26 ms·

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 extre

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.
    - nec4b 6y ago
      Don't worry when they do, it will be used as a cheap thought killer meme all over HN, like the "Paradox of Tolerance" is being used now.
    - pas 6y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRBsJYWR8Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRBsJYWR8Q (The Problem With Human Rights by Jonas Čeika aka. Cuck Philosophy)
  - yazaddaruvala 6y ago
    > Paradox of Tolerance is a hypocritical bullshit. Quite frankly I’m finding it hard to respond. > Truly tolerant people should win the other side with their virtue, and yes, it insanely harder. Popper does a really good job explaining why this is not possible, and therefore tolerance without limit is not possible. I’d prefer tolerance without limit to be the optimal strategy, but I do need some convincing that it’s possible. Do you mind adding constructive criticism so we can work on a better mental model for tolerance and free speech?
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      That's easy. Tolerance, is willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them [1]. People who carve themselves an exemption to not accept some behaviour or beliefs, are literally contradicting this definition. Yet, at the same time they pretend to be tolerant. There is a word for that in the English language: hypocrisy. So, how do tolerant people fight the intolerant? Maybe, we have some similar precedents from the past. Turning the other cheek principle [2] and nonresistance movement [3] have worked out quite well for Gandhi. Educate, explain, suffer injustice, yet, stay true to your principles. That's the way to the better future for humanity. (I'm not claiming to be a fully tolerant person myself. I'm just calling out hypocrites who pretend to be ones) [1]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/tolerance https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/toleranc... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonresistance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonresistance
      - kingaillas 6y ago
        That's great it worked for Gandhi, but I'd argue the tolerant HAVE been doing that - stretching back to MLK's marches, and yet here we are (in the US) where a violent mob stormed the capitol. Tolerating them may be better for humanity but it takes to long for those folks to disappear from the gene pool. And, they are armed due to the 2nd Amendment, which Gandhi didn't have to deal with. Sure, guns exist around the world but they are in massive abundance in the US.
  - theonlybutlet 6y ago
    Not quite, it still works to an extent. In this case it's quite clear those utilising Parler are doing so to spread their intolerant message. I'd say applying the Paradox of Tolerance is not hypocritical but more asymptotic, i.e. we will tend toward zero but never reach it.
  - LordDragonfang 6y ago
    So would you agree with a statement that "we should just be tolerant of the KKK and win them to our side with virtue", then? Note that this isn't hyperbole for rhetorical effect, that is literally the kind of intolerance that the paradox of tolerance is based on, and seems to be what you're advocating, by extension.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      Yes, I fully agree with that statement. You can't just beat the racists from KKK into submission. You can only show them that their convictions are wrong.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - MrMan 6y ago
        that's incorrect. what seems to have been proven to work is trying to limit their ability to congregate, and to recruit.
        Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
        It's a hollow victory if you'll become a fascist to fight fascists.
        pas 6y ago
        Just a nitpick, but fascism inherently has a component about a faux nostalgia for a vague better times, ultranationalism, and so on, and simply by suppressing speech one does not became a fastics, you probably mean totalitarian.
    - rainbowzootsuit 6y ago
      There's at least one person I've heard of of doing this type of interaction to change the minds of KKK members— Daryl Davis. He's certainly an uncommon example though. Most people who are in stark disagreement with another's views don't seek them out as potential friends. “Ignorance breeds fear. We fear those things we don’t understand. If we don’t put a lid on that fear and keep that fear in check, that fear in turn will breed hatred because we hate those things that frighten us. “If we don’t keep that hatred in check, that hatred in turn will breed destruction. We want to destroy those things that we hate. Why? Because they frighten us. But guess what? They may have been harmless and we were just ignorant.” https://lanthorn.com/61539/news/news-daryl-davis-lecture-at-gvsu/ https://lanthorn.com/61539/news/news-daryl-davis-lecture-at-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/features/klan.htm https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/features/klan.ht...
  - destroyHN 6y ago
    Calm yourself as you use one of the most moderated platforms on the internet to spout off.
  - halfnormalform 6y ago
    I don’t take tips about higher moral ground and virtue from anyone who thinks bullshit is a countable noun.
- roenxi 6y ago
  Alright, tolerance without limits is off the table. That is the easy part done with. What proactive tolerances are we working with? Because the standard on A-A-G seems to be "we're only going to tolerate things we mostly agree with" - which is a faux tolerance. If they can't tolerate the speech of a sitting president then we haven't really reached the point where the paradox of tolerance is at play. That is routine intolerance. To be tolerant there has to be an element of putting up with things they genuinely disagree with.
sh1989 6y ago
Nobody has an obligation to facilitate your free speech.
- unlaxedneurotic 6y ago
  But do we have a responsibility to not hinder someone else's free speech? Not with regards to the current post but just thinking in lines with what you said.
  - simonh 6y ago
    Yes we do, but we do not have an obligation to facilitate it. Private forums have no obligation to publish or distribute anything they don’t want to. Their owners and operators have rights too. Free speech simply doesn’t apply. Just go and communicate somewhere else, or build your own chat service, or publish a leaflet or book, or whatever. But I have no obligation to allow you to come into my house or business and say these things.
    - krzyk 6y ago
      Not quite, if you have a mono/duo/tri-poly you give up certain rights, this is how democracy works, unless you want to end up in corpo-cracy.
      - simonh 6y ago
        I don’t think it’s possible to mandatorily restrict editorialising without killing platforms. Any such restrictions would be a spammers, griefers and pornographers manifesto. Restricting editorial rights is a horrible can or worms to open. But anyway, there are no social media monopolies. We have Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, WhatsApp, iMessage, Discord, Signal, etc, etc, and it goes on and on. They’re also very segmented, Facebook is huge but it’s almost irrelevant to kids and young adults. New services pop up regularly because barriers to entry are incredibly low and segmentation is so high.
  - sh1989 6y ago
systemvoltage 6y ago
“Just because private company is allowed to do something, doesn’t mean they should” - so then put that up for public debate. I think we did, Section 230 in the context of posting digital content. It boggles mind that we are trying to keep a high ground on free speech while the rug is being yanked away from our bottoms. + Free Speech. Not when you have millions deluded, angry, violent and ready to use any means to incite violence, take down gov, threaten governors and are trigger happy to exercise 2nd amendment rights. I’m terrified of these people. I get it. Free speech is important, especially when you disagree with someone. This is how society progresses. You can have the free speech still, just make sure you don’t rally up people to take up arms on bogus claims. They’ve had their free speech chances to contest in court, have peaceful debates and be civilized. r/conservative, as much as you disagree with them, is still ok and fine. They’re respectful for the most part.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  > Not when you have millions deluded, angry, violent and ready to use any means to incite violence, take down gov, threaten governors That's exactly what our tyrannical Russian government says about those who don't like Putin being in power for 20+ years. Thus, they limit our rights for free speech online, prosecute for extremism, deny us rights to peacefully gather and protest. If you Americans go down this path any further, you'll too find yourself living under the tyrannical dictatorship no better than ours. Oh, unfortunately, unlike you, we don't have 2nd amendment rights, so actually rebelling is harder. So I suggest you clinging to your guns as strong as you can: all points that you are going to need them.
  - dash2 6y ago
    I find the whole argument that 2nd amendment rights support rebellion a bit weird. (UK speaker here.) The US government has marines, tanks, and advanced weaponry. Even the police are tooled up to the 9s, partly because of those very 2nd amendment rights. Is there any case of a citizen militia successfully using force to overthrow a modern state with a well-equipped, loyal army?
    - 6y ago
tjpnz 6y ago
>Speech without a platform isn't speech at all Then nothing's really changed. Before social media people would write letters to the editor or be interviewed on the radio or TV. Publication of said speech was always at the sole discretion of the platform holder.
- ThomPete 6y ago
  Editors have publisher responsibility and are thus liable for what is being published. Twitter, facebook are enjoying the protection from the state from being responsible for what individuals say. they cant have their cake and eat it. If they want to censor they should become a publisher, which we know they wont.
