5 ms·

> - 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 the

by 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.
  - bluescrn 6y ago
    Buying your own servers is no use if you can't get them connected to the Internet. Next step, build your own Internet?
    - Grimm1 6y ago
      I see your point, and this raises the question of internet being a basic universal right. I think it is and I think the ISPs should be treated as such and thus unable to pick and choose what content we are served so if Parler buys their own servers and connects then they should be fine. I'm against the highest level of the stack so to speak having to be available to everyone such as Twitter, that would be us saying these companies are too critical to our way of life and forcing a private entity to do business with those it doesn't want to, which is not only dangerous but I believe simply not true if we foster the building of others and should be summarily changed or investigated as a new type of monopoly if we find (are finding?) that they are becoming too critical, centralizing is bad. I am also against people not being able to connect their services at the lower level of the stack to then build out their offering on the higher level of the stack though and that's where I think we need to regulate.
    - bilbo0s 6y ago
      How do you think Amazon connects to the internet? They have their own network, own peering agreements, etc etc etc. They didn't build the internet, they built their own "platform" by building out their own little corner of the internet. You want to be a "platform" like Amazon, but you don't want to build everything necessary for a "platform" to be a platform. That is the crux of the problem. If what you really want is simply free speech, well that's free. If all you really want is a website, well that's pretty cheap too, but maybe not free. But when you start talking about platforms, you have to pay to build the platform you want. Even a soapbox is not free, someone somewhere had to pay for it. You're complaining that building a platform is too expensive the same way someone a hundred years ago may have complained that buying the presses is too expensive. It makes no sense. If you want to print your own paper, you need the presses.
- andrewprock 6y ago
  On the contrary, it's quite easy to ignore Twitter and Facebook. I do it all day, every day, and it takes zero effort.
throwaway316943 6y ago
People have a right to any platform they are able to create. The problem with centralized social media is that it is a monopoly with legal protections and is able to essentially exclude people from the de facto town square.
- jrs235 6y ago
  Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to force others to listen or post your recorded message. Everyone is free to speak out. Everyone is free to write letters. Yes it sucks your audience is limited but you are correct, people have a right to any platform they are able to create. Also monopolies and oligopolies are what happens in unregulated capitalism. If frustrates me that the many of folks today who take issue with the tech giants have been pro deregulation, pro capitalism, and screaming about how afraid we should be because a boring sleepy vanilla POTUS is going to usher in socialism and communism... WTF is your solution then? Everyone can point out problems and evoke FUD.
  - hiram112 6y ago
    > people have a right to any platform they are able to create. This argument is becoming increasingly disingenuous based on actions of just the last few days. Didn’t Parler go ahead and do exactly what you recommended? * cut off from Google Play and Apple Store. Most people don’t even have personal computers anymore, so their phone / IPad is the only way to access the platforms. * Apple doesn’t allow side loading. Google makes it less and less viable and so many necessary APIs are moved out of the open Android Sdk and into the gated Play APIs. * As if to demonstrate the absolute futility of your suggestion, AWS cut off Parler‘s servers. * Any site need some sort of financial API. How many times have we seen companies like Stripe, GoFundMe, Visa and MasterCard, and even large banks give in to the mob. * every other required piece of the puzzle will do the same: DNS providers, CDNs, and even the large backbone ISPs. Sorry, bigot, but we’ve decided we won’t be routing your traffic through our exchange. * Even power companies are privatized in the US. Sorry, just go make your own power grid, right?
    - alistairSH 6y ago
jturpin 6y ago
I just mean that having some kind of platform is important to the definition of speech, since it involves communicating over some medium. I don't necessarily mean platforms as in Twitter or Facebook or what-have-you. And I would agree about the town square analogy - my concern is that it falls apart at the Internet since it's all privately owned.

by iNic 6y ago

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.
- bluescrn 6y ago
  Buying your own servers is no use if you can't get them connected to the Internet. Next step, build your own Internet?
  - Grimm1 6y ago
    I see your point, and this raises the question of internet being a basic universal right. I think it is and I think the ISPs should be treated as such and thus unable to pick and choose what content we are served so if Parler buys their own servers and connects then they should be fine. I'm against the highest level of the stack so to speak having to be available to everyone such as Twitter, that would be us saying these companies are too critical to our way of life and forcing a private entity to do business with those it doesn't want to, which is not only dangerous but I believe simply not true if we foster the building of others and should be summarily changed or investigated as a new type of monopoly if we find (are finding?) that they are becoming too critical, centralizing is bad. I am also against people not being able to connect their services at the lower level of the stack to then build out their offering on the higher level of the stack though and that's where I think we need to regulate.
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
    How do you think Amazon connects to the internet? They have their own network, own peering agreements, etc etc etc. They didn't build the internet, they built their own "platform" by building out their own little corner of the internet. You want to be a "platform" like Amazon, but you don't want to build everything necessary for a "platform" to be a platform. That is the crux of the problem. If what you really want is simply free speech, well that's free. If all you really want is a website, well that's pretty cheap too, but maybe not free. But when you start talking about platforms, you have to pay to build the platform you want. Even a soapbox is not free, someone somewhere had to pay for it. You're complaining that building a platform is too expensive the same way someone a hundred years ago may have complained that buying the presses is too expensive. It makes no sense. If you want to print your own paper, you need the presses.
andrewprock 6y ago
On the contrary, it's quite easy to ignore Twitter and Facebook. I do it all day, every day, and it takes zero effort.

throwaway316943 6y ago

People have a right to any platform they are able to create. The problem with centralized social media is that it is a monopoly with legal protections and is able to essentially exclude people from the de facto town square.

jrs235 6y ago
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to force others to listen or post your recorded message. Everyone is free to speak out. Everyone is free to write letters. Yes it sucks your audience is limited but you are correct, people have a right to any platform they are able to create. Also monopolies and oligopolies are what happens in unregulated capitalism. If frustrates me that the many of folks today who take issue with the tech giants have been pro deregulation, pro capitalism, and screaming about how afraid we should be because a boring sleepy vanilla POTUS is going to usher in socialism and communism... WTF is your solution then? Everyone can point out problems and evoke FUD.
- hiram112 6y ago
  > people have a right to any platform they are able to create. This argument is becoming increasingly disingenuous based on actions of just the last few days. Didn’t Parler go ahead and do exactly what you recommended? * cut off from Google Play and Apple Store. Most people don’t even have personal computers anymore, so their phone / IPad is the only way to access the platforms. * Apple doesn’t allow side loading. Google makes it less and less viable and so many necessary APIs are moved out of the open Android Sdk and into the gated Play APIs. * As if to demonstrate the absolute futility of your suggestion, AWS cut off Parler‘s servers. * Any site need some sort of financial API. How many times have we seen companies like Stripe, GoFundMe, Visa and MasterCard, and even large banks give in to the mob. * every other required piece of the puzzle will do the same: DNS providers, CDNs, and even the large backbone ISPs. Sorry, bigot, but we’ve decided we won’t be routing your traffic through our exchange. * Even power companies are privatized in the US. Sorry, just go make your own power grid, right?
  - alistairSH 6y ago

jturpin 6y ago

I just mean that having some kind of platform is important to the definition of speech, since it involves communicating over some medium. I don't necessarily mean platforms as in Twitter or Facebook or what-have-you. And I would agree about the town square analogy - my concern is that it falls apart at the Internet since it's all privately owned.