41 ms·

I'm just going to come out and say something that I've had a hard self reflective time coming to the conclusion of. I don't believe in free speech without limit

• 3000000001 6y ago
  At the risk of massively overgeneralising, your conclusion is generally how free speech is generally aligned with how non-US western nations approach free speech. IMO, nobody gets it 100% right 100% of the time, but the USA model isn’t the perfect or only solution. Legislation has a place in limiting the power and reach of social media, which would naturally diffuse the kind of problems people have with big tech.
• ceilingcorner 6y ago
  The mainstream media was complicit in arguing for the Iraq War, which resulted in the deaths of nearly a million people and is still ongoing in the form of the Syrian Civil War. Are you for shutting down the New York Times, then? The violence they’ve facilitated dwarfs that of the recent events. Edit: in case you doubt me, here’s a pretty damning article: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iraq-war-media-fail-matt-taibbi-812230/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iraq...
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • bestnameever 6y ago
    > The mainstream media was complicit in arguing for the Iraq War So was conservative media - why single out only the mainstream media?
    • ceilingcorner 6y ago
      I think you are missing the point of my comment. I didn’t single out the mainstream media, I used the Times as an example. The same would apply to any media source that “invited violence.”
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
• croes 6y ago
  The problem here is that private companies are doing something that only democratically legitimized state authorities should be doing, deciding what is allowed or not allowed. Otherwise we are always dependent on the good will of the companies without democratic control.
  • _ph_ 6y ago
    They are not. They are decided what is published on their platform and what not. Who can publish on their platform and who not. All limited to their respective platform. The term "allowed" in its generality can only refer to legal action, and that is reserved to the state. And I am sure there will be plenty of legal aftermath to the recent events too. Having said that, it is indeed disturbing how large the actual power of those big companies is. As a society, we have to consider how this should be handled going forward.
  • loceng 6y ago
    This isn't a problem, it's a feature. You seem to be in a scarcity, learned helplessness mindset: if you're worried about being dependant on companies that you don't believe or trust will govern well then the solution is simple, start your own company so you're the governor; so long as the internet as a platform stays relatively neutral you can do that. If you don't think this is an option, please explain why.
    • ttt0 6y ago
      It's not an option, because of the banking, which is a gray area. It's privately owned, but it's not really a free market either. The problem is that Visa and Mastercard is blacklisting people, just because the angry mob complained on the internet. The social media is just a tip of the iceberg.
      • smeej 6y ago
        There's an entire ecosystem of decentralized money that has been invented and has been growing for the last 13 years to combat precisely this problem. The value of the units of those currencies are exploding right now, in part for this reason. If this seems to you to be one of the deepest root causes of the problem, that people can't compete due to centralized monetary control systems, and you want to help make the world better by uprooting that critical power, you may consider digging deeper into these projects.
• zo1 6y ago
  Right now I sit in a country that has laws that discriminate against me due to the color of my skin. If we can't discuss and address it and other sensitive things like it that are evil and are approved-speech by tech then we're doomed as a society, and I'd say we're no better than actual racists, oppressors and slavers from days past. Moves like this by tech companies only makes it worse and more difficult to discuss this. I don't know where I'm going with this, but these recent steps taken by tech are incredibly disturbing.
  • eganist 6y ago
    > If we can't discuss and address it and other sensitive things like it that are evil and are approved-speech by tech then we're doomed as a society, and I'd say we're no better than actual racists, oppressors and slavers from days past. Just as a reminder, the deplatformed population was pushing (and the platform was enabling) fighting words - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
    • zo1 6y ago
      There is "fighting words" on both side, unfortunately. We just don't see it because it's in relation to the "accepted" set of opinions. It's part of what's so frustrating for the right right now. E.g. look at the "punch the Nazi" stuff that is apparently A-OK.
    • Sacho 6y ago
      Have you read the Post-Chaplinsky section of the article you cite? (Unless you meant to focus on the Canadian/Australian legal meanings). The US Supreme Court has been progressively narrowing what "fighting words" means over the years. By the way, the "fighting words" decision(like the other oft-favored "fire in a crowded theater" quote) are great ironic examples of what kinds of speech you are looking to suppress - a Jehova's Witness swearing at police, and a protestor against the draft in WWI. You don't need to be imaginative to see how these "reasonable limits to free speech" will be used negatively, you only need to look at what they were created for.
• loceng 6y ago
  Agreed. Data and network portability is important policy that must be passed as a means to "vote" of disapproval of governance by a platform by being able to easily move yourself off of it. It's naive to think that like-minded people won't find an online place to rally, and then eventually rally in person when they feel necessary or are incited ton do so - in this case the ongoing coup attempt is based on lies. It's a futile effort to try to suppress them, they will just gather elsewhere and the deplatforming will be a justification in their mind that they're being persecuted, as the digital/speech will inevitably manifest into the physical where the confrontation can't be avoided. I do see the deplatforming akin to parents attempting to teach a child their behaviour isn't acceptable, the problem is these children aren't understanding that - and they're adults now without anyone reasonable that they look up to or listen to as a good role model; they've listened to Trump et al who are pushing the false narrative of election fraud, so they will feel justified in violent actions.
• eganist 6y ago
  On top of that, the United States has never had "free speech without limits." Or any rights without limits. A core tenet of at least one political ideology in the United States is the idea that one's rights only extend as far as another's unharmed state of existence. i.e. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/15/liberty-fist-nose/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/15/liberty-fist-nose/ Such limitations in the case of the first amendment are pretty well captured here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... Credible threats of violence and incitement register with exceptionally strong precedent. Fighting words and threatening the President-Elect of the United States are two such categories of unprotected speech with, again, exceptionally strong precedent. Anyone claiming their freedom of speech is being violated in this scenario by pushing fighting words and specific threats may be failing to understand: 1. that such freedoms don't extend as protection from being barred by private property and enterprise, and 2. that even if they did, their words are exempt... again, with strong law and case law. I do agree that there's value in exploring registering social media and communications platforms as utilities. I don't yet know the implications of such. And on another note (and borrowing from an earlier comment of mine), I do wonder how many of the Parler removals that have taken place used Wednesday as the justification but in reality were done for FOSTA/SESTA cover, which ironically is a law passed within the last few years.
