5 ms·

What baffles me about this is how people can call for private companies to be obligated to broadcast the direct messages of government leaders, and do it in the

by jmull 6y ago

What baffles me about this is how people can call for private companies to be obligated to broadcast the direct messages of government leaders, and do it in the name of free speech. Really? You want media to be state-run in the US? You would actually need to repeal the first amendment to make that happen.

exstudent2 6y ago
> Really? You want media to be state-run in the US? No, I just don't want tech companies "protecting" me from information. I'll read the direct words from people and process them for myself. Twitter/FB/Apple/Google are not entities I would ever want choosing what I see and don't see. [EDIT] Ironic that HN has chosen to censor my account. I guess what I said is too "dangerous" for you, the lowly user to read.
- ccortes 6y ago
  >Twitter/FB/Apple/Google are not entities I would ever want choosing what I see and don't see. Isn't that exactly what they do to keep engagement up?
  - exstudent2 6y ago
    Correct. Not providing access to a chronological, raw timeline is also censorship and anti-user.
dominotw 6y ago
> for private companies what is the relevance of these companies being private?
- smitty1110 6y ago
  Caveat Lector: I am not a lawyer. It’s less about the company being privately held and more about being a private sector company. There’s also a distinction in American common law between speech in the Public Square from speech in other locations, like private property.
  - Multicomp 6y ago
    > There’s also a distinction in American common law between speech in the Public Square from speech in other locations, like private property. My pet theory is that while legally, all but a few websites are private property, at some point countries are going to introduce legislation that sets criteria for when a private website must start acting like a public square (ex: more than X income, Y user accounts, Z daily active users). Or, have government-run public squares, something like "geocities.gov" or "NextDoor.gov". Not sure which one I think is worse.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > at some point countries are going to introduce legislation that sets criteria for when a private website must start acting like a public square The US courts already apply existing standards for when private spaces have some of the same rules as public ones to online fora without needing separate legislation.
  - dominotw 6y ago
    oh just a legal point. I am not sure that ppl saying that are arguing from a point of legality.
ghaff 6y ago
It's possible for people to simultaneously support the right of private companies to take legal actions that they want to take (including the IMO justified deplatforming of this individual) and to be somewhat bothered by the fact that big tech can get together over lunch and decide to substantially erase a significant slice of political discourse from the internet. Mind you, they have various incentives--including potential anti-trust action--to maintain a light touch. But they have a huge ability to suppress if they chose to exercise it.
- CogitoCogito 6y ago
  > It's possible for people to simultaneously support the right of private companies to take legal actions that they want to take (including the IMO justified deplatforming of this individual) and to be somewhat bothered by the fact that big tech together over lunch and decide to substantially erase a significant slide of political discourse from the internet. This describes me pretty well. I'm personally okay with Twitter/Facebook/etc. temporarily/permanently banning Trump's accounts for numerous reasons (not the least incitement to riot), but I feel very uncomfortable de-platforming all of his supporters. Sure the ones actively making threats or other illegal actions, but I don't like the automatic removal of all of their discussion. I'm definitely very conflicted about the whole thing though. I don't really see an obviously right way forward.
  - djur 6y ago
    There are still plenty of Trump supporters on Twitter and Facebook. There certainly isn't a blanket ban.
ng12 6y ago
I think it's funny that many technologists love to wax philosophical about how disruptive and world-changing tech is except when it comes to this one issue. We have to admit that this is an unprecedented issue in the history of democracy. I do think private companies should be free to run their platforms as they wish. I also feel really, really uncomfortable with the amount of power they have to control political discourse.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
jokethrowaway 6y ago
I think the misunderstanding is happening because big tech claims to be an impartial platform and then actively censor whatever they don't like. People are not demanding for government mandated one-sided media, they're asking a private company that they believe to be an impartial platform to don't take side. Sure, you can follow both Parler and Twitter, Blaze and YouTube but I'd prefer to have a single transparent platform which respect completely freedom of speech.
- ghaff 6y ago
  >single transparent platform which respect completely freedom of speech In which case it becomes a cesspool that most people will want to stay as far away from as possible.
  - jokethrowaway 6y ago
    You can still provide optional curation without censorship. That said, I do enjoy browsing 4chan, which could qualify under your definition
- jmull 6y ago
  > big tech claims to be an impartial platform I don’t think they claim any such thing. Read the Twitter TOS, guidelines, rules, etc. There are pages and pages of restrictions. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies I suspect Twitter doesn’t use a moderation policy like Parler’s specifically because they don’t want to be a cesspool like Parler, with the correspondingly tiny user-base.

