3 ms·

“people can simply drive, i fully support american airlines not letting group X use their airlines” “people can just send letters i fully support att not allow

by ffggvv 6y ago

“people can simply drive, i fully support american airlines not letting group X use their airlines” “people can just send letters i fully support att not allowing group X to use their phone lines to spread info.”

nodamage 6y ago
This is not the gotcha you think it is. Multiple airlines, for example, have banned passengers from their flights for refusing to wear masks. They are well within their rights to do so.
- ffggvv 6y ago
  so you’d support them say banning anyone who supports bernie sanders? that’s also a physical threat, not a political idea. so don’t get your point
  - nodamage 6y ago
    That's a pretty silly false equivalence. Supporting Bernie Sanders poses no harm to anyone. Refusing to wear a mask on a plane does. So does planning a terrorist attack.
ineedasername 6y ago
You're talking about services that are "common carriers". They have special legal obligations to, within reason, facilitate every legal transaction that comes their way. The scenarios you describe therefore cannot happen with them. If you want internet platforms to have that same level of "anything goes", then you're arguing for them to be classified as common carriers.
- 1123581321 6y ago
  There is such a movement to regulate social giants (and other parts of Internet infrastructure) as common carriers. Apologies if you already knew this and I misunderstood your tone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utili...
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    I figured I wasn't the first one to think of the idea :) I'm not sure how I feel about it though. A "commons" physical space has has an firm upper limit on how many people it can reach. I don't think anyone is entitled to the massive amplification of their words that a large social media platform can provide without recourse to either being moderated or curated the way other broadcast media is done. A person could not perform some analog to "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" on those traditional media forms, and I don't see how doing it on the internet should change that. The problem as always is where do you draw the line? Some free speech advocates seem to say it's too difficult so we shouldn't try. That one reasonable step could be the justification for an unreasonable one. I think that's a complete cop out. I think you do the reasonable thing, and then fight against the unreasonable thing. Not give up because it's not easy. It's a hard thing and we need to constantly as a whole and in individual circumstances assess our judgements, but not back away from making them.

by ffggvv 6y ago

nodamage 6y ago

This is not the gotcha you think it is. Multiple airlines, for example, have banned passengers from their flights for refusing to wear masks. They are well within their rights to do so.

ffggvv 6y ago
so you’d support them say banning anyone who supports bernie sanders? that’s also a physical threat, not a political idea. so don’t get your point
- nodamage 6y ago
  That's a pretty silly false equivalence. Supporting Bernie Sanders poses no harm to anyone. Refusing to wear a mask on a plane does. So does planning a terrorist attack.

ineedasername 6y ago

You're talking about services that are "common carriers". They have special legal obligations to, within reason, facilitate every legal transaction that comes their way. The scenarios you describe therefore cannot happen with them. If you want internet platforms to have that same level of "anything goes", then you're arguing for them to be classified as common carriers.

1123581321 6y ago
There is such a movement to regulate social giants (and other parts of Internet infrastructure) as common carriers. Apologies if you already knew this and I misunderstood your tone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utili...
- ineedasername 6y ago
  I figured I wasn't the first one to think of the idea :) I'm not sure how I feel about it though. A "commons" physical space has has an firm upper limit on how many people it can reach. I don't think anyone is entitled to the massive amplification of their words that a large social media platform can provide without recourse to either being moderated or curated the way other broadcast media is done. A person could not perform some analog to "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" on those traditional media forms, and I don't see how doing it on the internet should change that. The problem as always is where do you draw the line? Some free speech advocates seem to say it's too difficult so we shouldn't try. That one reasonable step could be the justification for an unreasonable one. I think that's a complete cop out. I think you do the reasonable thing, and then fight against the unreasonable thing. Not give up because it's not easy. It's a hard thing and we need to constantly as a whole and in individual circumstances assess our judgements, but not back away from making them.