine 6y ago
  Exactly. There are many, many curated experiences that we all appreciate. Curation is good. I'm so sick of open commons. Not all voices are equal and, IMO, fringe opinions should have to work extra hard to earn their way into the mainstream. Speaking strictly as a consumer, I appreciate and pay for curators as a way to save time.
unityByFreedom 6y ago
> how do you balance that with a private company's right to do what they want with their own product? You're asking for logic from people who learned from a young age that doing bad things gets them attention. Trump is their icon. He was quick and happy after the "capitol storm" riot to finally say there will be a peaceful transition on the 20th. Why? Because he was asked to do it and he feels he is being helpful by complying. Nevermind that he created the problem in the first place. He's always felt, since a young age, that he didn't get enough attention, and only received it when he acted out. Like, when you use your fork to eat food for the first time and dad doesn't even look at you. Then you throw it on the floor and Dad is suddenly alert. Boom, that's a life lesson. Repeat that scenario 1,000 times, give the child a billion dollars and you get someone like Trump.

valvar 6y ago

It's already exhausting to explain that free speech is not a technicality, and that the constitution is not a formalistic document.

jcranmer 6y ago

A quote I saw (attribution: https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/1347687216303263746 https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/1347687216303263746): > Now that Twitter has booted Trump, the next 24 hours will be devoted exclusively to people who don't understand the First Amendment explaining the First Amendment to people who do. With a corollary I want to add that "everyone will believe themselves to be in the latter category." Let's just avoid social media for a while and enjoy peace of mind.