8 ms·

When it comes to issues like these I tend to agree with the sentiment of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." B

by dnh44 6y ago

When it comes to issues like these I tend to agree with the sentiment of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." But this isn't about criminalising speech promoting conspiracy theories, radicalisation, and racism. It's about private entities withdrawing the infrastructure of speech, which obviously gets a lot more complicated to reason about and legislate. I'm mostly okay with Apple and Google removing the app from their stores. I'm slightly less okay with Amazon withdrawing their services. But if Parler ends up reborn on a server running out of someones house or business I would be very much against their utility providers cutting off access. So I guess what I'm saying is that I'm with you and don't quite know what to think about this either. However I do worry that if we're not careful as a society someone posting on HN (or maybe a government approved Facebook group) will eventually say: >The internet was a hate site, filled with conspiracy theories, radicalization and racism. So it's no loss that it's gone, and it took far too long to deal with it.

esyir 6y ago
Let's put it a different way then. Imagine right wing dystopia where everything you value is considered bad. Now you try to discuss Gay rights. You can't talk about it on Facebook, nor on any platform, as they ban you instantly. You build your own platform. Aws/gcp/azure ban you there too and kill the whole thing. I'm going to go the next step. Now credit cards and other payment services refuse services as well. Are you supposed to rebuild the entire tech ecosystem that the entire world runs on? Fight through every damn moat along the way? Is this the bar we set here? Its easy to talk free speech for popular speech. It's how people react to unpopular speech that shows their true colours.
- ip26 6y ago
  The 1st means you can't be jailed by the government for discussing gay rights. It doesn't mean private individuals have to humor you. It doesn't even mean they have to listen to you.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    There are other laws than the 1st Amendment that come into play here. The 3 biggest technology companies in the world united in the last two days to shut down an upstart competitor who was, at the time, literally the #1 app on iPhone and Android. So the issue is primarily one of anti-trust laws. Monopolies do not get to arbitrarily and selectively enforce their ToS against competitors; that is an illegal abuse of market power. The tech giants this week seem to have demonstrated that they do in fact hold monopoly power in the market, and are willing to use it to crush a potential competitor. This seems to me to be an unprecedented situation, a likely anti-trust violation, and potentially to the extent that it was a coordinated action by these companies, a violation of RICO statutes. I think it is fair to say that Parler, like every social network, could be used to post hateful messages, or messages advocating violence. GP stated that Parler was a “hate site” but I think it’s more accurate to say that Parler was a site that carried some hateful messages. It was by no means a site formed or designed specifically to carry hate. A corollary that I would raise is a similar standard in copyright infringement. Sites which are designed specifically with the intent of committing copyright infringement are now criminally liable — it has recently become a serious felony to make these kinds of sites. However, site that show a significant non-infringement purpose are not illegal, even if some infringement takes place on their platform. You might recall that YouTube was a site that got its start with rampant copyright infringement, and to this day has a significant amount of infringing material on its servers, but it is not criminally liable, or even civilly liable for that content due to the fact that the site has a significant non-infringement purpose. I think that’s a fair analogy with Parler. If there’s a copyright or public safety issue with a piece of content posted on a social media platform, the law should provide for a takedown procedure against the content, not against the whole platform. The cause of action should be against the poster, not against the entire platform. Nuking the entire platform from orbit is not an appropriate remedy, and in any case should be done through a court of law, not through the actions of a monopolistic cartel.
