4 ms·

I’d like to address this, since it’s a common retort meant to shutdown discussion on censorship. It’s disingenuous , because “First amendment” is so essential

I’d like to address this, since it’s a common retort meant to shutdown discussion on censorship. It’s disingenuous , because “First amendment” is so essential to American culture, that it means both the literal First Amendment to the constitution AND more importantly, the American principle of free expression. Ether you are aware that people are appealing to free expression as a principle, or you are unaware that free expression is more American than apple pie. That’s why I say this retort is disingenuous. So the legal scope of the literal first amendment doesn’t help the discussion on what people and companies should be doing. The discussion is about American values and if people, companies and the government should be living up to them. And that’s what people are trying to debate when they say “first amendment”.

jv22222 6y ago
> it’s a common retort meant to shutdown discussion on censorship For your reference, I did not say it to shut down the discussion. I purposefully said it to open up the discussion in order to hear viewpoints like this. It's something I'm very interested in seeing discussed and I would like to learn more about both sides of the argument in general.
revnode 6y ago
This. The companies are behaving in an un-American manner. What they are doing is deeply selfish and cynical. They should be criticized for their behavior and shamed for it. We should not excommunicate members of our society even if the things they say are reprehensible. And yes, the companies have a right to do it, but there are plenty of things you can do, but should nevertheless be shamed for doing.
- steve76 6y ago
  Who would win in a deplatforming food fight? Google or Apple? Google's union now, right? And Apple fires people in elevators and vowed on their deathbed “I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this. So. Not saying you two should fight. If a fight did break out, who would win? And now that I think about it, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, all have their strengths and flaws. Amazon is hell for suppliers. Why should Apple get paid so much for something they can buy out of China? And does the AWS UI "just work"? Does it really? Facebook keeps files on people like some secret police intelligence unit. And Twitter's long term vision just won't work unless you have no mouth and must scream. Tweet for a subway door to open. How stupid do you have to be.
- fabianhjr 6y ago
  > The companies are behaving in an un-American manner. Those are transnational private companies. What is stopping others from claiming they have been behaving in an un-Chinese manner or an un-European manner or an un-Russian manner so far? How is a naive notion of nationalism of capital an argument of how such entities should behave when they operate in most recognized nations with different ideological and regulatory frameworks?
  - revnode 6y ago
    > Those are transnational private companies. If you're going to sell your services and goods here, you need to comport to the cultural norms HERE. > What is stopping others from claiming they have been behaving in an un-Chinese manner or an un-European manner or an un-Russian manner so far? Nothing. > How is a naive notion of nationalism of capital an argument of how such entities should behave when they operate in most recognized nations with different ideological and regulatory frameworks? They can and do change business practices to fit the region.
    - fabianhjr 6y ago
      > If you're going to sell your services and goods here, you need to comport to the cultural norms HERE. They are also selling their services and goods there so: > They can and do change business practices to fit the region. They have and do change their practices to fit the global region they operate in so the "un-american" critique would be moot.
      - revnode 6y ago
        > They have and do change their practices to fit the global region they operate in so the "un-american" critique would be moot. I'm not sure what this means. They are behaving poorly HERE. I am not criticizing them for the crazy stuff they do elsewhere. That's an entirely different conversation.
        fabianhjr 6y ago
- jonathankoren 6y ago
  > We should not excommunicate members of our society even if the things they say are reprehensible. We do all the time. That's how cultural norms are enforced.
jonathankoren 6y ago
> So the legal scope of the literal first amendment doesn’t help the discussion on what people and companies should be doing. If you're going to go down this road, then you must address government compelled speech, and the limits on the control of private property. I've found that the "private corporations are censoring me" crowd, don't want to engage with this obvious outcome, or pay lip service by saying, "Make [insert big tech company here] is a utility!", again without thinking through the implications. The compelled speech problem is obvious. Give me your car, I want to put a bumper sticker on it. If you don't let me, or you take it off, you're censoring me. This is an absurd request, it's your car, you can control what goes on it. Same if I demand to have a book club meet in your living room. It's your living room. Just because you invite some people over, doesn't mean that everyone has a right to come in. It's private property, and you can express yourself by who you let in, and who you don't. Twitter, Facebook, etc are no different. They're private property. No one has a right to have an account and demand an audience. Now let's take the utility argument, since a utility would mean that everyone needs to be allowed right? Well, a utility is a highly regulated government monopoly. These regulations increase the barrier to entry into these spaces, and effectively eliminate all competition. In fact, protected monopoly status is often the trade for utility status. These concerns of expression versus private property rights are new, they've existed from very beginning. While the prohibitions on government, but not private actions, may sometimes be frustrating, it's a workable, and consistent, solution.
- tonymet 6y ago
  Why is the government the litmus test here? The law is only one realization of virtue.
  - jonathankoren 6y ago
    So you accept that I can control your private property? I’m easy to contact on the internet. I’ll be expecting all your social media credentials emailed to me by the end of of the day. Failure to do so, will be censoring me.