by jmull 6y ago

exstudent2 6y ago

> Really? You want media to be state-run in the US? No, I just don't want tech companies "protecting" me from information. I'll read the direct words from people and process them for myself. Twitter/FB/Apple/Google are not entities I would ever want choosing what I see and don't see. [EDIT] Ironic that HN has chosen to censor my account. I guess what I said is too "dangerous" for you, the lowly user to read.

ccortes 6y ago
>Twitter/FB/Apple/Google are not entities I would ever want choosing what I see and don't see. Isn't that exactly what they do to keep engagement up?
- exstudent2 6y ago
  Correct. Not providing access to a chronological, raw timeline is also censorship and anti-user.

dominotw 6y ago

> for private companies what is the relevance of these companies being private?

smitty1110 6y ago
Caveat Lector: I am not a lawyer. It’s less about the company being privately held and more about being a private sector company. There’s also a distinction in American common law between speech in the Public Square from speech in other locations, like private property.
- Multicomp 6y ago
  > There’s also a distinction in American common law between speech in the Public Square from speech in other locations, like private property. My pet theory is that while legally, all but a few websites are private property, at some point countries are going to introduce legislation that sets criteria for when a private website must start acting like a public square (ex: more than X income, Y user accounts, Z daily active users). Or, have government-run public squares, something like "geocities.gov" or "NextDoor.gov". Not sure which one I think is worse.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > at some point countries are going to introduce legislation that sets criteria for when a private website must start acting like a public square The US courts already apply existing standards for when private spaces have some of the same rules as public ones to online fora without needing separate legislation.
- dominotw 6y ago
  oh just a legal point. I am not sure that ppl saying that are arguing from a point of legality.

ghaff 6y ago

It's possible for people to simultaneously support the right of private companies to take legal actions that they want to take (including the IMO justified deplatforming of this individual) and to be somewhat bothered by the fact that big tech can get together over lunch and decide to substantially erase a significant slice of political discourse from the internet. Mind you, they have various incentives--including potential anti-trust action--to maintain a light touch. But they have a huge ability to suppress if they chose to exercise it.

CogitoCogito 6y ago
> It's possible for people to simultaneously support the right of private companies to take legal actions that they want to take (including the IMO justified deplatforming of this individual) and to be somewhat bothered by the fact that big tech together over lunch and decide to substantially erase a significant slide of political discourse from the internet. This describes me pretty well. I'm personally okay with Twitter/Facebook/etc. temporarily/permanently banning Trump's accounts for numerous reasons (not the least incitement to riot), but I feel very uncomfortable de-platforming all of his supporters. Sure the ones actively making threats or other illegal actions, but I don't like the automatic removal of all of their discussion. I'm definitely very conflicted about the whole thing though. I don't really see an obviously right way forward.
- djur 6y ago
  There are still plenty of Trump supporters on Twitter and Facebook. There certainly isn't a blanket ban.

ng12 6y ago

I think it's funny that many technologists love to wax philosophical about how disruptive and world-changing tech is except when it comes to this one issue. We have to admit that this is an unprecedented issue in the history of democracy. I do think private companies should be free to run their platforms as they wish. I also feel really, really uncomfortable with the amount of power they have to control political discourse.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jokethrowaway 6y ago

I think the misunderstanding is happening because big tech claims to be an impartial platform and then actively censor whatever they don't like. People are not demanding for government mandated one-sided media, they're asking a private company that they believe to be an impartial platform to don't take side. Sure, you can follow both Parler and Twitter, Blaze and YouTube but I'd prefer to have a single transparent platform which respect completely freedom of speech.

ghaff 6y ago
>single transparent platform which respect completely freedom of speech In which case it becomes a cesspool that most people will want to stay as far away from as possible.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  You can still provide optional curation without censorship. That said, I do enjoy browsing 4chan, which could qualify under your definition
jmull 6y ago
> big tech claims to be an impartial platform I don’t think they claim any such thing. Read the Twitter TOS, guidelines, rules, etc. There are pages and pages of restrictions. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies I suspect Twitter doesn’t use a moderation policy like Parler’s specifically because they don’t want to be a cesspool like Parler, with the correspondingly tiny user-base.