3 ms·

No, it isn't. There's already precedents for what businesses can and cannot prevent you from doing. If, for instance, you think a business should be compelled

No, it isn't. There's already precedents for what businesses can and cannot prevent you from doing. If, for instance, you think a business should be compelled to bake a cake with a certain message on it, then you can't make the argument that there should be no regulation on how much a business can censor its users. That's not the only example. There's extensive case law that establishes how both governments and businesses have to either allow or curtail speech under certain conditions. A business can't legally compel you to do say something or wear a piece of clothing in a way that discriminates against you. A sex shop can't just open anywhere because, while it's been argued that they should be allowed as a form of free expression, they tend not to be considered as such under the spirit of the law. A person can be held responsible for the aftermath of shouting "fire" in a crowded room, even though this speech is superficially supported by the first amendment. Point being, we make decisions about freedom of speech that don't necessarily follow the letter of the constitution or stay within the bounds of the government. Freedom of speech isn't just a law. It's a social principle upon which America was founded. If all meaningful communication is dominated by too-big-to-fail businesses with AI that can scour all correspondence, a reality we are rapidly approaching, then freedom of speech becomes meaningless. The situation becomes worse when these companies are all politically aligned with the regime. This is why we can't ignore how private companies regulate communication through their systems.

chiefalchemist 6y ago
There's a difference between you saying what you want on the cake (if they had self-service), and the biz having to write what you want written. That said, agreed. Big Tech and Fed Govs working in concert is not a positive. Anyone cheering on FAANG's recent decisions is naive.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Big Tech and Fed Govs working in concert is not a positive. Anyone cheering on FAANG’s recent decisions is naive. FAANG’s recent decisions are directly against the head of the Federal Government, not taken in concert with “Fed Govs”.
  - chiefalchemist 6y ago
    For what, two more weeks? And that head is only 1/3 of the gov. FAANG is siding with the other two.
fabianhjr 6y ago
> a business should be compelled to bake a cake with a certain message on it That is a misrepresentation of the case: > Craig and Mullins filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state's public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. The complain was under a _state law_ specifically to address sexual orientation discrimination and it has been acknowledged that such law doesn't force a business to make cakes with arbitrary messages. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado... That said: > If all meaningful communication is dominated by too-big-to-fail businesses with AI that can scour all correspondence, a reality we are rapidly approaching, then freedom of speech becomes meaningless. I agree that monopolies and centralization are a threat to freedom. Though would argue that it should be addressed both via decentralization (and specifically through counter-anti-desintermediation as discussed in the P2P Foundation: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti-Disintermediation https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti-Disintermediatio...) and anti-trust enforcement.
- jkepler 6y ago
  Thanks for linking to the counter-anti-desintermediation article. I knew the general ideas, but not the term.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Freedom of speech isn’t just a law. It’s a social principle upon which America was founded. Yes, and that principal is specifically that the proper way to advance in ideas is for them to have to compete for the favor of private actors without public authorities intervening, and that the freedom of private actors to choose on their own to promote or relay messages, most critically political messages, including the free choice to decline to do so is essential for free society.

chiefalchemist 6y ago

There's a difference between you saying what you want on the cake (if they had self-service), and the biz having to write what you want written. That said, agreed. Big Tech and Fed Govs working in concert is not a positive. Anyone cheering on FAANG's recent decisions is naive.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Big Tech and Fed Govs working in concert is not a positive. Anyone cheering on FAANG’s recent decisions is naive. FAANG’s recent decisions are directly against the head of the Federal Government, not taken in concert with “Fed Govs”.
- chiefalchemist 6y ago
  For what, two more weeks? And that head is only 1/3 of the gov. FAANG is siding with the other two.

fabianhjr 6y ago

> a business should be compelled to bake a cake with a certain message on it That is a misrepresentation of the case: > Craig and Mullins filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state's public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. The complain was under a _state law_ specifically to address sexual orientation discrimination and it has been acknowledged that such law doesn't force a business to make cakes with arbitrary messages. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado... That said: > If all meaningful communication is dominated by too-big-to-fail businesses with AI that can scour all correspondence, a reality we are rapidly approaching, then freedom of speech becomes meaningless. I agree that monopolies and centralization are a threat to freedom. Though would argue that it should be addressed both via decentralization (and specifically through counter-anti-desintermediation as discussed in the P2P Foundation: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti-Disintermediation https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti-Disintermediatio...) and anti-trust enforcement.

jkepler 6y ago
Thanks for linking to the counter-anti-desintermediation article. I knew the general ideas, but not the term.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Freedom of speech isn’t just a law. It’s a social principle upon which America was founded. Yes, and that principal is specifically that the proper way to advance in ideas is for them to have to compete for the favor of private actors without public authorities intervening, and that the freedom of private actors to choose on their own to promote or relay messages, most critically political messages, including the free choice to decline to do so is essential for free society.