    - pertymcpert 6y ago
      > The 3 biggest technology companies in the world united in the last two days to shut down an upstart competitor who was, at the time, literally the #1 app on iPhone and Android. Maybe Facebook, but... How did Parler compete with Apple? What market were they competing in? How did Parler compete with AWS? Did they share the same sort of clients? How did Parler compete with Google?
- dnh44 6y ago
  I'm mostly in agreement with you, and if the choice were left to me I probably wouldn't have banned Parler from the app stores or AWS. Although I'd have to reconsider if an incoming Biden administration would punish me in any upcoming anti-trust case, as cowardly as that may seem. But I also think the rights of the services providers have to considered as well. Should Nintendo be forced to publish porn apps in their Switch online store for example? Should HN be prevented from moderating comments here? Should thedonald.win be prevented from deleting anti-Trump comments? No is my answer to those rhetorical questions. At the same time I don't think that electricity, water, and internet service providers should be allowed to cut off Westboro Baptist Church either. Likewise for their domain name provider. I think things like AWS and payment services are more like electric and water suppliers then they are like app stores and web forums. So I suppose that I'm in favour of drawing a line in a reasonable place, it's just not clear to me yet exactly where that line should be.
  - ng12 6y ago
    I feel similar. It's a tricky problem. What would help is what we should have done a long time ago: Apple should either allow users to install different app stores or submit to regulation as a platform.
glogla 6y ago
> When it comes to issues like these I tend to agree with the sentiment of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That approach, combined with filter bubbles and AI recommendations driving engagement/addiction, gave us rise of things like Antivax movement, Trump, QAnon and now an attempted coup in the US. We should probably think hard before we consider it the only possible approach. At the same time, saying "some speech actually isn't ok" doesn't mean that unaccountable monopolies of corporate overlords that wield more power than some nation states are ok. Both things can be true at the same time.
- dnh44 6y ago
  The root cause of the things you describe aren’t free speech or filter bubbles. It’s a lack of confidence and trust in our governments and corporations. The fact that those same governments and corporations own our media makes it even worse. I think criminalising unpopular speech will make the symptoms of this problem worse rather than better.
  - glogla 6y ago
    "Criminalizing unpopular speech" is a peculiar way to answer to "some speech might be harmful". Is sharing someone else's private information, publishing outright lies about safety of vaccines, or claiming some ethnicities or nationalities are subhuman and should be murdered right now "unpopular speech"? I mean, I sure as hell hope it is unpopular! But it is much more than just "unpopular speech". Framing it like "criminalizing unpopular speech" makes it sound like someone wants to criminalize saying "I think the Twilight series were genuinely good movies." but we're talking about people saying "All those <insert slur> should be killed." And yet, you are right that in some cases this happens - for example when some US states decided to solve problem of people complaining about animal cruelty by making filming on farms illegal. That's a complete bullshit and it is harmful to the society. But people who incite violence and Antivaxxers who actively hurt people by spreading diseases? I don't think so.
    - dnh44 6y ago

