11 ms·

They're not deciding what is acceptable speech. They're deciding what is acceptable speech for their platforms and services. And given how absolutely insane and

They're not deciding what is acceptable speech. They're deciding what is acceptable speech for their platforms and services. And given how absolutely insane and extreme that speech became before they took action, it's just strange to look at these companies like they're a problem. They tolerated increasingly violent and hateful rhetoric until people literally stormed the Capitol, then took action against the worst offender that helped to plan violence against our elected officials. This isn't some theoretical case of billionaires imposing their worldviews by banning people that we should be tremendously fearful of.

dahfizz 6y ago
> This isn't some theoretical case of billionaires imposing their worldviews by banning people that we should be tremendously fearful of. I think you've missed the point. The concern OP raises is that this is no longer theoretical - these few billionaires actually can impose their worldview by controlling speech. In this case, we can all agree that Parler had to go. But the precedent / principle of the issue can be considered separately. > They're not deciding what is acceptable speech. They're deciding what is acceptable speech for their platforms and services. This is a distinction without a difference. If the major platforms all ban you, you are silenced. Its time we recognize the power these platforms have.
- big_curses 6y ago
  > This is a distinction without a difference. I disagree, there is an extreme difference there. Freedom of speech is specifically in regards to the government giving you the negative right of being able to say whatever you want without government prosecution (aside from some edge cases like direct threats and the like, which are closer to actual violence). What they do not do is guarantee you a platform. You are free to say whatever you like, but you are not owed the right to be listened to. Removing someone from a platform is not silencing them. A private company does not owe you anything, let alone service.
  - robertlagrant 6y ago
    No. The first amendment is about the government. The concept of freedom of speech is broader. If in a pandemic I can only legally communicate via digital tools, and the billionaires running the digital tools all decide to ban me, I am silenced.
    - 8note 6y ago
      It is not true that you can only legally communicate via digital tools. The US still has a post office
      - ccn0p 6y ago
        You're right, but the reality is that physical mail is no longer an effective form of communication relative to the speed of online platforms in most cases.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - skuthus 6y ago
      >the billionaires running the digital tools all decide to ban me, I am silenced. How so? Are you incapable of using non-digital media to communicate? Are you incapable of creating your own digital platforms for communication or using alternative, less popular means to do so? Are you prevented from going to city hall, council meetings, political rallies, or voting? Your speech as it relates to your rights granted in the constitution remains completely intact. Your rights are unaffected by your access to certain digital platforms.
      - cm2187 6y ago
        If you are on the no fly list of an airline, aren’t you free to buy your own B787, get a pilot license, get the relevant airport slots and authorisations and go fly by yourself anywhere you want? I mean in theory yes.
- Splendor 6y ago
  > Its time we recognize the power these platforms have. We have. That's why millions of people have pushed these companies to take a stand against hate. None of these companies are doing this because they want to lose money. If they thought it would be profitable long-term, they would keep doing it. It's the invisible hand of the market that you're really upset with here.
  - ccn0p 6y ago
    don't discount the power of personal ideologies inside of these companies as well.
  - Noos 6y ago
    It's not their job to "take a stand against hate." I don't buy books from Amazon because I like their opinion on the homelessness situation in the world today. I don't ask my cashier at the grocery store his thoughts on gay marriage, and I don't expect corporations to do more than sell me goods I need. The weird politicization of commerce is baffling to me.