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    It is us, the end consumer, that has the cake and is eating it. With TV and newsprint, we had no platform at all, unless the media company shared our views or deemed our speech newsworthy. Even for innocuous speech. With Twitter and Facebook, almost all of us have a platform that reaches potentially millions of eyeballs. That didn't exist 20 years ago - back then, we'd have to self-publish newsletters, or literally speak from a soap box in the town square. That said, it is a balancing act, and I'm not certain where that balance point is (and it possibly moves over time too). But, the posts that have been shared from Parler were possibly illegal - they were planning armed sedition at best and a coup at worst - both of which are very much illegal and prosecutable. It wasn't just unsavory speech - it was illegal speech, that Parler itself refused to moderate.
    - ThomPete 6y ago
      That's a case for the police then NOT Apple or Google. Twitter still have plenty of calls to violence that are still up. As an example this one shared by tens of thousands of people. https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330?s=20 https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330?s=2... Right now you could as easily make an argument that the real danger to the democratic institutions are being lead by the big tech platforms. Either they become a publisher with responsibilities or they allow for this to happen.
8note 6y ago
It's really just up to the government to nationalize the internet and popular News organizations, and provide proper equal access to all as protected by the constitution. Nationalization is the answer you're looking for
iNic 6y ago
> - Speech without a platform isn't speech at all Could you clarify what you mean exactly with this. In my mind people should have a right to ignore speech they don't want to hear. Furthermore, the definition of a "platform" has become very diffuse with the advent of the internet. In the before times you were either in the newspaper most people read, or maybe on one of the handful of TV channels, or you basically did not have a platform beyond the people you could physically interact with. Whereas now you can have many options which all reach different kinds and amounts of people. I have many vague feelings but maybe I can sum them up in the following, probably unhelpful, statement: people have a right to a platform that is equivalent to standing in a town square and yelling.
- bluescrn 6y ago
  It's hard to ignore Twitter and Facebook. They're mega-platforms with many uses beyond politics (business, hobbies, family, etc). Whilst on there for non-political purposes, you can't in practice 'choose to ignore' the political speech you'd prefer to avoid, as it's made everybody an activist with a massive megaphone. Activism is shared and retweeted into your face relentlessly. If Big Tech as a whole has decided to wage war on 'red team' ideas (or other competing ideas, such as Unity 2020, banned from Twitter), there's a risk that they could transform a bad 2-party political system into a single-party monopoly, where the voters have no power at all. Things weren't good when old media (TV/newspapers) had all the power+influence. But at least there was some sort of balance. And if a new newspaper appeared, it couldn't be shut down entirely in <24hrs by the competition.
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
    And if a new newspaper appeared, it couldn't be shut down entirely in <24hrs by the competition. It could if it had used printing presses owned by the competition. I'm assuming these old newspapers used either their own printing presses, or presses owned by independent printing shops. They used a little common sense and concluded that using printing presses owned by the NY Times was probably not a good long term strategy for a newspaper that wanted to compete against the NY Times. All I'm saying is, use your own printing presses, and you can't be shutdown. Run your own website, on your own server and no one will kick you off their servers. Nothing's really changed here, so I don't see a free speech issue.
oivey 6y ago
> - 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 I agree with basically your whole post, but I think it should be emphasized that extreme care has been taken. Things have escalated to the point that Trump supporters violently attacked the legislative branch in order to subvert our political process. There isn’t much worse than that. Parler is being actively used as part of a system to plan, coordinate, and build support for more attacks (e.g. posts referring to journalists as soft targets).
kelnos 6y ago
> Private companies' interest should have little, if any, control over the ability of the public to speak This ignores that private companies are made up of people, and those people have opinions and moral compasses. If some large number of your employees don't want to be working on a product that provides a platform for speech they believe is reprehensible, what do you do? If you ignore them, some of them -- perhaps high value employees -- quit. Others, who maybe don't have great job mobility, stick around, but feel miserable, because their job makes them do unethical things. Not a great outcome. Is free speech for all more important than refusing to sell to people you believe are doing something unethical with your product? I honestly don't know the answer to that question. My gut reaction is to celebrate Parler effectively getting kicked off the internet, but I do worry that the long-term consequences of doing things like this will haunt us as a society.
- foolmeonce 6y ago
  The larger problem is that the office of president is out of check since 1945. For the system to work, no one should believe this one position determines the course of the entire government, but since the 1980s you would be a fool not to. Given the office of president is out of check and it gets to apply discretion to (in this example) how media companies will be treated both in actual law and whether cases are run, it is only a matter of time before a president builds his route to dictator. Members of whichever party puts him in will be happier for a decade at most, then it's soylent green for everyone.
edoceo 6y ago
> Speech without a platform isn't speech at all One can always yell on the street corner, that's your (limited) platform.
- krzyk 6y ago
  Nowadays a "street corner" is you facebook page or your twitter. If company grows so big that its use is so common - like a street corner - such platform should be available for all - and all should be accounted for their speech also. Platform is a platform, shouldn't policy people around - that is the job of ... police. Do you wonder why now we have accounts blocked, but when there were people on the streets attacking policy I haven't heard of any account on facebook/twitter being blocked? It is because platform wasn't free from politics like it should be, companies have preferences and they will block one political view and allow another - this should not be the case if the use of given platform is monopolistic (or duopolistic: twitter-facebook). If you grow you should give up some of your power, the question is at what scale it should happen.
  - tzs 6y ago
    The explicit calls to specific acts of extreme violence against specific people would be chargeable as illegal incitement if shouted on a street corner.
  - wan23 6y ago
    Facebook and Twitter are commonly used, but they are not the street corner. These things didn't exist when the first amendment was written, but printing presses did. And they specifically did not write in a requirement that printers should print anything and everything. In fact, just 8 years after the first amendment was ratified they passed a federal law banning printing of "false, scandalous or malicious writing". And that was fine, because people could still yell on their street corner or write their own letters, which you will always have the right to do.
- bluescrn 6y ago
  Then you've essentially got duct* tape over your mouth while your opponents are handed free megaphones (*duct/duck - delete as appropriate)
throwaway2245 6y ago
> - Private companies' interest should have little, if any, control over the ability of the public to speak > - Speech without a platform isn't speech at all These seem to me to be in conflict: if I don't have access to a particular platform (let's say, the New York Times), do I have access to freedom of speech?
- gigatexal 6y ago
  Yeah for me it’s akin to being mad about being kicked out of my house if you spout off anti-Semitic things. It’s my house. My domain. My rules. You can go elsewhere and speak that garbage. Scale that idea up and you get where I’m coming down on all of this: Twitter, Facebook, AMazon, Apple etc are all for profit companies that can limit speech as they see fit and not be in violation of federal free speech guarantees.
  - gigatexal 6y ago
    Downvoters: care to say why?
    - codr7 6y ago
      Maybe because the lack of tolerance you're displaying is The Problem, and down voting is easier than dealing with it. What if you're actually wrong and the other person is right? I'm sure it has happened before and will again. How would you want to be treated if the roles were reversed? Regardless; censoring, which is essentially what you're doing, can only push people further into their corners.
      - gigatexal 6y ago
        Tolerance of anti-semitism? How can that ever be right? I picked that specific hypothetical for a reason because I think the speech being “censored” here is inherently wrong, I.e it has no place in public discourse.
        6y ago
timeon 6y ago
Free speech without limits. Free speech enforced to any platform. In my opinion can be called as dictature of free speech.
nirui 6y ago
Not an American but here's my two cents: I know it's about the event happened few days ago, but based on what I've learned on the other side of the Earth during these years, I think overall, Censorship in any shape or form, when encouraged, will eventually develop itself to become "Government Enforced". I guess we all know how that goes. I know the problem is complex, but I think the solution to the problem was based on basic human impulses (And very American if I'd say so myself. Sorry), because simply deplatform the app will not actually convince it's users to leave it, it does not educate those people about what's right and wrong, and it opened a huge playground for the conspiracy theorist to play around. All around, I think deplatforming is a bad solution to this problem. EDIT: Clarify: I'm not here to support Parler (not even a bit), and I understand the deplatforming was for the immediate issue. However, I hope those who involved in the decision making could look for a better solution that would convince people to claim down and be rational. That's all.
