3 ms·

> The current discourse is crazy to me. We have to remember that free speech is literally the FIRST amendment. Here's the first amendment: "Congress shall mak

> The current discourse is crazy to me. We have to remember that free speech is literally the FIRST amendment. Here's the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." "Congress shall not abridge the freedom of speech." It doesn't say "freedom of speech is a mechanism that leads to truth", it doesn't say "freedom of speech means you have to let someone come into your house and speak at you", it doesn't say "freedom of speech means, if you build a social media platform, you have to let fascists use it to spread disinformation with a rapidity and accuracy of targeting that founding fathers could never possibly have conceived of". It just says "Congress shall not abridge the freedom of speech." In the age of social media, we have seen the truly perverse impacts that viral spread of lies can have, like in Myanmar where months of anti-Rohingya propaganda on Facebook lead to the genocide of the Rohingya [0]. Another perverse impact is the fostering of echo chambers where participants could freely share conspiracy theories and convince themselves of truly crazy things, like that Hillary Clinton ran a cabal of pedophiles that worked out of the basement of Comet Pizza, or that tens of thousands of election workers across many states executed a perfect rigging of the US election. In the past, people susceptible to fringe beliefs would struggle to find likeminded people and would have been too embarrassed to freely exercise speech, but per Facebook's own research: "64% of all extremist group joins are due to our recommendation tools” and that most of the activity came from the platform’s “Groups You Should Join” and “Discover” algorithms. [1][2]. Free speech was unleashed in a way never possible before. Last Wednesday, the elected Representatives and Senators of my country were in the process of certifying the results of my country's election, but they were violently interrupted by people who believe a set of lies that they've heard and read hundreds of times. Since this insurrection attempt, we've found a lot of footage indicating these people were looking to kill the Vice President and the Speaker of the House, the #2 and #3 people in the Presidential line of succession. I don't know why people think the 1st amendment means private companies, who aren't Congress at all, should have to make the fruits of their labor accessible to terrorists, or why that's a good thing. But a lot of people here seem to consider that to be an article of faith. I truly have no idea why. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-it-encourages-division-top-executives-nixed-solutions-11590507499 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-it-encourages-di... [2] https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-platforms-must-pay-for-their-role-in-the-insurrection/ https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-platforms-must-pay-for-t...

thesagan 6y ago
I think the confusion stems from the fact that most people speak through or on private property—both digital and physical. But they're taught in school that there is a general "freedom of speech" which doesn't really exist. This sentiment is echoed in mass American media to adults. There's very little "public" speech in a legal sense. The most populated speech structures are privately owned. Censorship is built into those structures. America, as a whole, does not have "free speech" except for property owners. Unless you're on public property, behaving lawfully, such as in court, or "speaking truth" next to the post office, etc. etc. you don't have free speech. So, when people hold a good portion of their discourse through private structures, those structures seem public. The host companies seem like governments through terms of services. They see the first amendment as applying there by default.
- asdff 6y ago
  There is plenty of public speech. You are free to start your own version of AWS and host whatever you'd like on it. You are free to stand on a street corner and start reading out loud from Mein Kampf if you'd like. You are even allowed to march the streets waving a nazi or confederate flag. Private people and companies, on the other hand, are under no obligation to help further your speech.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    Awesome. Now we have established that Big Tech and social media are against free speech, we can all move on.
    - asdff 6y ago
      They aren’t against free speech, they are irrelevant to the discussion. Is a bartender kicking out a rowdy patron against free speech?
      - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
        That wasn’t my point. Your point is that there is a bar that kicks out patrons. Noted. So some people will avoid that bar. Why pretend that it’s open to all. Clearly it’s only open to those who fit the bartender’s definition of acceptable conduct. HST: Sensible people would opine that if the bartender doesn’t have want non bartender approved behaviour, he should clearly paste the instructions and definition of what’s acceptable and what’s not. Also: not serve alcohol or substances that encourage unruly behaviour. In the current scenario, anything pro-trump is not acceptable. Done. We have established that. Case closed. Conclusion: Big Tech is against free speech. We need a baseline understanding of the rules of the game. Why are they acting coy about it? Why not state it and move on?

thesagan 6y ago

I think the confusion stems from the fact that most people speak through or on private property—both digital and physical. But they're taught in school that there is a general "freedom of speech" which doesn't really exist. This sentiment is echoed in mass American media to adults. There's very little "public" speech in a legal sense. The most populated speech structures are privately owned. Censorship is built into those structures. America, as a whole, does not have "free speech" except for property owners. Unless you're on public property, behaving lawfully, such as in court, or "speaking truth" next to the post office, etc. etc. you don't have free speech. So, when people hold a good portion of their discourse through private structures, those structures seem public. The host companies seem like governments through terms of services. They see the first amendment as applying there by default.

asdff 6y ago
There is plenty of public speech. You are free to start your own version of AWS and host whatever you'd like on it. You are free to stand on a street corner and start reading out loud from Mein Kampf if you'd like. You are even allowed to march the streets waving a nazi or confederate flag. Private people and companies, on the other hand, are under no obligation to help further your speech.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  Awesome. Now we have established that Big Tech and social media are against free speech, we can all move on.
  - asdff 6y ago
    They aren’t against free speech, they are irrelevant to the discussion. Is a bartender kicking out a rowdy patron against free speech?
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
      That wasn’t my point. Your point is that there is a bar that kicks out patrons. Noted. So some people will avoid that bar. Why pretend that it’s open to all. Clearly it’s only open to those who fit the bartender’s definition of acceptable conduct. HST: Sensible people would opine that if the bartender doesn’t have want non bartender approved behaviour, he should clearly paste the instructions and definition of what’s acceptable and what’s not. Also: not serve alcohol or substances that encourage unruly behaviour. In the current scenario, anything pro-trump is not acceptable. Done. We have established that. Case closed. Conclusion: Big Tech is against free speech. We need a baseline understanding of the rules of the game. Why are they acting coy about it? Why not state it and move on?