jv22222 6y ago

> it’s a common retort meant to shutdown discussion on censorship For your reference, I did not say it to shut down the discussion. I purposefully said it to open up the discussion in order to hear viewpoints like this. It's something I'm very interested in seeing discussed and I would like to learn more about both sides of the argument in general.

revnode 6y ago

This. The companies are behaving in an un-American manner. What they are doing is deeply selfish and cynical. They should be criticized for their behavior and shamed for it. We should not excommunicate members of our society even if the things they say are reprehensible. And yes, the companies have a right to do it, but there are plenty of things you can do, but should nevertheless be shamed for doing.

steve76 6y ago
Who would win in a deplatforming food fight? Google or Apple? Google's union now, right? And Apple fires people in elevators and vowed on their deathbed “I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this. So. Not saying you two should fight. If a fight did break out, who would win? And now that I think about it, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, all have their strengths and flaws. Amazon is hell for suppliers. Why should Apple get paid so much for something they can buy out of China? And does the AWS UI "just work"? Does it really? Facebook keeps files on people like some secret police intelligence unit. And Twitter's long term vision just won't work unless you have no mouth and must scream. Tweet for a subway door to open. How stupid do you have to be.
fabianhjr 6y ago
> The companies are behaving in an un-American manner. Those are transnational private companies. What is stopping others from claiming they have been behaving in an un-Chinese manner or an un-European manner or an un-Russian manner so far? How is a naive notion of nationalism of capital an argument of how such entities should behave when they operate in most recognized nations with different ideological and regulatory frameworks?
- revnode 6y ago
  > Those are transnational private companies. If you're going to sell your services and goods here, you need to comport to the cultural norms HERE. > What is stopping others from claiming they have been behaving in an un-Chinese manner or an un-European manner or an un-Russian manner so far? Nothing. > How is a naive notion of nationalism of capital an argument of how such entities should behave when they operate in most recognized nations with different ideological and regulatory frameworks? They can and do change business practices to fit the region.
  - fabianhjr 6y ago
    > If you're going to sell your services and goods here, you need to comport to the cultural norms HERE. They are also selling their services and goods there so: > They can and do change business practices to fit the region. They have and do change their practices to fit the global region they operate in so the "un-american" critique would be moot.
    - revnode 6y ago
      > They have and do change their practices to fit the global region they operate in so the "un-american" critique would be moot. I'm not sure what this means. They are behaving poorly HERE. I am not criticizing them for the crazy stuff they do elsewhere. That's an entirely different conversation.
      - fabianhjr 6y ago
jonathankoren 6y ago
> We should not excommunicate members of our society even if the things they say are reprehensible. We do all the time. That's how cultural norms are enforced.

jonathankoren 6y ago

> So the legal scope of the literal first amendment doesn’t help the discussion on what people and companies should be doing. If you're going to go down this road, then you must address government compelled speech, and the limits on the control of private property. I've found that the "private corporations are censoring me" crowd, don't want to engage with this obvious outcome, or pay lip service by saying, "Make [insert big tech company here] is a utility!", again without thinking through the implications. The compelled speech problem is obvious. Give me your car, I want to put a bumper sticker on it. If you don't let me, or you take it off, you're censoring me. This is an absurd request, it's your car, you can control what goes on it. Same if I demand to have a book club meet in your living room. It's your living room. Just because you invite some people over, doesn't mean that everyone has a right to come in. It's private property, and you can express yourself by who you let in, and who you don't. Twitter, Facebook, etc are no different. They're private property. No one has a right to have an account and demand an audience. Now let's take the utility argument, since a utility would mean that everyone needs to be allowed right? Well, a utility is a highly regulated government monopoly. These regulations increase the barrier to entry into these spaces, and effectively eliminate all competition. In fact, protected monopoly status is often the trade for utility status. These concerns of expression versus private property rights are new, they've existed from very beginning. While the prohibitions on government, but not private actions, may sometimes be frustrating, it's a workable, and consistent, solution.

tonymet 6y ago
Why is the government the litmus test here? The law is only one realization of virtue.
- jonathankoren 6y ago
  So you accept that I can control your private property? I’m easy to contact on the internet. I’ll be expecting all your social media credentials emailed to me by the end of of the day. Failure to do so, will be censoring me.