7 ms·

Nobody has an obligation to facilitate your free speech.

by sh1989 6y ago

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
  I have no obligation to listen to what you say, nor do I have an obligation to build you a platform to spread it.
swift532 6y ago
I would disagree in the case of platforms which are monopolies. Or in this case let's call it a triopoly because they collaborate on things like this. Same like how public utility companies cannot shut off your power or water because they don't like you.
- sh1989 6y ago
  If anything, this is a classic example of "we're going to build our own platform, with blackjack hookers and insurrection", and seeing how far that gets you. There's a line where continued operation becomes aiding and abetting, and it's also clear the content of that site represented a clear and present danger in the short term. This isn't a theoretical discussion. This is a direct consequence of an attempted coup.
  - jsiepkes 6y ago
    > If anything, this is a classic example of "we're going to build our own platform, with blackjack hookers and insurrection", and seeing how far that gets you. You got it backwards. The Internet was build in such a way everyone could easily host their own platform. However due to companies like Amazon using questionable and monopolistic tactics the Internet is now build in such a way it's going to be very hard to go around these companies. > This is a direct consequence of an attempted coup. While a disgrace, riots and pillaging can hardly be called a coup. Read about the 2016 Turkish coup attempt to see what a real coup (attempt) looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Turkish_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Turkish_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... . Just like hard wind is not a hurricane, this wasn't a coup.
    - wilsynet 6y ago
      Wait. The President of the United States has spent the past several weeks trying to get anyone and everyone to: throw our legitimate votes, conjure new illegal votes, getting the Vice President to reject electors, getting the Senate to reject electors, sharing doctored videos, telling his supporters that they need to hold traitors accountable, telling his supporters to March in the capital and show strength. Yeah, those rioters did not effect a coup, or even come close. But it is definitely true that someone is attempting a coup.
lliamander 6y ago
That's actually not true: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-assembly/assembly-on-private-property/ https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center... “the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.”
- sh1989 6y ago
  The thing is, this doesn't actually matter. This service wasn't being used to "freely assemble" (as outlined in your source), it was being used as a tool to facilitate insurrection. This clear and present danger was obvious, and places the imperative on supporting services to question whether they want to aid and abet sedition.
  - lliamander 6y ago
    This isn't just about Parler specifically. The point is that with any of these deplatformings, it is manifestly untrue that the platforms can do whatever they want.
  - duke252 6y ago
    The insurrection happened at the capitol building, not on Parler.
intended 6y ago
More precisely facilitate hate speech. For some reason the fact that Parker is a cesspit doesn’t get mentioned. Perhaps because people here rightly haven’t been to it and are being intellectually honest and not decrying something without evidence.

Nobody has an obligation to facilitate your free speech.

by sh1989 6y ago

Nobody has an obligation to facilitate your free speech.

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
I have no obligation to listen to what you say, nor do I have an obligation to build you a platform to spread it.

swift532 6y ago

I would disagree in the case of platforms which are monopolies. Or in this case let's call it a triopoly because they collaborate on things like this. Same like how public utility companies cannot shut off your power or water because they don't like you.

sh1989 6y ago
If anything, this is a classic example of "we're going to build our own platform, with blackjack hookers and insurrection", and seeing how far that gets you. There's a line where continued operation becomes aiding and abetting, and it's also clear the content of that site represented a clear and present danger in the short term. This isn't a theoretical discussion. This is a direct consequence of an attempted coup.
- jsiepkes 6y ago
  > If anything, this is a classic example of "we're going to build our own platform, with blackjack hookers and insurrection", and seeing how far that gets you. You got it backwards. The Internet was build in such a way everyone could easily host their own platform. However due to companies like Amazon using questionable and monopolistic tactics the Internet is now build in such a way it's going to be very hard to go around these companies. > This is a direct consequence of an attempted coup. While a disgrace, riots and pillaging can hardly be called a coup. Read about the 2016 Turkish coup attempt to see what a real coup (attempt) looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Turkish_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Turkish_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... . Just like hard wind is not a hurricane, this wasn't a coup.
  - wilsynet 6y ago
    Wait. The President of the United States has spent the past several weeks trying to get anyone and everyone to: throw our legitimate votes, conjure new illegal votes, getting the Vice President to reject electors, getting the Senate to reject electors, sharing doctored videos, telling his supporters that they need to hold traitors accountable, telling his supporters to March in the capital and show strength. Yeah, those rioters did not effect a coup, or even come close. But it is definitely true that someone is attempting a coup.

lliamander 6y ago

That's actually not true: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-assembly/assembly-on-private-property/ https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center... “the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.”

sh1989 6y ago
The thing is, this doesn't actually matter. This service wasn't being used to "freely assemble" (as outlined in your source), it was being used as a tool to facilitate insurrection. This clear and present danger was obvious, and places the imperative on supporting services to question whether they want to aid and abet sedition.
- lliamander 6y ago
  This isn't just about Parler specifically. The point is that with any of these deplatformings, it is manifestly untrue that the platforms can do whatever they want.
- duke252 6y ago
  The insurrection happened at the capitol building, not on Parler.

intended 6y ago

More precisely facilitate hate speech. For some reason the fact that Parker is a cesspit doesn’t get mentioned. Perhaps because people here rightly haven’t been to it and are being intellectually honest and not decrying something without evidence.