4 ms·
You're only seeing a straw man version of the view opposing yours. Claiming to have a right to use a telephone isn't a demand to be heard, it is a demand to le
by BlackFly 6y ago
You're only seeing a straw man version of the view opposing yours.
Claiming to have a right to use a telephone isn't a demand to be heard, it is a demand to let a person talk to people that want to hear them. People blocking a number because they don't want to hear from it is another story. While some people are demanding the right to speak, most defenders aren't demanding the right to be heard, those people are demanding the right to hear something.
Yes, the company may be facilitating communication is doesn't approve of, but it isn't amplifying it. The amplification with social media occurs because people that want to hear the message tell other people that want to hear the message about it and it is so easy to go out and hear the message. Telephone companies helped facilitate organization of all kinds of odious things, but rarely is it suggested that the phone companies should deny access.
Censorship is equivalent to the censor telling people, "Because we don't like the message, we won't let you hear this message."
The debate is on how necessary social media is to our communications and how reasonable it is to deny access. That is, how similar is it to a telephone or mail.
- doctor_eval 6y agoIt’s not legal, and you don’t have the right, to threaten or harass or people over the phone. There are all sorts of laws about your conduct over a phone. Owning a phone isn’t a constitutional right. And a phone doesn’t amplify your voice - you can only call one person at a time. I accept your point that people want to hear the message. But that’s irrelevant. There is no legal or historical basis for forcing a company to give someone a platform. You might not agree with that in principal, but the legal argument is about the right to speak without being punished, not the right to be heard.
- BlackFly 6y agoThere are directly legal and historical bases for forcing companies to give someone a "platform" to speak, as I have already stated: telephones, mail, and public forums. The debate is about how much social media resembles those communication media and how much of the philosophy of treatment in one situation is transferable from one context to another. You cannot disentangle the right to speak from the right to listen, and that is why so many people are frustrated: their ability to listen to their chosen speaker was taken away from them. Which is my only point (having not given my opinion on where I stand): accusing opposition as demanding to be heard and have their voice amplified is uncharitable and misunderstands the extent of the debate.