5 ms·

>It concerns me that AWS booted a site off their platform for speech issues I'm sorry for the caps but you and a host of others are forgetting something repeat

by xoa 6y ago

>It concerns me that AWS booted a site off their platform for speech issues I'm sorry for the caps but you and a host of others are forgetting something repeatedly and it's getting fairly annoying: AMAZON HAS FREE SPEECH RIGHTS TOO. Just as Parler does, and you do, and I do, and Twitter does, and the various owners and employees of these organizations do, and on and on. It's Free Speech all the way down. And a fundamental aspect of Free Speech isn't just the right to say something, it's necessarily the right to NOT say something, and to NOT provide material support against your will to speech you disagree with. If you or I or anyone else or any general organization decides to NOT provide help to someone else's speech, be it our own direct voice or access to our private property, that's not censorship that is itself Free Speech. They in turn have the right to complain, and to exercise their own freedom of association, and we may change our minds, or not, and others can chime in, and on and on forever. Free Speech is a system not an end goal, a constant churning that hopefully over long enough timescales will give us a better grasp of Truth. When government uses force, that halts the system, and speech becomes frozen. History and present indicates that the bar for that, though not infinite, should be quite high. Some companies that truly have natural monopolies or exercise quasi-governmental power may fall into that too, particularly if they in some way are significantly making use of government power themselves (limited spectrum allocation for cellular carriers for example, or physical infrastructure companies making use of public rights of way). But social and economic censure is a fundamental aspect of the process of Free Speech. 3rd parties aren't some disembodied Other, they're entities that have the same rights as anyone else by default.

