8 ms·

Like most of these rants against "censorship" they skip over people's rights to restrict speech as a form of speech itself: there is no moral (or legal) right t

Like most of these rants against "censorship" they skip over people's rights to restrict speech as a form of speech itself: there is no moral (or legal) right to give people you disagree with a forum or audience to express their view. Calling to silence others (that is, encouraging them to take your view of not giving them an audience) is fine as long as people have a choice on how to respond. If there is some notion that we have no choice but to enable other's views then our own views become secondary to them. We no longer have absolute control over expressing the views we agree or disagree with. Is the government or some other absolute authority censoring wrong? Yes. Are powerful monopolies (or near monopolies) wrong to censor? No, because they have the same speech rights as others, the problem there lies in the market power of the monopolies, not their speech.

bopbeepboop 6y ago
“Free speech” in the moral sense is exactly that people who operate civil infrastructure shouldn’t use their privilege for censorship. So... people who believe in “free speech” as a moral value will disagree with your first paragraph — and hence, your entire post. You assume your conclusion, so your argument fails to be persuasive. “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to say it” is a maxim of free speech — and a bold declaration of the exact opposite of your message: if we want a free society, we have a moral duty to aid the freedom of others — not suppress it.
- hnhg 6y ago
  I guess you have a problem with news editorial decisions then? For example, Fox News have a strong bias running through their programming. Isn't that a kind of implicit censorship of ideas?
  - smaryjerry 6y ago
    Opinions are biased and specific people and programs are biased on Fox News and many other channels, but to be a journalist you literally have to correct false statements you make. This makes Fox News as reliable as all other stations. People often post memes about Fox News or CNN saying something wildly stupid but don’t realize they are posting a literal opinion from an opinion show not news from a news show.
    - GVIrish 6y ago
      > but to be a journalist you literally have to correct false statements you make What? No, you absolutely do not have to correct false statements you make to be a journalist. Reputable publications post retractions and clarifications because that is how they maintain their reputation, but it is in no way a requirement.
      - smaryjerry 6y ago
        You actually do or you can lose your license to broadcast. The FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge. This is also besides slander and libel, lying about an individual or organization.
        GVIrish 6y ago
        > It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge. What particular laws are you referring to? > This is also besides slander and libel, lying about an individual or organization. Sure, you can get sued for that. But getting sued for libel or defamation doesn't mean you can't be a journalist anymore. A journalist who loses a libel lawsuit can keep writing even if they've been sued into oblivion.
- tshaddox 6y ago
  Note how “to defend your right to say it” actually makes sense in its normal context of positive and negative rights. One can in theory fight to defend every person’s right to say what they want to say, because saying something generally does not preclude anyone else from also saying something. However, these modifications doesn’t work the same way: “to defend your right to be trending on Twitter” or “to defend your right to be on CNN tonight.” These things are still forms of speech, of course, and yet their exercise does in fact preclude others from likewise exercising. It doesn’t make sense do defend every person’s right to be trending on Twitter.
  - bopbeepboop 6y ago
    The response is that Twitter is more like a neighborhood bar than CNN — and yeah, it would be pretty weird to exclude people from the bar’s karaoke or comedy night based on their political beliefs. Being able to speak your mind at the bar (or other neighborhood center) is exactly what free speech is about. Actually, it would be illegal to ban people based on politics (as Twitter does) where I live (Seattle), as doing so violates rules for public accommodations which require the owner (a private company) not to discriminate based on political ideology. Rules for private establishments to enforce public access and equality are normal. Whether or not you think it makes sense to defend the right to be trending on Twitter depends on whether you view it like the bar (mic night open to all) or like CNN (editorial control). Of course, if Twitter is like CNN and not the bar, they should lose copyright protections — those aren’t meant for edited anthologies (like CNN).
  - vladvasiliu 6y ago
    Disclaimer: I don't really use Twitter, so my understanding of its mechanics might be wrong. Isn't "trending on Twitter" a popularity contest? As in something's "trending" because more people (users, as opposed to Twitter the company or their moderators) have chosen to interact with that tweet instead of some other? I think that "to defend your right to say it", in this context, does mean "to defend your right to be trending on Twitter". What I understand by that is that anyone has a right to not be artificially prevented from trending, such as hiding the tweet from other users (censorship) or "not counting the votes" correctly which won't have a tweet "trend" even though it's the most retweeted / replied to. As I've said on another comment on this thread, my tweet is my speech, it's not Twitter's. And if the "trending" is the effect of the users' actions, having a tweet become trending is the collective speech of the users, not twitter's. It's pretty much the same thing with CNN. Having someone on "cnn tonight" is CNN's speech. They choose to have person A instead of person B. Twitter removing a tweet or otherwise preventing it from trending is like some external entity – e.g. the cable company – preventing CNN from having person C on the show because they don't agree with person C's speech. In my opinion, in this scenario, CNN is like the Twitter user, not like Twitter the company. Just because they have some third party on the show doesn't make CNN any less of a publisher of speech. Just as if a Twitter user chooses to quote someone instead of someone else (as opposed to twitting an "original thought" or "own opinion").