• logicchains 6y ago
  >My line for free speech seems to lie in speech that incites violence or speech that discriminates against people for immutable characteristics of their person, both of which I know Parler harbors in abundance. How do you feel about #killallmen on Twitter?
  • BoorishBears 6y ago
    I searched this and it looks like it was already explained over this 6 years ago?: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2014/03/a-twitter-hashtag-probably-doesnt-prove-feminists-want-to-kill-all-men/359493/ https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2014/03/a-twitte... I searched that and the top result was a tweet insulting anyone who even says it. - Overall that looks like a pretty hyperbolic statement rather than a credible threat. Whereas "kill Mike Pence" after a group storms the Capitol building sounds a lot less hyperbolic.
    • Psype 6y ago
      Let the time speaking by itself. Parler will end up in court. Why ? Because for years, Trump's administration (I don't recall but maybe Obama's also) is fighting against "Fake News", forcing platforms to do fact checking "or else". A new platform emerging, promoting its lack of control over that will irremediably leads to huge abuses and scandals. It's just a matter of time. A massive scandal over a year, a closure over two or three tops.
      • papertokyo 6y ago
        This does seem like the obvious outcome. We just witnessed the self-initiated shutdown of Voat, which was different in concept but similar in intention. Maybe they saw the writing on the wall?
  • manicdee 6y ago
    How do you feel about “it’s a joke” being used as an excuse for rape jokes?
• threatofrain 6y ago
  I would propose an expansion to your boundaries because even if someone wasn't born someway, I don't see why it's any more morally clear-headed to treat someone better or worse just because they're an atheist or like anime, neither of which are obviously biologically inherent.
• ff333ttee 6y ago
  So if Amazon decide that some company is a dangerous competitor to them, and that company uses AWS, then they could just immediately shut down their competitor, because they could find some "hate content" on their website. What about thousands of hate articles sold in Germany by Amazon? Amazon is even selling "Mein Kampf" - a nazi book that is forbidden in Germany. Yeah, a terrorist content is absolutely OK if it's sold by Amazon.
  • yokoprime 6y ago
    I think you're confusing free speech and capitalism. Amazon can boot you from their platform whenever they want. If however this violates the contract you have with them (e.g. there has been no violation of the ToS) you can sue for damages.
  • boruto 6y ago
    I don't think Mein Kampf is banned in Germany.
    • _ph_ 6y ago
      You are right, it isn't. The situation is complex though. After WWII the Bavarian state claimed copyrights of "Mein Kampf" as Hitler was registered as a Munich citizen. Based on this copyright, publishers were not allowed to print and import it. Sales of books printed before 1945 were still allowed, based on a ruling of the German supreme court. The copyrights have lapsed recently, so technically, the book can be printed and traded again in Germany, as long as you are not using it to promote otherwise illegal activities, like exhibiting the Swatiska as a political symbol. Also, it has been put on the index, this means, you cannot publically advertise it and sell it to underage persons. In the meantime, the Bavarian state has brought it to market again in a commented form. The original text is reproduced together with comments on the text. This issue is freely traded and even used in historical education at schools.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  • deleted 6y ago
• liquid_bluing 6y ago
  Is it still the ethically right thing to do even if it results in more violence? In my opinion, as a practical matter, near absolute freedom speech is good policy because speech is a buffer between wanting to get your way and doing violence to get your way. An increasingly large swath of American society believes that not only is our democracy corrupt, but they can't say anything about it. What's left? It's not at all obvious to me that taking away someone's ability to effect change through their speech will reduce the likelihood of people coming to harm through violent conflict. Now, free speech _can_ also be used to spread lies and incite violence, and maybe banning Trump before he had a chance to spread unsubstantiated claims about election fraud would have prevented this recent chaos, but it seems to me that doing it afterwards will increase the chances of violent conflict, at least in the near term. Moreover, the possibility that he might have eventually conceded or placated his supporters is now nil. So, as a consequentialist, I'm dubious of the notion that banning him can be justified on ethical grounds.
  • 0x426577617265 6y ago
    Amazon included some screenshots of content from Parler that they said violated their ToS. I'd say look at the screenshots they provided then try to justify hosting that content: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
    • benmmurphy 6y ago
      One of the images includes the hashtags #executethemfortreason #deathtotraitors #fuckmikepence. However, you can search #executetrump on twitter right now and find tweets of a similar nature advocating executing trump. Would these tweets on twitter justify a similar reaction from AWS? I realise the example tweet from parler is probably the least bad in the set of offending tweets but it was included nonetheless. This whole banning of Parler looks like a bad faith exercise where those with different political opinions are held to stricter standards.
    • liquid_bluing 6y ago
      I'd say, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Maybe there is an argument for banning the opposition, but "They say evil stuff" doesn't seem like a good one to me. In adherence with Godwin's law, I'll point out that very few people actually read Mein Kampf. If more people had, it might not have been such a surprise when Hitler started doing exactly what he said he was going to do. If you want to succeed in suppressing the opposition, anything short of gulags and secret police, (which do work, but obviously have no place in a democracy), is just going to enrage them. History has shown that the best way to change minds is to expose the baddies, not to force them underground to conspire outside the public eye. I could be wrong, but to me it just seems like bad strategy.
• tpirx 6y ago
  Free speech is so invaluable that it is insane to squander for such an inconsequential event. It has the ability to save millions. It could cost us a lot before this would even be a real discussion.
  • Arainach 6y ago
    Free speech refers to government censorship. There is no requirement of anyone or any company to listen to your free speech, or to host it.
    • tpirx 6y ago
      Do the tendrils not intertwine? Manufacturing Consent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuwmWnphqII https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuwmWnphqII
    • zadokshi 6y ago
      Right now this is true. But I think you are slightly misunderstanding the situation. The real question is, should society allow major communications networks used by the majority of a population (private or public) to censor speech. This is the question for this generation. The laws and constitution can be changed to reflect the will of the majority. So stop arguing about what the law says now and look at the bigger picture. What should the law say.
    • chipsa 6y ago
      The 1st Amendment prohibits government censorship. Free Speech is a larger concept than just the 1st Amendment. It's the ability to speak things that society would prefer not to be spoken. No one needs to listen to it, but if the only place you can speak it is where no one can hear you, is it even really speech?