umvi 6y ago
Should Verizon and T-Mobile have free speech rights too then? Why should they allow literal Nazis to communicate over their infrastructure?
- xoa 6y ago
  >Should Verizon and T-Mobile have free speech rights too then? Try reading the whole paragraph (emphasis added): >particularly if they in some way are significantly making use of government power themselves (limited spectrum allocation for cellular carriers for example Come on. >Why should they allow literal Nazis to communicate over their infrastructure? Because they're making use of a government granted monopoly on a physically limited common. They should in turn operate as common carriers.
  - umvi 6y ago
    > Because they're making use of a government granted monopoly on a physically limited common. They should in turn operate as common carriers. Hmm, not always though. I use WiFi 99% of the time, including for voice calling, which isn't using any government-allocated cellular spectrum. So in my case, T-Mobile should be able to filter packets going through their servers and censor undesirable speech, right? Their servers, their ToS, right?
    - takeda 6y ago
      I think you got confused, we are talking about booting people off of their service. I don't know how common carriers operate, and perhaps they can't kick you off. Also their government allocated bands don't change if you use "WiFi 99% of the time" they still have the monopoly. As for packet filtering, that's Net Neutrality issue, which last time I checked the right was against and successfully allowed it (except for states that brought their own laws to replace it).
  - diebeforei485 6y ago
    Why does it only apply to things that are physically limited? Isn't that just a bad analogy? Other things are limited too. People's time and attention are limited, and the app stores have a pretty strong duopoly on those. In theory you could print pamphlets and drop them door to door, but come on.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > Because they're making use of a government granted monopoly on a physically limited common Sorry dude. You don't believe in free speech. You are contradicting yourself.
- repeatafterme1 6y ago
  Take a deep breath, and repeat after me: "I am ok with others cancelling companies/people I don't agree with politically". Deep breath out. Ahhh, that feels much better! PD. Just don't you dare cancel those I agree with!
dhimes 6y ago
More than free speech, they have Free Market Rights. Ironically, those bitching about them removing Parler are usually the strongest supporters of the Free Market.
- bob33212 6y ago
  Exactly. Where were they when Christian Bakers didn't want to sell cakes for gay weddings?
  - myownpetard 6y ago
    Far right extremists are not a protected class. LGBTQ is a protected class. A business can choose to not to serve a far right extremist based on their far right extremism. A business cannot choose to not serve a gay person because they are gay. So tired of seeing this false equivalency being posted here and elsewhere.
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  Well I'm clearly not an advocate of fully free markets when there are natural monopolies or societal interests higher than profit. And I'm not bitching, I'm discussing.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
If what users on, say Twitter say constitute it “saying something” then perhaps it should remove the standard disclaimer of how the opinions expressed thereon are that of their users, and not their own, and be held personally liable for what is posted on there. When it suit these platforms, they claim that the opinions are of their users and not their own, yet when it otherwise suit them, they claim ownership.
- xoa 6y ago
  >If what users on, say Twitter say constitute it “saying something” then perhaps it should remove the standard disclaimer of how the opinions expressed thereon are that of their users, and not their own, and be held personally liable for what is posted on there. Why? Hacker News, or Twitter, can say things for itself, and it can also host other people's opinions. There is no collision there. Twitter has Free Speech rights, and is responsible for, whatever it says itself. Twitter also has the Free Speech right to support, or not, anything it likes since it is in no way quasi-governmental. It doesn't owe anyone a soap box. And there is no reason it should be held liable for what users say, the users who say those things should be held liable. >When it suit these platforms, they claim that the opinions are of their users and not their own The law, and common sense as well is clear. Words of their users are not, in fact, theirs. The only thing regular law gives them is protection from not being completely perfect in their attempts at exercising their own Free Speech vs other people on their own property, rather than having to use Common Carrier all-or-nothing. But they could ban whomever they liked regardless. >yet when it otherwise suit them, they claim ownership. Specify. They own their own words and their own resources, and necessarily users must offer them at least a limited non-exclusive license for reproduction due to copyright. That is a fair tradeoff offer for what their users gain, and everyone may accept, or not. Which ones "claim ownership" of other people's words and how? They don't need any ownership for bans, because nobody is entitled to their support.
fjabre 6y ago
Amazon also has monopolistic power and has destroyed many industries.
Consultant32452 6y ago
I feel like if some religious nut has to make a gay wedding cake then Amazon has to serve websites for their political enemies. This is a moral statement and not a legal one.
- notahacker 6y ago
  The wedding cake makers ultimately won. And only found themselves in court because of legislation protecting against refusal of service on the grounds of sexual orientation: nobody could have raised legal objections if they declined to make a cake that said 'God Is Dead', 'Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll' or 'Vote For Pedro' Nobody is forced to make a wedding cake with a long stream of racist invective like one of the examples Amazon suggested might fall foul of its AUP a month before all the Capitol fallout (and Parler replied that they absolutely wouldn't take down) and I think that's for the best.
  - Igelau 6y ago
    That whole thing was weird. I guess if you're a creative professional, be it an artist, designer, or cake decorator, there's going to be some degree of soul-selling you'd be expected to do where you make a decent effort on a project where you'd rather not. But forcing people to make cakes they feel morally icky about sounds like a guaranteed way to get some really ugly, half-assed cakes. Whether we like it or not that they feel that way doesn't seem to matter because an ugly cake that validates me is still an ugly cake.
    - takeda 6y ago
      > But forcing people to make cakes they feel morally icky about sounds like a guaranteed way to get some really ugly, half-assed cakes. Whether we like it or not that they feel that way doesn't seem to matter because an ugly cake that validates me is still an ugly cake. I don't know the details of the case but I think there is a clear line between refusing to do usual service because somebody is from a protected group. Like a ordinary wedding cake only because the person ordering is gay. vs Refusing to create a wedding cake because it is offensive. Like customer asking for a cake in a shape of penis or something offending the artist.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by xoa 6y ago

umvi 6y ago

Should Verizon and T-Mobile have free speech rights too then? Why should they allow literal Nazis to communicate over their infrastructure?

xoa 6y ago
>Should Verizon and T-Mobile have free speech rights too then? Try reading the whole paragraph (emphasis added): >particularly if they in some way are significantly making use of government power themselves (limited spectrum allocation for cellular carriers for example Come on. >Why should they allow literal Nazis to communicate over their infrastructure? Because they're making use of a government granted monopoly on a physically limited common. They should in turn operate as common carriers.
- umvi 6y ago
  > Because they're making use of a government granted monopoly on a physically limited common. They should in turn operate as common carriers. Hmm, not always though. I use WiFi 99% of the time, including for voice calling, which isn't using any government-allocated cellular spectrum. So in my case, T-Mobile should be able to filter packets going through their servers and censor undesirable speech, right? Their servers, their ToS, right?
  - takeda 6y ago
    I think you got confused, we are talking about booting people off of their service. I don't know how common carriers operate, and perhaps they can't kick you off. Also their government allocated bands don't change if you use "WiFi 99% of the time" they still have the monopoly. As for packet filtering, that's Net Neutrality issue, which last time I checked the right was against and successfully allowed it (except for states that brought their own laws to replace it).
- diebeforei485 6y ago
  Why does it only apply to things that are physically limited? Isn't that just a bad analogy? Other things are limited too. People's time and attention are limited, and the app stores have a pretty strong duopoly on those. In theory you could print pamphlets and drop them door to door, but come on.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > Because they're making use of a government granted monopoly on a physically limited common Sorry dude. You don't believe in free speech. You are contradicting yourself.
repeatafterme1 6y ago
Take a deep breath, and repeat after me: "I am ok with others cancelling companies/people I don't agree with politically". Deep breath out. Ahhh, that feels much better! PD. Just don't you dare cancel those I agree with!