- saiya-jin 6y ago
  We all can agree situation and potential solutions are complex beyond imagination, but there is one place, one long term action that could solve most of this to some degree - proper mandatory education, based on proved science. Learn kids critical thinking, rather than raise another obedient generation who doesn't think for themselves and picks up a narrative from some place and then just sticks with it. Learning more soft skills at school (at which most teachers suck, but that's another topic), psychology, why people behave as they do, biases, how our childhood affects us all etc. I think generally our schooling systems globally need big rehaul, but for topic discussed, I can't imagine what I mention it wouldn't bring some improvement. Teaching with current level of science as hard baseline is already a place where some western countries like US fail (ie evolution vs creationism topic). I don't think the change I mention is in direct interest of many governments, so its more like a pipe dream and an additional burden on parents to drill this into their kids.
  - throwaway80332 6y ago
    This is a very good idea, and the measurement of success in these important educational efforts must be: "after this mandatory education that teaches you critical thinking and how to not just be obedient, do you now finally have the correct opionions?" If the student doesn't, he/she/xir should be deplatformed for life.
ashtonkem 6y ago
> Private companies' interest should have little, if any, control over the ability of the public to speak This is the back door to authoritarianism. This basic premise would allow the government to reach in and force companies to associate against their will. This power will be abused. > Speech without a platform isn't speech at all This is utter nonsense. By this logic, speech without access to a bullhorn or an editorial board isn’t speech at all. You have a right to speak without being prosecuted by the government. Pretending that you have a right to a Twitter account or an equivalent thereof is both silly, it’s incredibly entitled.
- pas 6y ago
  > This is utter nonsense. Nah, OP has a point - even if it's easy to misinterpret. Just as you mentioned government coercion about free association, speech means that "those people" are free to start their parallel society, their own journals, newspapers, forums and whatnot. It means that speech as a right has to include the right for the capability of building, having, and operating a platform, not a right for a guaranteed audience.
loceng 6y ago
I believe the slowing down of a mob online by means of deplatforming them is a good strategy, and a feature of the system, assuming you're organizing yourself to adequately counter this mob when/if they attack again. Sure, they feel persecuted for the deplatforming but that's not really reasonable - we know there's less reason in their community than there needs to be (well it's reasoning based on a funnel of lies they've been manipulated with over decades via Fox News, Republican party, etc), but it wasn't their toy to begin with - the other big kids/adults/tech companies were just happy to let them use them, so they don't have the right to having access to the toys that aren't theirs - and it's unhealthy to make them believe they do, which is essentially coddling for purpose of trying to stop them from crying or ending their temper tantrum - but then it prevents them from developing boundaries. This is a complex situation, it will unfold how it does, I just hope current leadership is adequate and that forces that can be mobilized if necessary are adequately trained to try to reduce the loss of life if the uprising continues - or arguably terrorist acts - due to disbelieving that the election was fair, hypocritically it would be considered fair if their choice won.
xapata 6y ago
> Just because a private company is legally allowed to do something, doesn't mean they should You don't expect coal companies to suspend operations because of pollution and climate change. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "should" here. Care to clarify?
- pas 6y ago
  The word OP should have used it "ought" (instead of should) as in normative ethics. It's good that the laws/government does not coerce/force companies to do business with everyone under the sun, but it doesn't mean it would be good if they (or if society) started to exercise this right all the time, because it can be very much abused, for example if some company is extremely xenophobic/racist, then in that case it's not good that that company is excluding a bunch of people. Also, if corporations drop everybody just because it's inconvenient/unprofitable, it can easily lead to abuse of market position.
mullingitover 6y ago
> - Speech without a platform isn't speech at all Free speech is the freedom to say what you like without punishment. It doesn't mean that everyone has a natural birthright to an audience, or to free, global distribution of their speech.
flowside 6y ago
The fact that 4chan and Stormfront continue to exist is proof that no one's speech is being stifled. No one is entitled to these services. On top of this, this is also a business decision. Imagine the negative press that might come out if these platforms continue to host Parler. How many other customers might they lose as a result? Boycotts happen all the time, and why should any company stick their neck out for Parler? I guarantee no one at Apple, Google, or AWS made this decision because they felt it was "the moral thing to do." Similarly, FOX News is under no obligation to broadcast "all opinions." There is no real distinction in this case.
UnitingFolks 6y ago
I think banning things temporarily to finish Biden take presidency seems OK to me. But banning permanently means we are failing with arguments to win over people. Opposing violence permanently seems OK to me, but then a law should be made for it and not left for individual company. Usually it is recommended that for complex and emotional content email/text communication is not good. It should be done in person. In social media complex/emotional things are being discussed in text form which causes more rift. So we need better tools video/animation/pictures to discuss things that are being discussed in social media. These better tools should be easy to use for common person to use and communicate. It will be also good to have a tool, which for any argument gives all the assumption being made. Such a tool can also help in communicating better. In short we need better communication tools and better laws. (minor edit and added last sentence)
kjr247 6y ago
What do you mean by "without limits"? Twitter and Facebook have recently gone to court because of their blatant censorship, editing, and banning or speakers for having differing opinions. They are no longer a distributed publishing houses free. They are now editors and are to be held accountable for their actions and the actions of others on their sites. I believe that if we add one limit to the liberty of speech and we'll have thrown the baby out with the bath water.
- pas 6y ago
  In your opinion how should Twitter handle neonazis and fascists? How should US society handle white supremacists?
  - kjr247 6y ago
    I'm not entirely sure where neonazis come into play here on the topic of human liberties like freedom of speech. Fascists on the other hand... that's the topic isn't it? By applying an amendment to freedom of speech to prevent or force any speech is authoritarian by definition. Just so we're clear fascism definition "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe." I'd prefer to speak solely on the point of human liberties. And just so we're clear, you can see the differences of civil rights and human liberties which are naturally inherent to all people. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_liberties https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_liberties "Congress shall make no law" - This is the first Amendment of your Liberties, and regardless of the reasoning, changing them will only trade 1 evil for a worse one. The way it is now is that all may do as they wish... with lawful consequences unless protected by the your rights and liberties. To be clear what I mean is that if you cause damages and there are victims of the "crime" then you should be held accountable. The problem we are facing today is that so many people have those their integrity as to make some people regret having rights and liberties. But it's a slippery slope, imagine on the far side of the extreme where the fed comes to your home in the middle of the night with guns and cameras in tote and force you to say something against your will. That is inherently against your liberty (freedom of speech), would you give this up because someone else said something you don't like? In my opinion all media should be completely and totally decentralized... a bit like bitcoin. What this means is that no one should be able to control media... not even the federal institutions (especially not them). Fascists and neonazis... well they can all be ousted on decentralized networks for all I care. Every news/media/message should be accountable, but should not be controlled. If someone claims or says something that causes damages it should be accounted for, but there should be no control over it from any outside force. In China every website, every video, every message has what can be referred to as an OID, in software these can be used as public universal identifiers and can be traced back to a source. The problem with China is that their fascist federal institution will reward and pay people to report and take down any media they don't like. That's fascism. That's the exact opposite of what America should be by our constitutional rights and our inherent liberties. However! Their tracking system is astounding and could help the people take lawful retribution on any damages caused by some created content.