by dnh44 6y ago

esyir 6y ago

Let's put it a different way then. Imagine right wing dystopia where everything you value is considered bad. Now you try to discuss Gay rights. You can't talk about it on Facebook, nor on any platform, as they ban you instantly. You build your own platform. Aws/gcp/azure ban you there too and kill the whole thing. I'm going to go the next step. Now credit cards and other payment services refuse services as well. Are you supposed to rebuild the entire tech ecosystem that the entire world runs on? Fight through every damn moat along the way? Is this the bar we set here? Its easy to talk free speech for popular speech. It's how people react to unpopular speech that shows their true colours.

ip26 6y ago
The 1st means you can't be jailed by the government for discussing gay rights. It doesn't mean private individuals have to humor you. It doesn't even mean they have to listen to you.
- zaroth 6y ago
  There are other laws than the 1st Amendment that come into play here. The 3 biggest technology companies in the world united in the last two days to shut down an upstart competitor who was, at the time, literally the #1 app on iPhone and Android. So the issue is primarily one of anti-trust laws. Monopolies do not get to arbitrarily and selectively enforce their ToS against competitors; that is an illegal abuse of market power. The tech giants this week seem to have demonstrated that they do in fact hold monopoly power in the market, and are willing to use it to crush a potential competitor. This seems to me to be an unprecedented situation, a likely anti-trust violation, and potentially to the extent that it was a coordinated action by these companies, a violation of RICO statutes. I think it is fair to say that Parler, like every social network, could be used to post hateful messages, or messages advocating violence. GP stated that Parler was a “hate site” but I think it’s more accurate to say that Parler was a site that carried some hateful messages. It was by no means a site formed or designed specifically to carry hate. A corollary that I would raise is a similar standard in copyright infringement. Sites which are designed specifically with the intent of committing copyright infringement are now criminally liable — it has recently become a serious felony to make these kinds of sites. However, site that show a significant non-infringement purpose are not illegal, even if some infringement takes place on their platform. You might recall that YouTube was a site that got its start with rampant copyright infringement, and to this day has a significant amount of infringing material on its servers, but it is not criminally liable, or even civilly liable for that content due to the fact that the site has a significant non-infringement purpose. I think that’s a fair analogy with Parler. If there’s a copyright or public safety issue with a piece of content posted on a social media platform, the law should provide for a takedown procedure against the content, not against the whole platform. The cause of action should be against the poster, not against the entire platform. Nuking the entire platform from orbit is not an appropriate remedy, and in any case should be done through a court of law, not through the actions of a monopolistic cartel.
  - pertymcpert 6y ago
    > The 3 biggest technology companies in the world united in the last two days to shut down an upstart competitor who was, at the time, literally the #1 app on iPhone and Android. Maybe Facebook, but... How did Parler compete with Apple? What market were they competing in? How did Parler compete with AWS? Did they share the same sort of clients? How did Parler compete with Google?
dnh44 6y ago
I'm mostly in agreement with you, and if the choice were left to me I probably wouldn't have banned Parler from the app stores or AWS. Although I'd have to reconsider if an incoming Biden administration would punish me in any upcoming anti-trust case, as cowardly as that may seem. But I also think the rights of the services providers have to considered as well. Should Nintendo be forced to publish porn apps in their Switch online store for example? Should HN be prevented from moderating comments here? Should thedonald.win be prevented from deleting anti-Trump comments? No is my answer to those rhetorical questions. At the same time I don't think that electricity, water, and internet service providers should be allowed to cut off Westboro Baptist Church either. Likewise for their domain name provider. I think things like AWS and payment services are more like electric and water suppliers then they are like app stores and web forums. So I suppose that I'm in favour of drawing a line in a reasonable place, it's just not clear to me yet exactly where that line should be.
- ng12 6y ago
  I feel similar. It's a tricky problem. What would help is what we should have done a long time ago: Apple should either allow users to install different app stores or submit to regulation as a platform.

glogla 6y ago

> When it comes to issues like these I tend to agree with the sentiment of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That approach, combined with filter bubbles and AI recommendations driving engagement/addiction, gave us rise of things like Antivax movement, Trump, QAnon and now an attempted coup in the US. We should probably think hard before we consider it the only possible approach. At the same time, saying "some speech actually isn't ok" doesn't mean that unaccountable monopolies of corporate overlords that wield more power than some nation states are ok. Both things can be true at the same time.

dnh44 6y ago
The root cause of the things you describe aren’t free speech or filter bubbles. It’s a lack of confidence and trust in our governments and corporations. The fact that those same governments and corporations own our media makes it even worse. I think criminalising unpopular speech will make the symptoms of this problem worse rather than better.
- glogla 6y ago
  "Criminalizing unpopular speech" is a peculiar way to answer to "some speech might be harmful". Is sharing someone else's private information, publishing outright lies about safety of vaccines, or claiming some ethnicities or nationalities are subhuman and should be murdered right now "unpopular speech"? I mean, I sure as hell hope it is unpopular! But it is much more than just "unpopular speech". Framing it like "criminalizing unpopular speech" makes it sound like someone wants to criminalize saying "I think the Twilight series were genuinely good movies." but we're talking about people saying "All those <insert slur> should be killed." And yet, you are right that in some cases this happens - for example when some US states decided to solve problem of people complaining about animal cruelty by making filming on farms illegal. That's a complete bullshit and it is harmful to the society. But people who incite violence and Antivaxxers who actively hurt people by spreading diseases? I don't think so.
  - dnh44 6y ago