    • bzbarsky 6y ago
      > Free speech refers to government censorship. No, free speech refers to free speech. Government censorship is one thing that can prevent speech being free, but not the only one. Or put another way, there is a legal concept of "freedom of speech", rooted in the First Amendment in the US, and there is a somewhat separate moral concept, which can be both narrower and broader than the legal one. There is some pretty widespread disagreement on the exact boundaries of the moral concep. The legal concept did not create the moral concept. The reason there is a First Amendment is that the value of free speech already existed, and was codified, in one limited domain, in the Constitution. And I am quite sure that if the moral concept becomes too narrow, with overwhelming support for speech restrictions in the population in general, the legal concept will follow, via the amendment process... Which makes it a priority, for me, to push back on attempts to narrow the moral concept absent great need. Or to put it another way: There is no legal requirement for a non-government entity to allow various speech in the US. But in many cases I would argue there is a moral requirement, even if they disagree with the content of the speech. Obviously, being a moral requirement, there is a line the entity needs to decide on for itself after which it will no longer support said speech.
• caturopath 6y ago
  I feel like this post doesn't address the real risk that comes with suppression. What if we lived in a very different society, where basic ethical views were far outside prevailing norms? Is there a case for choosing discrimination as the newly banned form of speech other than the fact that egalitarianism is a key value in our society today--what is it? I don't know much about Parler - it sounds like the key people there were real assholes and possibly criminals. There are any number of reasons that might apply for getting rid of it. Parler might not be the limiting case that decides our rule.
  • 0x426577617265 6y ago
    Aren't basic ethical views and societal norms the same thing?
    • austincheney 6y ago
      No. Ethics refers to rules and their practical application. Such rules can exist for any number of regulatory concerns and often define social norms given time.
      • 0x426577617265 6y ago
        Thanks. I've always just assumed if the masses of a society think something is unacceptable, then going against that norm would be considered unethical.
        • caturopath 6y ago
          That's one reasonable perspective to take, but most people don't share it -- most of us think that something can be popular and bad.
• jturpin 6y ago
  I have not yet concluded whether I believe in free speech without limits, but I can at least say with confidence the following: - Freedom of speech is of extremely high importance for any free society and should not be taken for granted - Removing it in any capacity should be done with extreme care and free of any bias one way or another, with a lot of thought put into any future consequences - Speech without a platform isn't speech at all - Private companies' interest should have little, if any, control over the ability of the public to speak - Just because a private company is legally allowed to do something, doesn't mean they should - The marketability of speech (for financially or politically) should have no bearing on whether it's allowed or good I don't know if all of this is being upheld. I think a lot of interests are at play here. I have no easy answers or even recommendations other than that everyone think about what objective barometers they really think makes speech allowable or not. (Edit: list rendered real bad)
  • yazaddaruvala 6y ago
    > I have not yet concluded whether I believe in free speech without limits Check out the Paradox of Tolerance, it’s very relevant to deciding on “free speech with / without limits”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
    • Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      Paradox of Tolerance is a hypocritical bullshit. If you are tolerant with exceptions, you are intolerant, period. People who refer to it hypocritically pretend to have a higher moral ground than their opponents. In fact, they are more or less the same. Truly tolerant people should win the other side with their virtue, and yes, it insanely harder. But it's not hypocrisy.
      • ttt0 6y ago
        Just wait until someone will come up with "Paradox of Human Rights" lol.
• Trias11 6y ago
  It's a wake up call for republicans. Stop blaming fake news and alike. Internet became liberal minefield swamp and you haven't done anything about it besides blaming. Build the venues to reach people. Invest in media that speak your language. Counter all fake news with strong and convincing media you control. Do it before their "peaceful protestors" will burn the rest of our cities.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • ageofwant 6y ago
    It's a wake up call for democrats. Stop blaming fake news and alike. Internet became conservative minefield swamp and you haven't done anything about it besides blaming. Build the venues to reach people. Invest in media that speak your language. Counter all fake news with strong and convincing media you control. Do it before their "peaceful protestors" will burn the rest of our cities.
  • pjc50 6y ago
    What? The Republicans are the main beneficiary of fake news. They have their own media structure. Almost all talk radio is conservative, for example. It's hugely successful. People will pay money to be told that it's all the fault of the black/feminist/Marxist conspiracy. Especially if that's not true.
• downandout 6y ago
  I have strongly felt that the actions taken by these companies is morally and ethically the right thing to do, for any business and that is inconsistent with believing in true free speech You feel this way because you agree with their political views. But that's not how free speech works. What if these platforms banned Joe Biden, because they correctly pointed out that he has used his right to free speech before to destroy millions of lives by unleashing a mass incarceration bill, which to this very day disproportionately affects certain racial groups based upon "immutable characteristics of their person" [1]?. Or if they had canceled him over what appear to be highly credible allegations of sexual assault [2]? Would you feel the same way? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcpO329xTGI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcpO329xTGI [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA_Wt22f6gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA_Wt22f6gs
  • Grimm1 6y ago
    Sure, I don't really like Biden or any of our elected officials on the right or left.
• polote 6y ago
  The problem is not free speech, the problem is anyone can have millions of people notified about what they say. If you limit followers to 50k or don't allow a message to have a reach of more than 50k, then you will solve part of the problem without touching free speech!
  • simonh 6y ago
    Then the celebrities will all go to platforms that don’t restrict them in that way, and their fans will follow them. If my kids see a meme and they can’t share it with their friends due to a limit, again try will just go to a service without such a limit.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• dkdk8283 6y ago
  Really disappointed to read this. Absolute free speech has been an American staple for many many years. I can only hope you’re in the minority with your beliefs.
  • fapjacks 6y ago
    I think it is the case, and what we're seeing online is chaff and noise and not reflective of what most American adults believe. Maybe it's Russian bots or whatever. Or children from Reddit. Or Europeans trying to dictate what they think American politics should be about. But it is true that the one thing that we (American adults) more often agree on than not are the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights.
  • Miner49er 6y ago
    Not really, no. Islamic terrorist propaganda has been banned for a while, and before that there was the Red scare era, where it was (and still is) illegal to be in the Communist party. Plus you had all the McCarthyism. Let us not also forget the Civil rights era, and all who were silenced and even killed for their speech then. So I'm not really sure what time period you refer to where there was truly free speech in America?
