3 ms·

The irony of referencing Germany as an example when Germany has an explicit ban on speech that is anti-constitutional is pretty high here. It would be governme

The irony of referencing Germany as an example when Germany has an explicit ban on speech that is anti-constitutional is pretty high here. It would be government overreach to tell the platforms that they're required to host whatever speech is posted to them, not the other way around. As I've mentioned in other comments, there are more ways to communicate now than at any other time in history. Facebook and Twitter do not have monopolies on speech, nothing on the internet does. See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25750501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25750501 Where would you draw the line?

chrchang523 6y ago
The issue is that the corporations are acting as the government. As you noted, Germany restricts speech more than the US for obvious historical reasons. So the fact that even their government objects to this behavior is evidence against your position, not mine. In your linked comment, all of these governments recognize (3) as a scenario that should be governed by laws (which vary between countries).
- eightysixfour 6y ago
  > In your linked comment, all of these governments recognize (3) as a scenario that should be governed by laws (which vary between countries). So why not 2? When does 2 become 3? > As you noted, Germany restricts speech more than the US for obvious historical reasons. So the fact that even their government objects to this behavior is evidence against your position, not mine. The German and French government objects to the US not having laws that require this behavior and leaving it in the hands of private companies, sure, and I object to the US having censorship laws and would rather private entities be able to make the decision for themselves, the direction of MORE freedom of speech.
  - chrchang523 6y ago
    If this was primarily about "[objecting] to the US not having laws that require this behavior", their emphasis would not have been on the platforms being out of line.

chrchang523 6y ago

The issue is that the corporations are acting as the government. As you noted, Germany restricts speech more than the US for obvious historical reasons. So the fact that even their government objects to this behavior is evidence against your position, not mine. In your linked comment, all of these governments recognize (3) as a scenario that should be governed by laws (which vary between countries).

eightysixfour 6y ago
> In your linked comment, all of these governments recognize (3) as a scenario that should be governed by laws (which vary between countries). So why not 2? When does 2 become 3? > As you noted, Germany restricts speech more than the US for obvious historical reasons. So the fact that even their government objects to this behavior is evidence against your position, not mine. The German and French government objects to the US not having laws that require this behavior and leaving it in the hands of private companies, sure, and I object to the US having censorship laws and would rather private entities be able to make the decision for themselves, the direction of MORE freedom of speech.
- chrchang523 6y ago
  If this was primarily about "[objecting] to the US not having laws that require this behavior", their emphasis would not have been on the platforms being out of line.