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.
  - nec4b 6y ago
    Don't worry when they do, it will be used as a cheap thought killer meme all over HN, like the "Paradox of Tolerance" is being used now.
  - pas 6y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRBsJYWR8Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRBsJYWR8Q (The Problem With Human Rights by Jonas Čeika aka. Cuck Philosophy)
- yazaddaruvala 6y ago
  > Paradox of Tolerance is a hypocritical bullshit. Quite frankly I’m finding it hard to respond. > Truly tolerant people should win the other side with their virtue, and yes, it insanely harder. Popper does a really good job explaining why this is not possible, and therefore tolerance without limit is not possible. I’d prefer tolerance without limit to be the optimal strategy, but I do need some convincing that it’s possible. Do you mind adding constructive criticism so we can work on a better mental model for tolerance and free speech?
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    That's easy. Tolerance, is willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them [1]. People who carve themselves an exemption to not accept some behaviour or beliefs, are literally contradicting this definition. Yet, at the same time they pretend to be tolerant. There is a word for that in the English language: hypocrisy. So, how do tolerant people fight the intolerant? Maybe, we have some similar precedents from the past. Turning the other cheek principle [2] and nonresistance movement [3] have worked out quite well for Gandhi. Educate, explain, suffer injustice, yet, stay true to your principles. That's the way to the better future for humanity. (I'm not claiming to be a fully tolerant person myself. I'm just calling out hypocrites who pretend to be ones) [1]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/tolerance https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/toleranc... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonresistance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonresistance
    - kingaillas 6y ago
      That's great it worked for Gandhi, but I'd argue the tolerant HAVE been doing that - stretching back to MLK's marches, and yet here we are (in the US) where a violent mob stormed the capitol. Tolerating them may be better for humanity but it takes to long for those folks to disappear from the gene pool. And, they are armed due to the 2nd Amendment, which Gandhi didn't have to deal with. Sure, guns exist around the world but they are in massive abundance in the US.
- theonlybutlet 6y ago
  Not quite, it still works to an extent. In this case it's quite clear those utilising Parler are doing so to spread their intolerant message. I'd say applying the Paradox of Tolerance is not hypocritical but more asymptotic, i.e. we will tend toward zero but never reach it.
- LordDragonfang 6y ago
  So would you agree with a statement that "we should just be tolerant of the KKK and win them to our side with virtue", then? Note that this isn't hyperbole for rhetorical effect, that is literally the kind of intolerance that the paradox of tolerance is based on, and seems to be what you're advocating, by extension.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    Yes, I fully agree with that statement. You can't just beat the racists from KKK into submission. You can only show them that their convictions are wrong.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - MrMan 6y ago
      that's incorrect. what seems to have been proven to work is trying to limit their ability to congregate, and to recruit.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
        It's a hollow victory if you'll become a fascist to fight fascists.
        pas 6y ago
        Just a nitpick, but fascism inherently has a component about a faux nostalgia for a vague better times, ultranationalism, and so on, and simply by suppressing speech one does not became a fastics, you probably mean totalitarian.
  - rainbowzootsuit 6y ago
    There's at least one person I've heard of of doing this type of interaction to change the minds of KKK members— Daryl Davis. He's certainly an uncommon example though. Most people who are in stark disagreement with another's views don't seek them out as potential friends. “Ignorance breeds fear. We fear those things we don’t understand. If we don’t put a lid on that fear and keep that fear in check, that fear in turn will breed hatred because we hate those things that frighten us. “If we don’t keep that hatred in check, that hatred in turn will breed destruction. We want to destroy those things that we hate. Why? Because they frighten us. But guess what? They may have been harmless and we were just ignorant.” https://lanthorn.com/61539/news/news-daryl-davis-lecture-at-gvsu/ https://lanthorn.com/61539/news/news-daryl-davis-lecture-at-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/features/klan.htm https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/features/klan.ht...
- destroyHN 6y ago
  Calm yourself as you use one of the most moderated platforms on the internet to spout off.
- halfnormalform 6y ago
  I don’t take tips about higher moral ground and virtue from anyone who thinks bullshit is a countable noun.
roenxi 6y ago
Alright, tolerance without limits is off the table. That is the easy part done with. What proactive tolerances are we working with? Because the standard on A-A-G seems to be "we're only going to tolerate things we mostly agree with" - which is a faux tolerance. If they can't tolerate the speech of a sitting president then we haven't really reached the point where the paradox of tolerance is at play. That is routine intolerance. To be tolerant there has to be an element of putting up with things they genuinely disagree with.

