3 ms·

I never said publication wasn't protected under free speech. If the government pressures twitter to ban your account, that's censorship and a violation of freed

I never said publication wasn't protected under free speech. If the government pressures twitter to ban your account, that's censorship and a violation of freedom of speech. My argument was that your right to freedom of speech does not compel others to publish your speech. If you send me an e-mail with your opinion and the instruction to forward it to all my contacts, then I am not violating your freedom of speech by refusing to do so. And yes, freedom of speech does not protect net neutrality. That's why we need the FCC to set those rules and enforce them. What some people are arguing for is a sort of "opinion neutrality" for social media companies that forces them to treat all opinions equally without moderation. You can certainly debate the pros and cons of such a rule, but it's not a consequence of your right to freedom of speech.

high_density 6y ago
once again, same here: to maintain democracy, no political entity should be able to snuff the other side. By your logic, it's OK for Bill Gates to buy all the press influence to completely silence the politically-other-side. And my mention of net neutrality is to show how flawed your whole logic process is. > What some people are arguing for is a sort of "opinion neutrality" for social media companies that forces them to treat all opinions equally without moderation. hm I actually find this scary. Maybe you're from China, where deviant opinions/minorities must be snuffed down for "harmonious society"?
- armada651 6y ago
  > By your logic, it's OK for Bill Gates to buy all the press influence to completely silence the politically-other-side. That is not OK, for the very simple reason you shouldn't be allowed to monopolize the media or any industry for that matter. The way you protect free speech is by not allowing any company to become so large and powerful that it rivals governments and can enact censorship. > And my mention of net neutrality is to show how flawed your whole logic process is. I don't see how that points out a flaw? I just explained that net neutrality is not protected under freedom of speech, so I don't see its relevance. > hm I actually find this scary. Maybe you're from China, where deviant opinions/minorities must be snuffed down for "harmonious society"? Thank you for keeping the discussion respectful. I don't think opinions should be snuffed out, but I also think you shouldn't be forced by the government to publish lies. I worry that if governments can force companies to publish all opinions including the ones they don't agree with, then they can also force them to publish propaganda.
  - hnlurker 6y ago
    > I worry that if governments can force companies to publish all opinions including the ones they don't agree with, then they can also force them to publish propaganda. Now do wedding cakes!!

high_density 6y ago

once again, same here: to maintain democracy, no political entity should be able to snuff the other side. By your logic, it's OK for Bill Gates to buy all the press influence to completely silence the politically-other-side. And my mention of net neutrality is to show how flawed your whole logic process is. > What some people are arguing for is a sort of "opinion neutrality" for social media companies that forces them to treat all opinions equally without moderation. hm I actually find this scary. Maybe you're from China, where deviant opinions/minorities must be snuffed down for "harmonious society"?

armada651 6y ago
> By your logic, it's OK for Bill Gates to buy all the press influence to completely silence the politically-other-side. That is not OK, for the very simple reason you shouldn't be allowed to monopolize the media or any industry for that matter. The way you protect free speech is by not allowing any company to become so large and powerful that it rivals governments and can enact censorship. > And my mention of net neutrality is to show how flawed your whole logic process is. I don't see how that points out a flaw? I just explained that net neutrality is not protected under freedom of speech, so I don't see its relevance. > hm I actually find this scary. Maybe you're from China, where deviant opinions/minorities must be snuffed down for "harmonious society"? Thank you for keeping the discussion respectful. I don't think opinions should be snuffed out, but I also think you shouldn't be forced by the government to publish lies. I worry that if governments can force companies to publish all opinions including the ones they don't agree with, then they can also force them to publish propaganda.
- hnlurker 6y ago
  > I worry that if governments can force companies to publish all opinions including the ones they don't agree with, then they can also force them to publish propaganda. Now do wedding cakes!!