    - Splendor 6y ago
      Consumers using their collective economic power to push for change is not a new concept. I would suggest you take advantage of your willingness to buy books on Amazon if this is truly a baffling concept to you. Then read some of them.
- agloeregrets 6y ago
  Casual reminder that the slippery slope fallacy is ultimately a fallacy. I think the issue isn't really controlled speech with these platforms but more often a loss of control of the narrative. They are ill-preppared to deal with hate speech and often will act as the very propagators of it. (See FB in 2016). The real issue to be found is the massive control they have in light of their blindness to the context of their product and inability to enact real censorship of things that are truly intolerant. Personally looking from the outside in, I think that makes them a long-term risk to themselves rather than just a risk to society. It's worth noting that this will likely lead to a platform that intentionally 'free' to intolerant behavior that will compete and likely compete well as it will be additive to those looking for hate.
dehrmann 6y ago
AWS is more interesting in that case, though, since it's usually transparent to end users. AWS not doing business with Parler is a little like a craft store not selling posterboard and markers to a klansman, or a gun store not selling rounds to the guy who keeps talking about insurrection.
- spaced-out 6y ago
  >gun store not selling rounds to the guy who keeps talking about insurrection Yes, imagine a small town, and there's a guy known for always ranting about the coming insurrection, pedophile conspiracies, how "The Great Awakening" is near... then one day he walks into the town gun store and asks to buy a bunch of AR-15s and a ton of ammo, and the owner of the store says: "Hmm... no."
  - bbreier 6y ago
    To elaborate on your point here, gun store owners choosing not to sell firearms to particular customers because they suspect those customers are a danger to themselves or others for any reason (including just the owners' hunch) is very commonplace, and not generally controversial.
- ldoughty 6y ago
  From the letter AWS sent, a better analogy would be: Craft store noticed their brand logo was on a poster board with messages calling for rape and execution of named individuals (a clearly illegal act). Craft store said in their sale recipt that the reserve the right to stop serving customers that promote illegal conduct. First, however, the craft store asked the organizer to stop providing their poster boards to people organizing mass rape and execution event planning. "Please moderate, and you can continue to use our service" The organizer days "go bleep yourself", to the store, followed by "if my members want to organize a mass execution of people, that's their protected speech!” Store says "okay, your not welcome here anymore, see our terms of service" AWS gave them a chance.. but at the end of the day, those messages calling for illegal acts are stored on AWS servers.. and Parler wanted to promote that kind of content to continue and amplify (it's good for business), but every day AWS is probably getting 50 warrants for information tied to having Parler as a customer. AWS service mark up doesn't cover 20 full time lawyers
mful 6y ago
Modeling them as independent businesses that can decide — based on any non-protected principle they choose — to censor speech is too generic to be useful. They are closer to telephone or radio or broadcast TV companies than to private enterprise as an overarching category. Communication business are, of course, regulated around what they can and cannot say on air (the broadcast ones, specifically), and we probably need a similar approach to handling social media. Yet we do not treat them like regulated broadcast media, which I guess is unsurprising in that regulation lags behind technology. In the context of Parler, it seems they tried to make the best of a bad situation. But I don't know that we should cheer this as "the right outcome", even if, in this case, it seems justified (my gut is that this was the right thing to do, in this specific case). It's time to ask broader questions around whether these companies should have that power at all, or if we need government to step in.