sh1989 6y ago

Nobody has an obligation to facilitate your free speech.

unlaxedneurotic 6y ago
But do we have a responsibility to not hinder someone else's free speech? Not with regards to the current post but just thinking in lines with what you said.
- simonh 6y ago
  Yes we do, but we do not have an obligation to facilitate it. Private forums have no obligation to publish or distribute anything they don’t want to. Their owners and operators have rights too. Free speech simply doesn’t apply. Just go and communicate somewhere else, or build your own chat service, or publish a leaflet or book, or whatever. But I have no obligation to allow you to come into my house or business and say these things.
  - krzyk 6y ago
    Not quite, if you have a mono/duo/tri-poly you give up certain rights, this is how democracy works, unless you want to end up in corpo-cracy.
    - simonh 6y ago
      I don’t think it’s possible to mandatorily restrict editorialising without killing platforms. Any such restrictions would be a spammers, griefers and pornographers manifesto. Restricting editorial rights is a horrible can or worms to open. But anyway, there are no social media monopolies. We have Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, WhatsApp, iMessage, Discord, Signal, etc, etc, and it goes on and on. They’re also very segmented, Facebook is huge but it’s almost irrelevant to kids and young adults. New services pop up regularly because barriers to entry are incredibly low and segmentation is so high.
- sh1989 6y ago