  • lttlrck 6y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex...
• nindalf 6y ago
  Our world is just fundamentally different from the one where absolute freedom of speech could be guaranteed. Look at Ted Kaczynski, a terrorist with some very strange ideas. Although he had freedom of speech, he had no means to get his ideas out in front of more people. He had to resort to extreme measures, like a bombing campaign to blackmail newspapers into printing his manifesto. If he was active today, he’d just post it on YouTube and gather millions of views. If YouTube gets squeamish about the violence, move to Parler. It was easy to guarantee freedom of speech to everyone when people like Ted no means of actually broadcasting their ideas without being gatekeeped by newspaper editors. Our world is different now. It saddens me to say this but maybe our principles have to adapt too.
  • NigroqueSim 6y ago
    There was never world where absolute freedom of speech could be guaranteed. Hell, it used to the christian right that was one pushing censorship.
  • sterlind 6y ago
    Kaszynski could have published a book. If none of the major publishers would have carried it, be could find an alternative publisher, or even self-publish. If it weren't sold in stores, it could have been photocopied. Remember that samizdat existed in the Soviet Union without requiring terrorism to publish. No, he wanted eyeballs, and the best way to get those was to mail bombs. He wanted to terrify people into listening to him. His ideas weren't palatable on their own so he took a shortcut paid in human lives.
  • yurielt 6y ago
    Well at teh end of the day the guy was right if anything you are not making your case properly, we live in a cyberpunk dystopia and maybe maybe if more people though like him, instead of licking Jeff Bezzos boot, then we would not have people mpeeing in bottles to make him and the technocrats richer by the second. They werent strange ideas, they are a crude reality that we have seen deployed ever since.
  • watwut 6y ago
    > Look at Ted Kaczynski, a terrorist with some very strange ideas. Although he had freedom of speech, he had no means to get his ideas out in front of more people. He had to resort to extreme measures So like, Ted Kaczynski was basically victim and world owned him millions of views? And when Ted Kaczynski cant get those millions of views, he "has to resort" to killing people? And if Ted Kaczynski had youtube channel and the channel would be ignored, would he still be entitled to kill people to get more views?
• ohthehugemanate 6y ago
  Every other Western democracy limits free speech by excluding "hate speech", which carries penalties. Maybe one of those definitions makes sense to you as a framework for what you would support in the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
  • yurielt 6y ago
    This has been abused time after time specially in places like Australia as much as I dislike a lot of things about the states, their stance on free speech is superior to any country. Not only that but what do you think you get by copying and pasting a vague wikipedia article, lol There is definitely not a good definition for hate speech and it will always be used to destroy dissident though please stop licking the boots of the powerful
  • praveenperera 6y ago
    The lack of a "hate speech" law is something that makes the US special. The only country with true freedom of speech.
• cpursley 6y ago
  I gave you an up vote for your honesty (and do appreciate it). I've been suggesting this since before all this went down: many left of center folks don't actually believe in free speech; only "correct" speech. What makes me really nervous is historically, leftist governments have much higher body counts than right wing governments. These types of governments have the commonality that they tightly control speech and thought. This is all personal as a relative in my wife's side of the family spent half his life in the gulag for having the audacity to suggest Stalin was not a good guy to his drinking buddies (who turns out are the ones that reported him). If you're on the left (or right), please do some soul searching on this topic. Also consider that it might not be your guy/gal/party who decides what speech is appropriate (and it's a constantly moving target). And in the age of the internet archive, anything you've written in the past is/will be open season. That's pretty scary, at least for me.
  • futurix 6y ago
    I can partially understand this, as my family is from ex-USSR country (also went through repressions on one side) and we all shudder at the mentions of 'socialism' and 'communism' too. However it doesn't take a lot of research to realise that the modern Western understanding of those terms and actual things that the modern socialists want are in no way comparable to the realities of mid-20th century. In USSR socialist and communist ideas were subverted to facilitate repressions and totalitarian society. Modern socialism is basically Sweden or Denmark - no gulag there.
    • watwut 6y ago
      There is long history of extreme right wing trying to make people think that communist and "anyone more left them me" are the same. Already in Germany before WWII Hitler used that to his advantage where he worked hard enough to make "Jew", "communist" and "social democrat" into synonyms. Meanwhile, social democrats were the biggest party that was openly pro-democracy. Other major party were anti-democracy. The distinction is not between modern and old "socialism" like Sweden or Denmark. The distinction is whether you buy the "anyone not exactly right with is basically communist" framing.
    • 6y ago
• refurb 6y ago
  I think there are simply some ideas that are too repugnant to not rebuke. Then rebuke them, don't try and silence them. First off, you won't silence them, you'll just drive them to another platform or underground and in fact, likely give them even more credence (similar to the Streisand effect) - big tech just created a bunch of martyrs and "forbidden speech" and we all know how well it goes when things are "forbidden", it just attracts more people who want to be martyrs as well.
• serial_dev 6y ago
  > My line for free speech seems to lie in speech that incites violence It sounds very easy when you speak in the abstract. I could tell you a dozen examples where you can argue for both sides, and what your conclusion will be will depend on what the media says and whether or not you like the person they "persecute" and vilify. AOC said "Are you all ready to make a ruckus? Are you all ready to fight for our rights?". "Oh no, those are fighting words, they incite violence". Would you like ban her from all platforms? What happens to people without a party? A recent trend on the progressive left was the #ForceTheVote to ask the AOC, squad and the progressive wing of the party to withhold their vote for Nancy Pelosi's speakership in exchange for a vote on M4All (the thing they've run on, "but now is not the time"). Should they all be banned because they want to "force" the vote? "Hold your representatives feet to the fire"? Do I want to literally do that and burn them alive? Or I want to keep them accountable? "Heads on pikes"? Do I want to behead them, or I want them to lose their position and I want them to get fired? What if I get frustrated at a party, and I say "the gloves are off" and decide to run against them? "Oh no, he said 'gloves are off', he wants to be beat up the congressman/congresswoman. Silence him!". What if I say, "I'm going to destroy them". Obviously, I was speaking in the political sense, but if enough people on cable say the opposite, you'll never believe me. The point is that there are usually hundreds of ways to frame something. If you didn't hear the context, and you only see the 5 seconds soundbite, you'll believe it's justified. You also won't look into it, because "why would you protect an aggressor? the clip was clear, he/she threatened people with violence". FYI: I brought examples from the left so that people understand that almost every person who has given an energetic speech can be framed as "violent" and in the future can be shut down (if the power dynamics change). I used American examples, as the two-party system is simpler as a multiparty system and most people are familiar with the things that happen in the US. The same would be true in other countries, though.
