4 ms·

I don't think it's this simple. That interpretation of freedom of speech seems a bit literal. The point is that people should have the ability to voice their op

I don't think it's this simple. That interpretation of freedom of speech seems a bit literal. The point is that people should have the ability to voice their opinions, and have their voice heard if anyone wants to hear it. Since today that's done primarily through social media sites, blogs, and videos, preventing people from using those mediums is limiting their freedom of speech. And of course I'm not saying there aren't limits to freedom of speech. There are legitimate limits. But a social media company deciding they don't want you on their platform anymore without any due process seems wrong. I just don't buy the overly literal "this is private property and I get to decide what you're allowed to say here", when that private property is our primary medium for communication.

Jare 6y ago
I agree with that in the same way that I agree with strong anti-monopolistic laws, and with the expanded understanding of de-facto monopoly where (for example) Apple/iOS is one despite billions of Android devices. But I do not think Discord is at that level yet, while Facebook, Twitter and YouTube most definitely are. All you can reasonably ask a normal company is that they do not act to harm society in their pursuit of profit. And they may argue that they believe the dynamic of WSB is harmful to society. I think that position in this case and for WSB is defensible, and I am yet undecided personally if I actually agree with it or not. (I do believe that WSB may grow to become clearly harmful, but I'm not sure they're there yet)
atoav 6y ago
Not sure. Back in the day it was very common to buy space in a local newspaper and print messages there. The newspaper could (and would!) deny publication of auch messages arbitraily. Living in Germany with laws that ban you from displaying Nazi insignia or spouting certain phrases in public, I don't really believe in the whole "if we ban a certain thing there is a slippery slope and suddenly everyhing is banned". German society more or less collectively decided that tolerance for the intolerant is stupid and did something about it. This might seem a little extrem from an US perspective, but just like that the prudeness of US society seems extreme to us Europeans. You talk about freedom of speech and censor every female nipple there is? Really? What we will and won't tolerate in public forums is a mirror of our respective societies and values. And there is always something we will have to ban or at least frown uppon. E.g. even in the US child molesters won't be very able to talk about how their believes are okay etc. And because all out free speech is destructive we have to strike a balance somewhere inbetween disincentivising people who use free speech to get rid of it and not turning into thought police. Seen from a German perspective the US is so polarized that the polarization alone disencourages most people from leading a free and meaningful discourse.
- ziftface 6y ago
  My point was that private companies shouldn't be unilaterally deciding what is or isn't allowed.

Jare 6y ago

I agree with that in the same way that I agree with strong anti-monopolistic laws, and with the expanded understanding of de-facto monopoly where (for example) Apple/iOS is one despite billions of Android devices. But I do not think Discord is at that level yet, while Facebook, Twitter and YouTube most definitely are. All you can reasonably ask a normal company is that they do not act to harm society in their pursuit of profit. And they may argue that they believe the dynamic of WSB is harmful to society. I think that position in this case and for WSB is defensible, and I am yet undecided personally if I actually agree with it or not. (I do believe that WSB may grow to become clearly harmful, but I'm not sure they're there yet)

atoav 6y ago

Not sure. Back in the day it was very common to buy space in a local newspaper and print messages there. The newspaper could (and would!) deny publication of auch messages arbitraily. Living in Germany with laws that ban you from displaying Nazi insignia or spouting certain phrases in public, I don't really believe in the whole "if we ban a certain thing there is a slippery slope and suddenly everyhing is banned". German society more or less collectively decided that tolerance for the intolerant is stupid and did something about it. This might seem a little extrem from an US perspective, but just like that the prudeness of US society seems extreme to us Europeans. You talk about freedom of speech and censor every female nipple there is? Really? What we will and won't tolerate in public forums is a mirror of our respective societies and values. And there is always something we will have to ban or at least frown uppon. E.g. even in the US child molesters won't be very able to talk about how their believes are okay etc. And because all out free speech is destructive we have to strike a balance somewhere inbetween disincentivising people who use free speech to get rid of it and not turning into thought police. Seen from a German perspective the US is so polarized that the polarization alone disencourages most people from leading a free and meaningful discourse.

ziftface 6y ago
My point was that private companies shouldn't be unilaterally deciding what is or isn't allowed.