systemvoltage 6y ago

“Just because private company is allowed to do something, doesn’t mean they should” - so then put that up for public debate. I think we did, Section 230 in the context of posting digital content. It boggles mind that we are trying to keep a high ground on free speech while the rug is being yanked away from our bottoms. + Free Speech. Not when you have millions deluded, angry, violent and ready to use any means to incite violence, take down gov, threaten governors and are trigger happy to exercise 2nd amendment rights. I’m terrified of these people. I get it. Free speech is important, especially when you disagree with someone. This is how society progresses. You can have the free speech still, just make sure you don’t rally up people to take up arms on bogus claims. They’ve had their free speech chances to contest in court, have peaceful debates and be civilized. r/conservative, as much as you disagree with them, is still ok and fine. They’re respectful for the most part.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
> Not when you have millions deluded, angry, violent and ready to use any means to incite violence, take down gov, threaten governors That's exactly what our tyrannical Russian government says about those who don't like Putin being in power for 20+ years. Thus, they limit our rights for free speech online, prosecute for extremism, deny us rights to peacefully gather and protest. If you Americans go down this path any further, you'll too find yourself living under the tyrannical dictatorship no better than ours. Oh, unfortunately, unlike you, we don't have 2nd amendment rights, so actually rebelling is harder. So I suggest you clinging to your guns as strong as you can: all points that you are going to need them.
- dash2 6y ago
  I find the whole argument that 2nd amendment rights support rebellion a bit weird. (UK speaker here.) The US government has marines, tanks, and advanced weaponry. Even the police are tooled up to the 9s, partly because of those very 2nd amendment rights. Is there any case of a citizen militia successfully using force to overthrow a modern state with a well-equipped, loyal army?
  - 6y ago

tjpnz 6y ago

>Speech without a platform isn't speech at all Then nothing's really changed. Before social media people would write letters to the editor or be interviewed on the radio or TV. Publication of said speech was always at the sole discretion of the platform holder.

ThomPete 6y ago
Editors have publisher responsibility and are thus liable for what is being published. Twitter, facebook are enjoying the protection from the state from being responsible for what individuals say. they cant have their cake and eat it. If they want to censor they should become a publisher, which we know they wont.
- alistairSH 6y ago
  It is us, the end consumer, that has the cake and is eating it. With TV and newsprint, we had no platform at all, unless the media company shared our views or deemed our speech newsworthy. Even for innocuous speech. With Twitter and Facebook, almost all of us have a platform that reaches potentially millions of eyeballs. That didn't exist 20 years ago - back then, we'd have to self-publish newsletters, or literally speak from a soap box in the town square. That said, it is a balancing act, and I'm not certain where that balance point is (and it possibly moves over time too). But, the posts that have been shared from Parler were possibly illegal - they were planning armed sedition at best and a coup at worst - both of which are very much illegal and prosecutable. It wasn't just unsavory speech - it was illegal speech, that Parler itself refused to moderate.
  - ThomPete 6y ago
    That's a case for the police then NOT Apple or Google. Twitter still have plenty of calls to violence that are still up. As an example this one shared by tens of thousands of people. https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330?s=20 https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330?s=2... Right now you could as easily make an argument that the real danger to the democratic institutions are being lead by the big tech platforms. Either they become a publisher with responsibilities or they allow for this to happen.

8note 6y ago

It's really just up to the government to nationalize the internet and popular News organizations, and provide proper equal access to all as protected by the constitution. Nationalization is the answer you're looking for

iNic 6y ago

> - Speech without a platform isn't speech at all Could you clarify what you mean exactly with this. In my mind people should have a right to ignore speech they don't want to hear. Furthermore, the definition of a "platform" has become very diffuse with the advent of the internet. In the before times you were either in the newspaper most people read, or maybe on one of the handful of TV channels, or you basically did not have a platform beyond the people you could physically interact with. Whereas now you can have many options which all reach different kinds and amounts of people. I have many vague feelings but maybe I can sum them up in the following, probably unhelpful, statement: people have a right to a platform that is equivalent to standing in a town square and yelling.

bluescrn 6y ago
It's hard to ignore Twitter and Facebook. They're mega-platforms with many uses beyond politics (business, hobbies, family, etc). Whilst on there for non-political purposes, you can't in practice 'choose to ignore' the political speech you'd prefer to avoid, as it's made everybody an activist with a massive megaphone. Activism is shared and retweeted into your face relentlessly. If Big Tech as a whole has decided to wage war on 'red team' ideas (or other competing ideas, such as Unity 2020, banned from Twitter), there's a risk that they could transform a bad 2-party political system into a single-party monopoly, where the voters have no power at all. Things weren't good when old media (TV/newspapers) had all the power+influence. But at least there was some sort of balance. And if a new newspaper appeared, it couldn't be shut down entirely in <24hrs by the competition.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  And if a new newspaper appeared, it couldn't be shut down entirely in <24hrs by the competition. It could if it had used printing presses owned by the competition. I'm assuming these old newspapers used either their own printing presses, or presses owned by independent printing shops. They used a little common sense and concluded that using printing presses owned by the NY Times was probably not a good long term strategy for a newspaper that wanted to compete against the NY Times. All I'm saying is, use your own printing presses, and you can't be shutdown. Run your own website, on your own server and no one will kick you off their servers. Nothing's really changed here, so I don't see a free speech issue.

oivey 6y ago

> - 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 I agree with basically your whole post, but I think it should be emphasized that extreme care has been taken. Things have escalated to the point that Trump supporters violently attacked the legislative branch in order to subvert our political process. There isn’t much worse than that. Parler is being actively used as part of a system to plan, coordinate, and build support for more attacks (e.g. posts referring to journalists as soft targets).