  • kelnos 6y ago
    I get what you're trying to do here, but I don't think it really worked. The examples you provided are obviously not incitements to violence. If someone wants to twist those words to get us to believe they are, we can look at the facts on the ground: no one became violent because of those words. (Of course that's not possible when you're judging speech immediately after it's said and don't have hindsight.) On the flip side, quite a bit of violence did occur on the 6th; the speech that got us there was pretty clearly intended to get us there.
• vincentmarle 6y ago
  Post-war Europe tends to agree with you: there is a good reason why there are limitations on free speech in many Western European countries. Fascism is simply too big of a threat to tolerate.
  • fapjacks 6y ago
    Well post-war Europe didn't invent the internet or land on the moon. You have your way of doing things, we have ours. Also sort of ironic that you would advocate the very same tools that the fascists themselves used to control and manipulate the public.
    • radycov 6y ago
      Surely being a javascript monkey isn't enough excuse for ignorance regarding Tim Berners-Lee? You have to be buried in a deep pit of nationalistic delusion to feign that level of ineptitude.
    • oblio 6y ago
      Those things were a cooperation. And you definitely don't want to read up who led the US space program.
      • fapjacks 6y ago
        I realize it's not very hip to be proud of the things we have accomplished in the United States, but that doesn't make them untrue or any less significant.
        • oblio 6y ago
          I'm not American and you should be proud of those achievements. But when someone else criticizes some valid issues with the US and the reply is a sort of "did your country put men on the moon?", that's just ridiculous. Address the issue at hand.
          • deleted 6y ago
• 74d-fe6-2c6 6y ago
  Restricting free speech to prevent violence is like trying to keep boiling water in a pot from bubbling over by pressing a lid on it. Will work for a while but speech like the bubbles of boiling water is usually just a symptom of an underlying dynamic. So it won't go away. Worst case scenerio is of course the pot will simply explode at some point.
• publicola1990 6y ago
  A credible immediate threat of violence seems to cross the threshold of free speech, but is no-platforming the remedy? Because it is a pre-emptive meassure, should private companies needs to have power to do so? I think prohibited speech should be addressed through post-fact punitive measures, not through blanket premptive actions. Even if someone does say prohibited things, it does not necessarily follow that all that say ought to be prohibited. So no-platforming is morally and ethically problematic.
  • krapp 6y ago
    If I own a bar, and you, a patron, start threatening people (prohibited speech), should I have the power to (pre-emptively) have the bouncer toss you out? Or should I be forced to take only "post-fact" measures, and just stand there and let the brawl happen and wait patiently for police to arrive? To me, it seems more ethically problematic to allow immediate threats of violence to proliferate on a platform unchecked until it can be proven that violence actually occurred, simply for the sake of ideological purity.
  • mPReDiToR 6y ago
    The problem there is that "history is written by the victors" and until they decide you're "one man's freedom fighter" you're de facto "another man's terrorist". Taking steps to stop violence before it begins makes more sense than using hindsight to judge the merits of the violence. IMO.
    • publicola1990 6y ago
      There is no merit to violence. Those who indulge in violence and other law breaking should suffer consequences. No-platforming however has no role in that. I doubt if these platforms or anyone have the ability to determine legality of posts before they are made.
• erikbye 6y ago
  > I don't believe in free speech without limits. Freedom of speech with limits is an oxymoron.
  • miguelmota 6y ago
    What are your thoughts on the Paradox of tolerance? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
    • chipsa 6y ago
      The Paradox of Tolerance is widely used as an excuse to be intolerant.
• otaconjh 6y ago
  Isn't your view of freedom of speech basically the same as what's already law? Incitement of violence is already illegal. At least it is here in the UK, as is hate speech, but that's a slightly more grey area. Parler has clear ToS but they're failing to enforce them. I don't believe that warrants them being purged from existence.
• lliamander 6y ago
  Parler (and other services like it) has a contractual relationship with its users than enable it, and it's users, to conduct their business. You cannot just disrupt other people's business arrangements for any reason at all. Depending upon the circumstances, you open yourself up to claims of tortuous interference. I think there's an argument to be made here that this is exactly what Amazon, Apple, and Google all did. Section 230 protections doesn't apply here either. It does protect against civil suits, but only for good faith attempts at removing illegal content. It's fair to question whether Parler has done a good enough job in that regard. If not, then the appropriate parties should sue Parler to force it to clean up it's act. But there is nothing inherently illegal about Parler, so there is no reason why these platforms deserve protection for thwarting the many perfectly legitimate users on the platform.
  • sjg007 6y ago
    Parler signed contracts with AWS, Google, and Amazon. It depends on what is in those contracts. I imagine FAANG has better lawyers than Parler.
    • lliamander 6y ago
      > It depends on what is in those contracts. It does in part, yes. > I imagine FAANG has better lawyers than Parler. That is by no means a given.
      • sjg007 6y ago
        “Every vendor from text message services to email providers to our lawyers all ditched us too on the same day,” Matze said today on Fox News.”
        • lliamander 6y ago
          Yeah, and looking at some background about the company it looks like they were woefully under-prepared. But I believe that there are plenty of good right-leaning lawyers who would see fighting this kind of thing as an important long-term survival strategy.
• misja111 6y ago
  > I don't believe in free speech without limits. This. I have started to believe that although free speech is very important, it is only possible to have full free speech in a society where there is not too much hostility between groups. Otherwise it has become too easy to manipulate people, both in your own group and in groups that you are opposed to.