- Bud 6y ago
  We don't have a "moral duty" to force corporations to allow Nazis on their platform, though. The Nazis are perfectly capable of building their own platform.
  - bopbeepboop 6y ago
    Twitter allows the CCP to post pro-genocide propaganda about how they “emancipate” the minds of Uyghur women. Disney filmed Mulan next to a concentration camp where people are butchered for organs and thanked the CCP for their generous support. These are actual acts supporting a genocidal regime engaged in ethnic cleansing. The “Nazis” of modern America are solidly on the left — and generally the people calling for censorship. Twitter’s support of pro-genocide propaganda from the CCP shows they’re definitely unqualified to act as a censor.
  - esja 6y ago
    What percentage of the people being kicked off these platforms are actually Nazis? It seems very close to zero.
benchaney 6y ago
This article has nothing to do with whether or not platforms ought to be able to perform content moderation. The point you are making is just not relevant. Not even tenuously.
blastro 6y ago
> Calling to silence others (that is, encouraging them to take your view of not giving them an audience) is fine as long as people have a choice on how to respond. This succinctly expresses a feeling of mine I hadn't been able to put into words so beautifully. Thank you!
jonemi 6y ago
The article made the distinction between empirical "can" you censor and normative "should". His point is that censorship or cancelling isn't effective.
dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago
Watching the score on this post go up and down so much is fascinating. But a warning to those who downvote: It's a trap! By doing so you're agreeing with me.
- triceratops 6y ago
  Hahaha!
ycombigator 6y ago
Choosing not to be part of an audience (and encouraging others not to be) is not the same as denying others from being part of one they wish to be part of.
vladvasiliu 6y ago
I think you have a point in that no one has a right to force me to listen to their speech. However, I think that in the case of the monopolies being discussed here, it's different. The issue is that they "enable" speech in a generic way. They don't enable this or that speech in particular. They also don't force A to listen to B's speech. If anything, they do the complete opposite, what with the whole "echo chamber" situation. I think this is the whole meat of the "platform vs publisher" debate. A newspaper or other media have to actively "enable" something. When they publish speech A, they choose to not publish speech B. It's often an "either / or", at least for questions of space. They produce whatever speech they print / show. It's theirs, it's their point of view. However, Facebook, Twitter and other similar companies only put out a tool. This tool is then used by this or that person to speak this or that argument. FB doesn't actively and directly help speaker A anymore that they help speaker B. Also, as an FB user, no one forces you to listen to B's speech if you don't care for it. Your right not to listen to speech you disagree with is not infringed. If I publish a story on FB, it's my story, my speech, not Facebook's. Just as if I shout in the town square it's my speech that I shout. It doesn't become the mayor's speech because it's in his town or the square's architect because he built it in such a way that my voice can physically be heard. If you consider that FB has some right to prevent people from speaking "wrong" views, then why stop at FB? We should come up with ways to help other companies to prevent their product from being used for speech and other actions they don't agree with. Like the power company. Maybe they don't like their electricity being used to spread some "wrong" ideas. I'm pretty sure the local bakery isn't all that happy either to support some X-ist fanatic. Where do we draw the line?
- adamcstephens 6y ago
  The argument is we draw the line at public versus private. Elected governments are not allowed to restrict speech, but private companies are. I don’t subscribe to this view, but it’s what the libertarian paternalists think.
- GVIrish 6y ago
  > However, Facebook, Twitter and other similar companies only put out a tool. This tool is then used by this or that person to speak this or that argument. FB doesn't actively and directly help speaker A anymore that they help speaker B. Facebook actually deliberately manipulates people's feeds in order to promote content that will increase engagement. Twitter does the same by default. > Just as if I shout in the town square it's my speech that I shout. It doesn't become the mayor's speech because it's in his town or the square's architect because he built it in such a way that my voice can physically be heard. The town square is public property. If you instead decide to step inside a private business and shout they can have you removed from the premises. > Like the power company. Maybe they don't like their electricity being used to spread some "wrong" ideas. Electricity is regulated as a utility and as such wouldn't be allowed to cut service for that reason. A bakery could refuse to bake cakes with swatiskas on them if they so chose for example. Where the private business's choices on refusing service runs into trouble is when they refuse service based on a customer's race/ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.
spoonjim 6y ago
I feel like the choice on how to respond is less than it ever was, at least for myself. It is 100% infeasible for me to contract any of the canon taught in my office: diversity is a top priority, women are oppressed, etc. I don’t even disagree with all of it, but I do know that I don’t have the option of doing anything but earnestly nodding my head at the diversity events.
refurb 6y ago
If you are calling to silence people then you don’t believe in free speech. Simple as that.
