14 ms·

You could make a decent argument that twitter and the other social giants have more real power than most countries' governments on this planet. The whole reaso

You could make a decent argument that twitter and the other social giants have more real power than most countries' governments on this planet. The whole reason we think governments shouldn't censer speech is specifically because they are so powerful, and while you may like who's in power today, good luck trying to keep it that way.

hnlmorg 6y ago
Which is exactly the reason why Twitter should be allowed to set it's own moderation rules. Who else is going to tell Twitter what they can and cannot moderate? The only other people who can is the government and then you have a situation where the government is now controlling speech. The ironic thing about this situation is that Twitter exercising their own judgement on what can and cannot be hosted on their platform is actually a good thing for the demonstration of independence of social platforms from government control.
- 8note 6y ago
  That they're only doing it now that trump is leaving office maybe suggests the opposite - that government does have a lot of control
  - hnlmorg 6y ago
    My interpretation is that isn't that they were fearful of government control but rather welcomed the controversy to their platform as it resulted in more eyeballs on their inlined advertisements. Trump's departure from office plus the riot was where the balance was tipped (ie Twitter's potential future income from Trump's controversies was no longer greater than the reputational cost in keeping him on the platform).
  - jq-r 6y ago
    True. And if you remember all those hearings where they pretty much forced those Twitter/FB/Amazon/Google CEOs where they berated them like little kids. Those CEOs didn't really object much and knew they could get in a lot of trouble if they did so. Unfortunately, Trump could hurt those companies if he wanted I'm sure. Just look at what happened to Huawei, now the writing is on the wall for DJI and some others. I'm sure those CEOs were just biding their time waiting for Trump to go (and now they decided to act where it is obvious that he's done).
alkonaut 6y ago
The argument boils down to: if freedom of speech is the freedom to speak in the town square, could we ever have a situation where social media is the Town Squre of today? I think not. I just don't think we'll ever have functioning legal frameworks for that. Basically: freedom of speech and expression will only apply to what you do with your mouth, in the street. "Speech at scale", such as social media, will simply not be able to be included in it. That might seem like a pessimistic take, but I don't think it is. The alternative is democratically elected governments taking a greater role in social media, effectively claiming services to be part of the substrate of society (Twitter, Streets...). I don't like that idea either. The lesser evil seems like the first scenario: freedom of speech not including at scale.

hnlmorg 6y ago

Which is exactly the reason why Twitter should be allowed to set it's own moderation rules. Who else is going to tell Twitter what they can and cannot moderate? The only other people who can is the government and then you have a situation where the government is now controlling speech. The ironic thing about this situation is that Twitter exercising their own judgement on what can and cannot be hosted on their platform is actually a good thing for the demonstration of independence of social platforms from government control.

8note 6y ago
That they're only doing it now that trump is leaving office maybe suggests the opposite - that government does have a lot of control
- hnlmorg 6y ago
  My interpretation is that isn't that they were fearful of government control but rather welcomed the controversy to their platform as it resulted in more eyeballs on their inlined advertisements. Trump's departure from office plus the riot was where the balance was tipped (ie Twitter's potential future income from Trump's controversies was no longer greater than the reputational cost in keeping him on the platform).
- jq-r 6y ago
  True. And if you remember all those hearings where they pretty much forced those Twitter/FB/Amazon/Google CEOs where they berated them like little kids. Those CEOs didn't really object much and knew they could get in a lot of trouble if they did so. Unfortunately, Trump could hurt those companies if he wanted I'm sure. Just look at what happened to Huawei, now the writing is on the wall for DJI and some others. I'm sure those CEOs were just biding their time waiting for Trump to go (and now they decided to act where it is obvious that he's done).

alkonaut 6y ago

The argument boils down to: if freedom of speech is the freedom to speak in the town square, could we ever have a situation where social media is the Town Squre of today? I think not. I just don't think we'll ever have functioning legal frameworks for that. Basically: freedom of speech and expression will only apply to what you do with your mouth, in the street. "Speech at scale", such as social media, will simply not be able to be included in it. That might seem like a pessimistic take, but I don't think it is. The alternative is democratically elected governments taking a greater role in social media, effectively claiming services to be part of the substrate of society (Twitter, Streets...). I don't like that idea either. The lesser evil seems like the first scenario: freedom of speech not including at scale.