• jonplackett 6y ago
  The question is - is it OK to shut people/companies down who themselves don’t believe in free speech? Sometimes you have to silence people to let everyone else have their rights. And that’s what is happening here. Trump supporters don’t support free speech or freedom of expression as a concept to be applied to everyone. They just want to have free speech themselves and for everyone else to shut up.
  • neuronic 6y ago
    Imagine a normal classroom where a single kid is constantly disrupting all discussions and lectures by yelling lies or inciting violence, disrupting with "Kill the teacher!" injections. Of course these kids would be dealt with. They'd be removed, parent called, expelled so that all other kids can have fruitful discussions. But somehow here we are discussing that the exact analogue in social media is somehow worthy of protection and being allowed to yell, spread disinformation and incite literal domestic terrorism, sedition and insurrection. My European perspective on this is that speech should be as free as possible without crossing some strict borders. And for me, these borders clearly are calls for violence or destruction of the state. A democracy cannot exist without compromise. Republicans and their far-right extremist equals in Europe are not willing or ready to achieve compromise. For decades it has been an "Us vs. them" instead of finding an optimal compromise. Their mode of operation is disrupt, gaslight, object. No matter how objectively true things are (climate change, Corona...) It's not conservatism itself that is bad but at least since Reagan, the shape of conservatism in the US has become inhuman and disgusting. And the GOP is celebrating itself for it, cumulating in the terrorist MAGA cult.
    • checkyoursudo 6y ago
      > A democracy cannot exist without compromise. I think this is a key point that is currently at quite a low ebb worldwide. The appetite for compromise seems to be at an unhealthy nadir. I understand that, when you think you are right and the other side is wrong or even evil, it can be difficult to want to compromise. People are quick to cite polarization as the source, and yes, sure; but what causes and has caused this polarization? It's not like the world was never polarized before. If the general decline in violence is true, such as claimed by e.g. Pinker (Better Angels etc), then maybe we are not actually more polarized than ever before? But the evidence seems conflicting at best. Anyway, I don't have any answers.
• Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  > or speech that discriminates against people for immutable characteristics of their person Often said, yet it somehow very often excludes religion, which is not immutable, and very often includes simple matters such as intelligence, which is immutable. I find that more often than not, when a man speaks of such “immutable" traits, what he really means is “whatever the culture I grew up in arbitrarily treats much like an ethnicity, a tribe, something to owe fealty to” — religion is that in many cultures, but intelligence is not. And I stress how cultural it is: it is often noted that in Japan religion is not treated as such a tribe, culturally, and that Japanese persons often find it curious how residents of other cultures can owe a lifelong fealty to a single religion rather than experiencing elements of multiple religions as it be suitable. One could argue that such things are so associated with immutability merely because they are treated as a fealty in their respective cultures, a lifelong allegiance, and that switching sides is considered such a betrayal, that they are culturally made immutable, even though there is obviously no reason why religion or political affiliation should be.
  • radycov 6y ago
    >> And I stress how cultural it is: it is often noted that in Japan religion is not treated as such a tribe, culturally, and that Japanese persons often find it curious how residents of other cultures can owe a lifelong fealty to a single religion rather than experiencing elements of multiple religions as it be suitable. You seem to conveniently ignore the blindingly simple context that for the past 20 years, America has been bombing and invading a single region of the world in the name of evangelical fanatics from the bible belt. And that's looking past the Gulf Wars and Afghanistan where America created and armed the Taliban. It's not snowflake grievance culture to suggest there is a targetted religion here.
    • Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      I fail to see how that is even related to that what is considered such a fealty one owes lifelong allegiance to differs from culture to culture.
      • 6y ago
• jsinai 6y ago
  In South Africa we’re taught from a young age that while everyone has a “right to x”, codified in the Bill of Rights, each right comes with a “responsibility”. My “right to free speech” should not limit your “right to religion” or your “right to political association”, and in this case “your right to safety”. While South Africa has a lot of improvement to do, the understanding that rights need to be self-limiting in order to remain sustainable is a very good starting point in a constitutional democracy.
  • dgellow 6y ago
    How can free speech limit a "right to religion" or a "right to association"?
    • danpalmer 6y ago
      The anti-Semitic rhetoric we see from certain groups is “free speech” that is likely to at least make Jews feel unwelcome in certain spaces, and potentially force them to conceal their religious and racial identities for fear of violence. See also the anti-Muslim rhetoric. These are in large part motivated by racism but much of the language used is religious and about religion.
  • Joeri 6y ago
    I’ve always thought about it like this: one person’s freedom stops where another person’s freedom begins. When freedoms start conflicting, a negotiated compromise is needed and thus legislation is often involved. So, for example, it should be illegal to threaten somebody’s personal safety, because otherwise there isn’t a good balance between freedom of speech and freedom of security. The corollary to this is that as population density increases freedom gets more limited, because people’s circles of freedom overlap more. Modern society has a lot more limitations on personal freedom because that is the only way to equally provide access to freedom to everyone in a denser world.
    • bzbarsky 6y ago
      > So, for example, it should be illegal to threaten somebody’s personal safety Even this seemingly-simple example is complicated in practice: who decides whether safety is threatened? I have seen people claim to feel physically unsafe whenever someone raises the question of how specific women's sports should handle participation trans women, and I have seen other people claim to feel physically unsafe when someone suggests raising taxes to fund more public services (immediately reaching for comparisons to the USSR in the 1930s). Is the test then whether someone feels unsafe as a result of the speech? Or whether a "reasonable person" would feel unsafe? And so on, and so forth. There's really no good way to win completely here: either some people are going to feel unsafe, or you have to have _quite_ draconian speech restrictions to try to avoid that (and probably still fail). You might be able to do something that works for neurotypical-enough people, but that's the best I can see.
• ThomPete 6y ago
  The same thing could be said about Twitter yet they aren't being pulled of from the app store. This wont end well.
• mountainb 6y ago
  The law is not 'free speech without limits.' There are lots of types of illegal speech, many of them much less exciting than incitement. Practically, it can be difficult to bring court cases related to every potential violation of the law related to speech as it relates to online platforms. This is partly a practical issue. Due process is expensive, and only the courts can provide due process adequately. When it becomes very cheap to violate the law and remains expensive to enforce the law, obviously we see a lot of lawbreaking ensue. The solution ought not to be to sweep away the First Amendment, but to do a combination of things that: 1. Makes it feasible to enforce the law on internet speech when and where it applies 2. Go enforce that law The First Amendment exists in a context of assumed liability for publishers. This may have been more practical when there aren't that many publishers. When there are $billions of publishers, the deterrent impact of liability fear just isn't there. Regulation is also an alternative to making law enforcement more practical and affordable. If you don't want to expend the resources prosecuting every violation of the law, you have to take some proactive steps to manage the environment to reduce potential violations. This is why you have the FCC regulating content on broadcast media, for example.
