4 ms·

Fine - let's run with this. We set up a system where certain ideas are not tolerated. There is a preferential system for use of mass communication platforms.

Fine - let's run with this. We set up a system where certain ideas are not tolerated. There is a preferential system for use of mass communication platforms. Only officially sanctioned speakers or patterns of thought are allowed to be broadcast to the mass. A step further: Who decides what is acceptable? And on what grounds shall we suspend the speech of others? What stops this from becoming suppression of political speech?

shadowgovt 6y ago
I believe you've described something akin to the existing infrastructure for issuing radio broadcast licenses via the FCC. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-pr... There is likely some guidance to be had on this topic from studying the way the FCC has navigated the Scylla and Charybdis of authorizing broadcast licenses vs. trampling the First Amendment rights of American citizens.
jakelazaroff 6y ago
This is a little like saying that we shouldn't have speed limits, because who decides what speed is safe for driving? We all decide, collectively. That is how society works: a group of people making tradeoffs. Individual sacrifices for the benefit of the group. Obviously, no tradeoff will make every single person happy. But that doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and let people do 90 in a school zone.
- gxs 6y ago
  The difference is our constitution doesn't explicitly say to remove speed limits. If it did, we'd have to go through proper process to get the constitution amended.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    Sure, a constitution is just a formalization of those tradeoffs. But the US Constitution has nothing to do with this article or the parallel current events.
    - gxs 6y ago
      Maybe we're approaching this from different angles/aren't on the same page. I was looking at this through the lense of free speech/censorship.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        Sorry, let me elaborate. You said that the difference between my speed limit example and (presumably) the article/current events is that the latter is addressed by the Constitution. I disagree with that assertion — the Constitution specifically forbids abridgement of free speech by the government, not by private entities. You can take the position that private entities should uphold the "spirit" of the First Amendment even though they're not compelled to. But that's a moral argument, not a legal one.
        gxs 6y ago
        Gotcha, that's why I added the bit about going through due process vs a private entity (especially an entity that runs an entire platform) deciding your speech is banned with no oversight. This issue gets complicated, as stated cureently in your post, is of course correct. I guess the conversation I want to have is a completely separate one: these companies have reached a massive scale, a scale that you could argue is of government proportions, and hence maybe should in some instances be handled as such. Should Google or Apple get to decide who has free speech, at their scale? I agree with you 100% - this is as of today a moral argument. My follow up question is, should it be?
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        I'll add that most of my objection here is to the comment to which I originally replied. I really dislike the "there's no objectively correct line, so we shouldn't draw a line at all" point of view. As to your follow up question — I think the root of the issue is not "is it right for a company to make speech decisions" but "is it right for a company to wield so much power over public discourse?" IMO it should remain a moral issue, and we should simply aggressively break up entities that attain "public square" status.
anigbrowl 6y ago
That's an irrational extrapolation, from saying that nobody should be obliged to amplify points of view they find disagreeable to suggesting that they are officially forbidden from doing so. It really misrepresents the argument made by the grandparent post.
- engineer_22 6y ago
  I think I could have been more clear. Let's get to particulars: Imagine a future where large corps like Facebook, Amazon, et al. wield de facto censorship power for domestic social media. Are we OK with this? If the answer is Yes, that's fine, let's do that, but we should talk about it clearly, ditch the partisan left/right dichotomy, (big corps dgaf about ideology) and weigh the pros and cons for our nation, culture, and society.

shadowgovt 6y ago

I believe you've described something akin to the existing infrastructure for issuing radio broadcast licenses via the FCC. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-pr... There is likely some guidance to be had on this topic from studying the way the FCC has navigated the Scylla and Charybdis of authorizing broadcast licenses vs. trampling the First Amendment rights of American citizens.

jakelazaroff 6y ago

This is a little like saying that we shouldn't have speed limits, because who decides what speed is safe for driving? We all decide, collectively. That is how society works: a group of people making tradeoffs. Individual sacrifices for the benefit of the group. Obviously, no tradeoff will make every single person happy. But that doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and let people do 90 in a school zone.

gxs 6y ago
The difference is our constitution doesn't explicitly say to remove speed limits. If it did, we'd have to go through proper process to get the constitution amended.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  Sure, a constitution is just a formalization of those tradeoffs. But the US Constitution has nothing to do with this article or the parallel current events.
  - gxs 6y ago
    Maybe we're approaching this from different angles/aren't on the same page. I was looking at this through the lense of free speech/censorship.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      Sorry, let me elaborate. You said that the difference between my speed limit example and (presumably) the article/current events is that the latter is addressed by the Constitution. I disagree with that assertion — the Constitution specifically forbids abridgement of free speech by the government, not by private entities. You can take the position that private entities should uphold the "spirit" of the First Amendment even though they're not compelled to. But that's a moral argument, not a legal one.
      - gxs 6y ago
        Gotcha, that's why I added the bit about going through due process vs a private entity (especially an entity that runs an entire platform) deciding your speech is banned with no oversight. This issue gets complicated, as stated cureently in your post, is of course correct. I guess the conversation I want to have is a completely separate one: these companies have reached a massive scale, a scale that you could argue is of government proportions, and hence maybe should in some instances be handled as such. Should Google or Apple get to decide who has free speech, at their scale? I agree with you 100% - this is as of today a moral argument. My follow up question is, should it be?
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        I'll add that most of my objection here is to the comment to which I originally replied. I really dislike the "there's no objectively correct line, so we shouldn't draw a line at all" point of view. As to your follow up question — I think the root of the issue is not "is it right for a company to make speech decisions" but "is it right for a company to wield so much power over public discourse?" IMO it should remain a moral issue, and we should simply aggressively break up entities that attain "public square" status.

anigbrowl 6y ago

That's an irrational extrapolation, from saying that nobody should be obliged to amplify points of view they find disagreeable to suggesting that they are officially forbidden from doing so. It really misrepresents the argument made by the grandparent post.

engineer_22 6y ago
I think I could have been more clear. Let's get to particulars: Imagine a future where large corps like Facebook, Amazon, et al. wield de facto censorship power for domestic social media. Are we OK with this? If the answer is Yes, that's fine, let's do that, but we should talk about it clearly, ditch the partisan left/right dichotomy, (big corps dgaf about ideology) and weigh the pros and cons for our nation, culture, and society.