dahfizz 6y ago

> This isn't some theoretical case of billionaires imposing their worldviews by banning people that we should be tremendously fearful of. I think you've missed the point. The concern OP raises is that this is no longer theoretical - these few billionaires actually can impose their worldview by controlling speech. In this case, we can all agree that Parler had to go. But the precedent / principle of the issue can be considered separately. > They're not deciding what is acceptable speech. They're deciding what is acceptable speech for their platforms and services. This is a distinction without a difference. If the major platforms all ban you, you are silenced. Its time we recognize the power these platforms have.

big_curses 6y ago
> This is a distinction without a difference. I disagree, there is an extreme difference there. Freedom of speech is specifically in regards to the government giving you the negative right of being able to say whatever you want without government prosecution (aside from some edge cases like direct threats and the like, which are closer to actual violence). What they do not do is guarantee you a platform. You are free to say whatever you like, but you are not owed the right to be listened to. Removing someone from a platform is not silencing them. A private company does not owe you anything, let alone service.
- robertlagrant 6y ago
  No. The first amendment is about the government. The concept of freedom of speech is broader. If in a pandemic I can only legally communicate via digital tools, and the billionaires running the digital tools all decide to ban me, I am silenced.
  - 8note 6y ago
    It is not true that you can only legally communicate via digital tools. The US still has a post office
    - ccn0p 6y ago
      You're right, but the reality is that physical mail is no longer an effective form of communication relative to the speed of online platforms in most cases.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - skuthus 6y ago
    >the billionaires running the digital tools all decide to ban me, I am silenced. How so? Are you incapable of using non-digital media to communicate? Are you incapable of creating your own digital platforms for communication or using alternative, less popular means to do so? Are you prevented from going to city hall, council meetings, political rallies, or voting? Your speech as it relates to your rights granted in the constitution remains completely intact. Your rights are unaffected by your access to certain digital platforms.
    - cm2187 6y ago
      If you are on the no fly list of an airline, aren’t you free to buy your own B787, get a pilot license, get the relevant airport slots and authorisations and go fly by yourself anywhere you want? I mean in theory yes.
Splendor 6y ago
> Its time we recognize the power these platforms have. We have. That's why millions of people have pushed these companies to take a stand against hate. None of these companies are doing this because they want to lose money. If they thought it would be profitable long-term, they would keep doing it. It's the invisible hand of the market that you're really upset with here.
- ccn0p 6y ago
  don't discount the power of personal ideologies inside of these companies as well.
- Noos 6y ago
  It's not their job to "take a stand against hate." I don't buy books from Amazon because I like their opinion on the homelessness situation in the world today. I don't ask my cashier at the grocery store his thoughts on gay marriage, and I don't expect corporations to do more than sell me goods I need. The weird politicization of commerce is baffling to me.
  - Splendor 6y ago
    Consumers using their collective economic power to push for change is not a new concept. I would suggest you take advantage of your willingness to buy books on Amazon if this is truly a baffling concept to you. Then read some of them.
agloeregrets 6y ago
Casual reminder that the slippery slope fallacy is ultimately a fallacy. I think the issue isn't really controlled speech with these platforms but more often a loss of control of the narrative. They are ill-preppared to deal with hate speech and often will act as the very propagators of it. (See FB in 2016). The real issue to be found is the massive control they have in light of their blindness to the context of their product and inability to enact real censorship of things that are truly intolerant. Personally looking from the outside in, I think that makes them a long-term risk to themselves rather than just a risk to society. It's worth noting that this will likely lead to a platform that intentionally 'free' to intolerant behavior that will compete and likely compete well as it will be additive to those looking for hate.

dehrmann 6y ago

AWS is more interesting in that case, though, since it's usually transparent to end users. AWS not doing business with Parler is a little like a craft store not selling posterboard and markers to a klansman, or a gun store not selling rounds to the guy who keeps talking about insurrection.

spaced-out 6y ago
>gun store not selling rounds to the guy who keeps talking about insurrection Yes, imagine a small town, and there's a guy known for always ranting about the coming insurrection, pedophile conspiracies, how "The Great Awakening" is near... then one day he walks into the town gun store and asks to buy a bunch of AR-15s and a ton of ammo, and the owner of the store says: "Hmm... no."
- bbreier 6y ago
  To elaborate on your point here, gun store owners choosing not to sell firearms to particular customers because they suspect those customers are a danger to themselves or others for any reason (including just the owners' hunch) is very commonplace, and not generally controversial.
ldoughty 6y ago
From the letter AWS sent, a better analogy would be: Craft store noticed their brand logo was on a poster board with messages calling for rape and execution of named individuals (a clearly illegal act). Craft store said in their sale recipt that the reserve the right to stop serving customers that promote illegal conduct. First, however, the craft store asked the organizer to stop providing their poster boards to people organizing mass rape and execution event planning. "Please moderate, and you can continue to use our service" The organizer days "go bleep yourself", to the store, followed by "if my members want to organize a mass execution of people, that's their protected speech!” Store says "okay, your not welcome here anymore, see our terms of service" AWS gave them a chance.. but at the end of the day, those messages calling for illegal acts are stored on AWS servers.. and Parler wanted to promote that kind of content to continue and amplify (it's good for business), but every day AWS is probably getting 50 warrants for information tied to having Parler as a customer. AWS service mark up doesn't cover 20 full time lawyers

mful 6y ago

Modeling them as independent businesses that can decide — based on any non-protected principle they choose — to censor speech is too generic to be useful. They are closer to telephone or radio or broadcast TV companies than to private enterprise as an overarching category. Communication business are, of course, regulated around what they can and cannot say on air (the broadcast ones, specifically), and we probably need a similar approach to handling social media. Yet we do not treat them like regulated broadcast media, which I guess is unsurprising in that regulation lags behind technology. In the context of Parler, it seems they tried to make the best of a bad situation. But I don't know that we should cheer this as "the right outcome", even if, in this case, it seems justified (my gut is that this was the right thing to do, in this specific case). It's time to ask broader questions around whether these companies should have that power at all, or if we need government to step in.