• itsthefnlacctdn 6y ago
  As much as I dislike your comment, I have to defend your right to say it. I'd rather live in a world where I can view opposing viewpoints with ease. Imagine you not being able to express what you currently wrote - openly, and being modded out, your message never seeing the light of day because someone somewhere could possibly worry that they will lose advertisers who chose to misinterpret it as a call to violence. We are currently there. PS - I believe what you wrote can lead to extreme violence, yet the world has the right to see (and likely not react violently at all but should even the slightest possibility allow censorship?)
• shrimpx 6y ago
  I think “speech at scale” should be defined differently that normal free speech. The societal impact of speech that is instantly broadcast to tens of millions of people is substantially different than the same speech being broadcast to 5-10 people.
• falcrist 6y ago
  Insofar as freedom of speech is "a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction", it cannot BE limitless. Just like every freedom, it must be limited by others' freedoms. As the saying goes "your freedom to swing your fists ends at my nose." So it is with speech. You should be able to speak your mind, but if that speech causes someone else harm, then that person's right not to be harmed must be weighed against your right to speak. Maybe we shouldn't allow private entities like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, etc decide where those boundaries are. I don't think capitalism is a good fit in this case.
• aussieguy1234 6y ago
  In this case, I'm actually not so sure free speech was suppressed. Businesses have free speech rights in addition to individuals. Let's take a shop owner as an example. This particular shop owner does not support Trump. They have a community notice board on their shop where people can post things. Of course they are not going to let a Trump supporter post a MAGA sign on that board. It's their business, they can decide whats allowed there and what isn't. Forcing them to display a MAGA sign would be essentially "forced speech" which would also violate their rights. That doesn't prevent anyone from making MAGA signs or posting them in other places, so the free speech of those people wasn't violated in any way by the shop owner refusing to display their signs. Therefore I think Amazon, Apple, Google and the other companies shouldn't be forced to convey messages on their platforms they don't agree with, otherwise it's violating their rights.
• perf1 6y ago
  So do you want to Forbid News reporting on Cop violonece too, because it can result in violent Protests? What about school shootings. Reporting on that can convince others to do it too.
• implements 6y ago
  > I'm just going to come out and say something that I've had a hard self reflective time coming to the conclusion of. I don't believe in free speech without limits. It’s a perfectly reasonable position, and IMO the correct one. But speech has always been limited: incitement to violence, criminal conspiracy, libel, blasphemy (in many places), “public exposure of private facts” (damaging other people’s legitimately private life), revealing classified material ... and so on. I think what people fail to distinguish is the free exchange of ideas - what totalitarian countries suppress - and the right to say whatever you like even it it’s to do deliberate harm for selfish ends. The paradox of tolerance shows us that to have freedom we can actually use there must be limits on what we are free to do. Organising and inciting an insurrection to overturn an election - what effect does that have on the speech and political rights of those who spoke for months to win the votes of the newly elected President? To respect the freedom of those people shouldn’t we restrict the speech of the former, when it is shown to have become dangerous?
• ab3rC1te 6y ago
  Well damn, you better just go ahead and put me under the ban account list. Because this site gets moderated by users that shouldn't even be moderated. Free speech, shit we commies now. Grimm16 you must not be a patriot you want someone to think for you when you need to wipe your own ass. Just wait till China invades and puts you under their ban, they bitch slap you before you even open your mouth. There's many things that invite violence when they call good evil and evil good. I'm so far negative on this point system it's fucking stupid points to post a free thoughtful conclusion and if someone like the mother fucking owner or moderator don't like what I say gets down voted or greyed out. Incite voilence... When the days come your asses are running for your lives, I dare you to tell the mother fuckers chasing you to stop inciting voilence. And see how far that shit gets you. So go ahead their Ding or Dong ban the hell out of me!
• latexr 6y ago
  > I don't believe in free speech without limits. Karl Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance[1]: > The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
• gadders 6y ago
  Then one day, when a different government is in power, expect these same controls to be used to silence you.
• Hnrobert42 6y ago
  Fringe speech is okay as long as it is in a human-scale community. The community can ostracize the dangerous fringe and prevent it from growing. The internet makes it possible for the fringe from lots of communities to grow into something big enough to be dangerous. I am okay with “Big Tech” ostracizes fringe speech.
• eternalban 6y ago
  A thought experiment to test the du jour premise in extreme: Scenario: US is at war abroad. Government officials, military, and pro-war political wing is using social networks to rally the nation, urge continued fighting, etc. Tech companies' leadership, being pacifist and against war, decide to deplatform the war party all together. Attempts to establish alternative means of mass communication by pro-war party (and the government!) are blocked as even Cloud Providers ban them. My conclusion (ymmv) running above in my head: national security trumps private property considerations, and those suggesting private capital operating mass communication networks and system, can behave as they please are wrong. [p.s. What happens to Pentagon and JEDI and MS cloud, if Microsoft leadership turns pacifists in middle of a war? "Private company" can do as it pleases? The premise is ludicrous when state interests are concerned.] -- Deplatforming a sitting POTUS before constitutional means (impeachment|25th) have legally removed him from office is technically an element of a coup. Two basic things happen in coups: control of mass media, and military brass ignoring chain of command. For the record, IMHO, there is no way FANGs would dare this if they did not have a greenlight from Pentagon and the Alphabet soup agencies.