kelnos 6y ago

> Private companies' interest should have little, if any, control over the ability of the public to speak This ignores that private companies are made up of people, and those people have opinions and moral compasses. If some large number of your employees don't want to be working on a product that provides a platform for speech they believe is reprehensible, what do you do? If you ignore them, some of them -- perhaps high value employees -- quit. Others, who maybe don't have great job mobility, stick around, but feel miserable, because their job makes them do unethical things. Not a great outcome. Is free speech for all more important than refusing to sell to people you believe are doing something unethical with your product? I honestly don't know the answer to that question. My gut reaction is to celebrate Parler effectively getting kicked off the internet, but I do worry that the long-term consequences of doing things like this will haunt us as a society.

foolmeonce 6y ago
The larger problem is that the office of president is out of check since 1945. For the system to work, no one should believe this one position determines the course of the entire government, but since the 1980s you would be a fool not to. Given the office of president is out of check and it gets to apply discretion to (in this example) how media companies will be treated both in actual law and whether cases are run, it is only a matter of time before a president builds his route to dictator. Members of whichever party puts him in will be happier for a decade at most, then it's soylent green for everyone.

edoceo 6y ago

> Speech without a platform isn't speech at all One can always yell on the street corner, that's your (limited) platform.

krzyk 6y ago
Nowadays a "street corner" is you facebook page or your twitter. If company grows so big that its use is so common - like a street corner - such platform should be available for all - and all should be accounted for their speech also. Platform is a platform, shouldn't policy people around - that is the job of ... police. Do you wonder why now we have accounts blocked, but when there were people on the streets attacking policy I haven't heard of any account on facebook/twitter being blocked? It is because platform wasn't free from politics like it should be, companies have preferences and they will block one political view and allow another - this should not be the case if the use of given platform is monopolistic (or duopolistic: twitter-facebook). If you grow you should give up some of your power, the question is at what scale it should happen.
- tzs 6y ago
  The explicit calls to specific acts of extreme violence against specific people would be chargeable as illegal incitement if shouted on a street corner.
- wan23 6y ago
  Facebook and Twitter are commonly used, but they are not the street corner. These things didn't exist when the first amendment was written, but printing presses did. And they specifically did not write in a requirement that printers should print anything and everything. In fact, just 8 years after the first amendment was ratified they passed a federal law banning printing of "false, scandalous or malicious writing". And that was fine, because people could still yell on their street corner or write their own letters, which you will always have the right to do.
bluescrn 6y ago
Then you've essentially got duct* tape over your mouth while your opponents are handed free megaphones (*duct/duck - delete as appropriate)

throwaway2245 6y ago

> - Private companies' interest should have little, if any, control over the ability of the public to speak > - Speech without a platform isn't speech at all These seem to me to be in conflict: if I don't have access to a particular platform (let's say, the New York Times), do I have access to freedom of speech?

gigatexal 6y ago
Yeah for me it’s akin to being mad about being kicked out of my house if you spout off anti-Semitic things. It’s my house. My domain. My rules. You can go elsewhere and speak that garbage. Scale that idea up and you get where I’m coming down on all of this: Twitter, Facebook, AMazon, Apple etc are all for profit companies that can limit speech as they see fit and not be in violation of federal free speech guarantees.
- gigatexal 6y ago
  Downvoters: care to say why?
  - codr7 6y ago
    Maybe because the lack of tolerance you're displaying is The Problem, and down voting is easier than dealing with it. What if you're actually wrong and the other person is right? I'm sure it has happened before and will again. How would you want to be treated if the roles were reversed? Regardless; censoring, which is essentially what you're doing, can only push people further into their corners.
    - gigatexal 6y ago
      Tolerance of anti-semitism? How can that ever be right? I picked that specific hypothetical for a reason because I think the speech being “censored” here is inherently wrong, I.e it has no place in public discourse.
      - 6y ago

timeon 6y ago

Free speech without limits. Free speech enforced to any platform. In my opinion can be called as dictature of free speech.

nirui 6y ago

Not an American but here's my two cents: I know it's about the event happened few days ago, but based on what I've learned on the other side of the Earth during these years, I think overall, Censorship in any shape or form, when encouraged, will eventually develop itself to become "Government Enforced". I guess we all know how that goes. I know the problem is complex, but I think the solution to the problem was based on basic human impulses (And very American if I'd say so myself. Sorry), because simply deplatform the app will not actually convince it's users to leave it, it does not educate those people about what's right and wrong, and it opened a huge playground for the conspiracy theorist to play around. All around, I think deplatforming is a bad solution to this problem. EDIT: Clarify: I'm not here to support Parler (not even a bit), and I understand the deplatforming was for the immediate issue. However, I hope those who involved in the decision making could look for a better solution that would convince people to claim down and be rational. That's all.

saiya-jin 6y ago
We all can agree situation and potential solutions are complex beyond imagination, but there is one place, one long term action that could solve most of this to some degree - proper mandatory education, based on proved science. Learn kids critical thinking, rather than raise another obedient generation who doesn't think for themselves and picks up a narrative from some place and then just sticks with it. Learning more soft skills at school (at which most teachers suck, but that's another topic), psychology, why people behave as they do, biases, how our childhood affects us all etc. I think generally our schooling systems globally need big rehaul, but for topic discussed, I can't imagine what I mention it wouldn't bring some improvement. Teaching with current level of science as hard baseline is already a place where some western countries like US fail (ie evolution vs creationism topic). I don't think the change I mention is in direct interest of many governments, so its more like a pipe dream and an additional burden on parents to drill this into their kids.
- throwaway80332 6y ago
  This is a very good idea, and the measurement of success in these important educational efforts must be: "after this mandatory education that teaches you critical thinking and how to not just be obedient, do you now finally have the correct opionions?" If the student doesn't, he/she/xir should be deplatformed for life.

ashtonkem 6y ago

> Private companies' interest should have little, if any, control over the ability of the public to speak This is the back door to authoritarianism. This basic premise would allow the government to reach in and force companies to associate against their will. This power will be abused. > Speech without a platform isn't speech at all This is utter nonsense. By this logic, speech without access to a bullhorn or an editorial board isn’t speech at all. You have a right to speak without being prosecuted by the government. Pretending that you have a right to a Twitter account or an equivalent thereof is both silly, it’s incredibly entitled.