dhimes 6y ago

More than free speech, they have Free Market Rights. Ironically, those bitching about them removing Parler are usually the strongest supporters of the Free Market.

bob33212 6y ago
Exactly. Where were they when Christian Bakers didn't want to sell cakes for gay weddings?
- myownpetard 6y ago
  Far right extremists are not a protected class. LGBTQ is a protected class. A business can choose to not to serve a far right extremist based on their far right extremism. A business cannot choose to not serve a gay person because they are gay. So tired of seeing this false equivalency being posted here and elsewhere.
unethical_ban 6y ago
Well I'm clearly not an advocate of fully free markets when there are natural monopolies or societal interests higher than profit. And I'm not bitching, I'm discussing.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

If what users on, say Twitter say constitute it “saying something” then perhaps it should remove the standard disclaimer of how the opinions expressed thereon are that of their users, and not their own, and be held personally liable for what is posted on there. When it suit these platforms, they claim that the opinions are of their users and not their own, yet when it otherwise suit them, they claim ownership.

xoa 6y ago
>If what users on, say Twitter say constitute it “saying something” then perhaps it should remove the standard disclaimer of how the opinions expressed thereon are that of their users, and not their own, and be held personally liable for what is posted on there. Why? Hacker News, or Twitter, can say things for itself, and it can also host other people's opinions. There is no collision there. Twitter has Free Speech rights, and is responsible for, whatever it says itself. Twitter also has the Free Speech right to support, or not, anything it likes since it is in no way quasi-governmental. It doesn't owe anyone a soap box. And there is no reason it should be held liable for what users say, the users who say those things should be held liable. >When it suit these platforms, they claim that the opinions are of their users and not their own The law, and common sense as well is clear. Words of their users are not, in fact, theirs. The only thing regular law gives them is protection from not being completely perfect in their attempts at exercising their own Free Speech vs other people on their own property, rather than having to use Common Carrier all-or-nothing. But they could ban whomever they liked regardless. >yet when it otherwise suit them, they claim ownership. Specify. They own their own words and their own resources, and necessarily users must offer them at least a limited non-exclusive license for reproduction due to copyright. That is a fair tradeoff offer for what their users gain, and everyone may accept, or not. Which ones "claim ownership" of other people's words and how? They don't need any ownership for bans, because nobody is entitled to their support.

fjabre 6y ago

Amazon also has monopolistic power and has destroyed many industries.

Consultant32452 6y ago

I feel like if some religious nut has to make a gay wedding cake then Amazon has to serve websites for their political enemies. This is a moral statement and not a legal one.

notahacker 6y ago
The wedding cake makers ultimately won. And only found themselves in court because of legislation protecting against refusal of service on the grounds of sexual orientation: nobody could have raised legal objections if they declined to make a cake that said 'God Is Dead', 'Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll' or 'Vote For Pedro' Nobody is forced to make a wedding cake with a long stream of racist invective like one of the examples Amazon suggested might fall foul of its AUP a month before all the Capitol fallout (and Parler replied that they absolutely wouldn't take down) and I think that's for the best.
- Igelau 6y ago
  That whole thing was weird. I guess if you're a creative professional, be it an artist, designer, or cake decorator, there's going to be some degree of soul-selling you'd be expected to do where you make a decent effort on a project where you'd rather not. But forcing people to make cakes they feel morally icky about sounds like a guaranteed way to get some really ugly, half-assed cakes. Whether we like it or not that they feel that way doesn't seem to matter because an ugly cake that validates me is still an ugly cake.
  - takeda 6y ago
    > But forcing people to make cakes they feel morally icky about sounds like a guaranteed way to get some really ugly, half-assed cakes. Whether we like it or not that they feel that way doesn't seem to matter because an ugly cake that validates me is still an ugly cake. I don't know the details of the case but I think there is a clear line between refusing to do usual service because somebody is from a protected group. Like a ordinary wedding cake only because the person ordering is gay. vs Refusing to create a wedding cake because it is offensive. Like customer asking for a cake in a shape of penis or something offending the artist.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]