• athriren 6y ago
  i would say what you have outlined is consistent with “free speech”. germany, for instance, has very high freedoms while still restricting membership in nazi parties, displaying nazi iconography, publishing...etc. i think if the line is delineated legally, explicitly, clearly that this restriction adds freedoms to those who would be restricted were free speech absolute and the screams of the intolerant drowned out their pleas for survival. i think the perception this does not qualify as free speech because it is not absolutely free in a libertarian sense (i can say literally whatever sequence of things i can imagine, i can transmit literally any sequence of bits, i can portray literally anything in film/video games) is a strange and mostly american one. to be clear: i agree free speech is important and am not particularly arguing against it in the american context here either—one thing that i think is better in sum in american is the high degree of press freedom due to america’s extremely high legal standard for libel. i just wanted to comment on the sociological phenomenon i see where there is “free speech” and “this other thing where it is free speech as most other places would recognize it”. this is just one of the things makes america peculiar, in a special sense. blessing and a curse, and in total i think the lumps are worth the rest of the pudding.
  • josh_fyi 6y ago
    Germany is a special case. Recognizing that exceptions to freedom of speech are problematic and can lead to slippery slopes, Germany considers its history to show that they are unable to handle and restrain Nazism under the usual democratic processes. (Whether this particularity has expired is a separate question.)
• sanp 6y ago
  I think you can still believe in free speech as defined by the 1st amendment and still conclude that these companies acted ethically. Trump and his troglodytes have other ways to reachbtheir audience. They have not bee prevented by the force of law from saying what they want to say. The 1st amendment doesn't apply to private companies and nor does it guarantee a platform. There were platforms back when it was formulated (newspapers). So, i don't think it is a case of "platforms did not exist so the 1st amendment could not account for them"
• jmull 6y ago
  > I don't believe in free speech without limits. Does anyone? I know people say they do, but they also reject the direct consequences of it, so obviously don’t mean it or don’t understand it.
• nprateem 6y ago
  Free speech used to be fine because people used to be exposed to alternative opinions. Now people get put into bubbles by algorithms which show them more of what they want, rather than giving them a healthy diet of diverse opinions. Without that, some people can be easily led to believe any old propaganda and radicalised. The check on extremism has fallen off thanks to personalisation creating echo chambers. For that reason, a P2P Twitter-type platform where accounts couldn't be removed would be potentially very dangerous. I would rather try to deal with free speech by looking at personalisation and filter bubbles, perhaps mandating some kind of diversity gets baked into algorithms, which seems to lie at the root of the issue (that and economic inequality).
  • koheripbal 6y ago
    You hit on an important point here. Regardless of your ethical opinion on current event, deplatforming/censorship/banning/etc... is going to push more and more people to communicate on more anonymouse p2p censorship resistant platforms, and 10 years from now, those might be the standard.
• shripadk 6y ago
  > My line for free speech seems to lie in speech that incites violence or speech that discriminates against people for immutable characteristics of their person, both of which I know Parler harbors in abundance Which Amazon, Facebook and Twitter also do "in abundance". I can give a list of links which show direct violations of their violence policy, discriminating religion, people et all and it has been happening for years and yet no action as been taken. But does it matter if I give you such a list? It doesn't matter. Why? Because it is taken for granted that all venomous stuff that you find online is coming from the Right Wing/Alt Right/Trumpists etc. There is nothing that Left can do wrong. Since this is the notion that I find most left liberals employ there is no way to come to a common ground in such scenarios. Unless you are willing to accept that there is venom on the left wing too there is no way I will agree to your point. If you feel Parler harbors hate in abundance you will be shocked to see the kind of hate I have found on Amazon, Twitter and Facebook spewed by the left. If you want to address the issue you should take a holistic approach of condemning it in all platforms and not single out one platform. Only then I can take your argument seriously. But the question is: Can you do it?
• dsteinman 6y ago
  Who gets to be the judge of speech liberties? Perhaps we need a bureau of the government to act in this manner, perhaps a ministry, who's mission is to determine whether words and opinions are true or not.
• xnx 6y ago
  I don't think free speech absolutists are accounting for how much having death threats or actually being murdered infringes on one's right to free speech.
• SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
  You're right. It's not either/or. It is possible to have limits. But the society should determine those limits. We are completely within our right to do so. If we don't want people stomping around claiming and ethnic group is subhuman and should be exterminated, society has the right to determine that. We choose our representatives, they make a law, and then that speech is no longer protected. Now, the people who would be subjected to that limit are going to fight tooth and nail to defend it. They will espouse all manner of fallacy, especially the slippery slope that the US will become China or North Korea or Russia. These are intentional tactics to obfuscate the power of the majority for their nefarious schemes. However, if the majority decides it wants to ban, say, all non-Christian speech, then other rights kick in: such as the right to practice any religion freely. The Bill of Rights is a fairly astute document not just in its content but its malleability (hello prohibition & slavery & suffrage), because the Constitution was missing a lot of important things. Let's not underestimate it, nor let others do so.
• jsmith45 6y ago
  Right. I fully 100% support the ability of Facebook, Twitter, etc to ban accounts. They have every legal and moral right to do so. Rembember that freedom of association is also a thing. At the same time, I recognize that sufficently powerful corporations are practically just another form of government. Does it really make practical difference to you if a government says "you can't say that", vs a monopolist/trust/cartel saying the same thing? But that only points out the fact that, for example, Facebook should not exist in its current form. That fact that that it is basically the only significant player in its niche points to a spectacular market failure, one likely compounded by unlawful monopolistic practices by Facebook. There should instead be multiple viable competing services in such spaces. If it takes alienating decent sized chunks of the population to eventually get a viable competitor, then so be it. And no Parler is certainly not that viable competitor. But if Facebook's actions piss of enough people who are not extremists, then a true competitor might actually start to emerge. The same applies to Apple/Amazon/Google. --- After thought: Seriously who is the #2 competitor to Facebook's main service? There really does not seem to be any significant competitor in the English speaking world. While on the other hand, Amazon for example has fairly clear competitors for most of its products, at least in the US. Walmart/EBay competes with the shopping, GCP/Azure compete with AWS, YouTube Gaming competes with Twitch, multiple streaming services compete with the video and music offerings, etc. Apple likewise has competitors for pretty much all of their offerings. Even Google has competition on most of their products.
• Grustaf 6y ago
  > discriminates against people for immutable characteristics of their person By discriminate, do you mean "disparage" or simply "make a distinction between"? Or something else? In either case, it seems like quite a low threshold, it seems like it would mean you condone a social network that bans people that say "I don't like white people" or "women can't drive"?