pas 6y ago
> This is utter nonsense. Nah, OP has a point - even if it's easy to misinterpret. Just as you mentioned government coercion about free association, speech means that "those people" are free to start their parallel society, their own journals, newspapers, forums and whatnot. It means that speech as a right has to include the right for the capability of building, having, and operating a platform, not a right for a guaranteed audience.

loceng 6y ago

I believe the slowing down of a mob online by means of deplatforming them is a good strategy, and a feature of the system, assuming you're organizing yourself to adequately counter this mob when/if they attack again. Sure, they feel persecuted for the deplatforming but that's not really reasonable - we know there's less reason in their community than there needs to be (well it's reasoning based on a funnel of lies they've been manipulated with over decades via Fox News, Republican party, etc), but it wasn't their toy to begin with - the other big kids/adults/tech companies were just happy to let them use them, so they don't have the right to having access to the toys that aren't theirs - and it's unhealthy to make them believe they do, which is essentially coddling for purpose of trying to stop them from crying or ending their temper tantrum - but then it prevents them from developing boundaries. This is a complex situation, it will unfold how it does, I just hope current leadership is adequate and that forces that can be mobilized if necessary are adequately trained to try to reduce the loss of life if the uprising continues - or arguably terrorist acts - due to disbelieving that the election was fair, hypocritically it would be considered fair if their choice won.

xapata 6y ago

> Just because a private company is legally allowed to do something, doesn't mean they should You don't expect coal companies to suspend operations because of pollution and climate change. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "should" here. Care to clarify?

pas 6y ago
The word OP should have used it "ought" (instead of should) as in normative ethics. It's good that the laws/government does not coerce/force companies to do business with everyone under the sun, but it doesn't mean it would be good if they (or if society) started to exercise this right all the time, because it can be very much abused, for example if some company is extremely xenophobic/racist, then in that case it's not good that that company is excluding a bunch of people. Also, if corporations drop everybody just because it's inconvenient/unprofitable, it can easily lead to abuse of market position.

mullingitover 6y ago

> - Speech without a platform isn't speech at all Free speech is the freedom to say what you like without punishment. It doesn't mean that everyone has a natural birthright to an audience, or to free, global distribution of their speech.

flowside 6y ago

The fact that 4chan and Stormfront continue to exist is proof that no one's speech is being stifled. No one is entitled to these services. On top of this, this is also a business decision. Imagine the negative press that might come out if these platforms continue to host Parler. How many other customers might they lose as a result? Boycotts happen all the time, and why should any company stick their neck out for Parler? I guarantee no one at Apple, Google, or AWS made this decision because they felt it was "the moral thing to do." Similarly, FOX News is under no obligation to broadcast "all opinions." There is no real distinction in this case.

UnitingFolks 6y ago

I think banning things temporarily to finish Biden take presidency seems OK to me. But banning permanently means we are failing with arguments to win over people. Opposing violence permanently seems OK to me, but then a law should be made for it and not left for individual company. Usually it is recommended that for complex and emotional content email/text communication is not good. It should be done in person. In social media complex/emotional things are being discussed in text form which causes more rift. So we need better tools video/animation/pictures to discuss things that are being discussed in social media. These better tools should be easy to use for common person to use and communicate. It will be also good to have a tool, which for any argument gives all the assumption being made. Such a tool can also help in communicating better. In short we need better communication tools and better laws. (minor edit and added last sentence)

kjr247 6y ago

What do you mean by "without limits"? Twitter and Facebook have recently gone to court because of their blatant censorship, editing, and banning or speakers for having differing opinions. They are no longer a distributed publishing houses free. They are now editors and are to be held accountable for their actions and the actions of others on their sites. I believe that if we add one limit to the liberty of speech and we'll have thrown the baby out with the bath water.

pas 6y ago
In your opinion how should Twitter handle neonazis and fascists? How should US society handle white supremacists?
- kjr247 6y ago
  I'm not entirely sure where neonazis come into play here on the topic of human liberties like freedom of speech. Fascists on the other hand... that's the topic isn't it? By applying an amendment to freedom of speech to prevent or force any speech is authoritarian by definition. Just so we're clear fascism definition "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe." I'd prefer to speak solely on the point of human liberties. And just so we're clear, you can see the differences of civil rights and human liberties which are naturally inherent to all people. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_liberties https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_liberties "Congress shall make no law" - This is the first Amendment of your Liberties, and regardless of the reasoning, changing them will only trade 1 evil for a worse one. The way it is now is that all may do as they wish... with lawful consequences unless protected by the your rights and liberties. To be clear what I mean is that if you cause damages and there are victims of the "crime" then you should be held accountable. The problem we are facing today is that so many people have those their integrity as to make some people regret having rights and liberties. But it's a slippery slope, imagine on the far side of the extreme where the fed comes to your home in the middle of the night with guns and cameras in tote and force you to say something against your will. That is inherently against your liberty (freedom of speech), would you give this up because someone else said something you don't like? In my opinion all media should be completely and totally decentralized... a bit like bitcoin. What this means is that no one should be able to control media... not even the federal institutions (especially not them). Fascists and neonazis... well they can all be ousted on decentralized networks for all I care. Every news/media/message should be accountable, but should not be controlled. If someone claims or says something that causes damages it should be accounted for, but there should be no control over it from any outside force. In China every website, every video, every message has what can be referred to as an OID, in software these can be used as public universal identifiers and can be traced back to a source. The problem with China is that their fascist federal institution will reward and pay people to report and take down any media they don't like. That's fascism. That's the exact opposite of what America should be by our constitutional rights and our inherent liberties. However! Their tracking system is astounding and could help the people take lawful retribution on any damages caused by some created content.