3 ms·

>FWIW, I consider this entirely acceptable of a frame to take No, it's a total bullshit false equivalency. Basic physical infrastructure, using public rights o

• saurik 6y ago
  Setting aside for a moment the false dichotomy you are putting forward that somehow this company's business should be treated differently than any other company's business--which, FWIW, to me is a pretty ridiculous assertion--your frame here is kind of irrelevant to the question of whether there's irony to be had from censoring someone over censorship: as many others have pointed out in this thread, is nothing more than the well-known "paradox of tolerance".
  • xoa 6y ago
    >that somehow this company's business should be treated differently than any other company's business--which, FWIW, to me is a pretty ridiculous assertion This is such a ludicrous statement I honestly am having trouble thinking out to respond. Companies in different industries being treated differently is the universal rule throughout the world and human history. Airliners aren't accountants aren't computer hardware manufacturers aren't electrical companies aren't sports operations aren't restaurants aren't railways aren't... etc etc. A physical infrastructure company isn't an internet platform, and shouldn't be. Seriously what!? >your frame here is kind of irrelevant to the question of whether there's irony to be had from censoring someone over censorship No, it's not remotely irrelevant precisely because different areas of society have different rules. However much you hate Free Speech saurik, at least in America it is the law, and the humans that make up, own, and direct the entities of Twitter or Facebook have the exact same 1st Amendment rights that the rest of us do. It's not "censorship" for you, me, or any other regular private entity to refuse to actively provide help for others' speech. You aren't entitled to my money or property to spread your message, nor am I to yours, unless we are making use of certain public resources. And that last bit brings us back to ISPs, or USPS/FedEx/UPS for that matter. A physical infrastructure company using public money and rights of way and escaping liability for providing carriage via Common Carrier does not have those same rights, anymore than a public university has the same rights as a private one.
    • masonic 6y ago
      Twitter or Facebook have the exact same 1st Amendment rights 1st Amendment constraints don't apply to private entities --only government.
    • BlueTemplar 6y ago
      > It's not "censorship" for you, me, or any other regular private entity to refuse to actively provide help for others' speech. Section 230 was created when Twitter (and the likes) were much less important for public discourse. I'm willing to bet that it's going to be amended, just like the EU version of it was. Consider this precedent : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama > The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. > In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.
      • xoa 6y ago
        >Section 230 was created when Twitter (and the likes) were much less important for public discourse. Section 230 (which was part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 10 years before Twitter was founded) has nothing to do with this. This is about the First Amendment. Section 230, by allowing moderation that isn't 100% perfect, certainly does encourage forums to be much more tolerant towards speech since only those who make the speech will be liable. But if Section 230 didn't exist, it wouldn't stop bans one single bit and in fact would only encourage vastly more stringent moderation and banning (assuming any unvetted user created content continued to be allowed at all on the general web). >Consider this precedent : Look, particularly with 1A SCOTUS has made many changes over the years and EXCLUSIVELY in the direction of more, not less. So if you're going to cite very old case law you really, really need to double check to what extent it's been superseded since. In this particular case the cite is in fact done for you, because if you'd actually read all the way to the bottom of the very Wikipedia[1] piece you cited you'd have noticed that it already has dealt with this: >In Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, the Supreme Court distinguished a private shopping mall from the company town in Marsh v. Alabama* and held that the mall had not been sufficiently dedicated to public use for First Amendment free speech rights to apply within it. >Recently the case has been highlighted as a potential precedent to treat online communication media like Facebook as a public space to prevent it from censoring speech. However, in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck* the Supreme Court found that private companies only count as state actors for first amendment purposes if they exercise “powers traditionally exclusive to the state."* SCOTUS, particularly the current one, isn't going to eliminate the general 1A rights of organizations despite the authoritarian fever dreams of many. ---- 1: Incidentally, the end of 230 would mean that Wikipedia-the-organization would be directly liable for everything users contributed which would result in certain changes, the exact nature of which will be left as an exercise to the reader.