- elastolin 6y ago
  Pretty much this.
square_usual 6y ago
> Are powerful monopolies (or near monopolies) wrong to censor? No, because they have the same speech rights as others, the problem there lies in the market power of the monopolies, not their speech. This doesn't work if every platform - whether they have market power or not - are compelled to censor by mobs. Most recently, Glenn Greenwald wrote about journalists trying to get Substack to censor its authors [1]. Well before, Signal employees tried to make their company have an anti-extremism policy [2]. The fact of the matter is, most people don't know enough about censorship to fight against it, and so small groups of dedicated people can create enough of an uproar in their circles about something to make it untenable for any major platform to speak about it, simply because those platforms now have to contend with a vocal minority pushing a narrative. This has been a very common tactic in India, where I'm from: interest groups will object to a movie or a book loudly enough to de-facto, and even sometimes, de-jure censor it. Most recently, a Netflix series lead to a controversy as it dared to show teenagers doing drugs. This lead to Netflix being notified buy the Indian equivalent of the CPS, and was directly caused by people complaining about the show on Twitter. [3] There is a pardadox of tolerance with respect to free speech. We cannot expect to maintain freedom of expression if we treat everyone who actually expresses themselves as a sinner. 1: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-start-demanding-substack https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-start-demanding... 2: https://www.theverge.com/22249391/signal-app-abuse-messaging-employees-violence-misinformation https://www.theverge.com/22249391/signal-app-abuse-messaging... 3: https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2021/mar/11/netflix-gets-notice-from-top-child-rights-body-for-wrongful-depiction-of-kids-in-bombay-begum-2275353.html https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2021/mar/11/netflix-...
- NaturalPhallacy 6y ago
  >There is a pardadox of tolerance with respect to free speech. We cannot expect to maintain freedom of expression if we treat everyone who actually expresses themselves as a sinner. In every thread about free speech, the people against it cite the 'paradox of tolerance'. Or half of it anyway. They invariably leave off the back half, which is pointedly anti-censorship: >Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — *In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.* But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. -Karl Popper
Impossible 6y ago
There are multiple issues with free speech no matter what, and some of them are the result of closed platforms that have too much power over communication channels, but ultimately need to moderate to avoid turning their platform into 8chan. I agree with you that many complaints about free speech on the internet have weird caveats like... You should have the right to say whatever you want without criticism or you should have the right to engage in rational debate or play devil's advocate on any topic even if another party doesn't want to. Like you said this might make the free speech proponent happier, but ends up limiting the speech of the person that doesn't want to engage in that way.
tsimionescu 6y ago
So, if AT&T cut out phone service from union sympathizers, that would be OK, because they are just expressing their right to free speech? I think there is such a thing as critical communication infrastructure, and even if it run by private companies, it should be protected from censorship. Whether all of FB or just private messaging fall under this is more debatable, but there have to be clear limits on what a company that facilitates communication between 1 billion people can do.
- Griffinsauce 6y ago
  > the problem there lies in the market power of the monopolies, not their speech.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    So if there were 50 companies, and all of them censored you for saying something really unpopular, would things be any better? Critical infrastructure must be legally protected from censorship and (private, mandate-less) eavesdropping. Whether it is run by a monopoly or many small companies is immaterial.
    - NaturalPhallacy 6y ago
      >Critical infrastructure must be legally protected from censorship and (private, mandate-less) eavesdropping. Whether it is run by a monopoly or many small companies is immaterial. Well said. What we have today is an oligopoly on speech by a small handful of ideologically identical technotyrants who have managed to circumvent the first amendment without ever having had to so much as introduce a bill to Congress. If this keeps going it isn't going to end well.
    - XorNot 6y ago
      Critical infrastructure has never been regarded as a public platform. No one has been prevented from buying their own internet connection or DNS names and running their own site over the "common carrier" status internet backbone infrastructure. It's just a lot less useful when your goal is radicalization and you need to hit the widest possible audience to get conversions.
FeepingCreature 6y ago
> there is no moral (or legal) right to give people you disagree with a forum or audience to express their view. I think there actually is such a moral obligation.
smsm42 6y ago
There's no legal right, unless you are a government employee (who btw routinely censor anyway, e.g. any state university with a content-based speech policy is violating the law). But there's very much a moral right and moral obligation - if you are in a position of power, as people leading the high-tech industry and prominent politicians are, you are responsible for maintaining the society that promoted you to that power in good health. And good health of the society requires free exchange of ideas and freedom to debate this ideas without fear of being persecuted and punished. Yes, even if you're end up being wrong - in fact, freedom to be wrong (excluding, of course, recognition that you're wrong) is vital to any proper debate, since if being wrong implies one's destruction and punishment, no serious and honest debate is possible, and no serious and honest truth-seeking through free exchange of ideas is possible either. You'd either fear to express your ideas, if you're powerless, or use your power to suppress other's ideas and punish them, if you're powerful - and that would have no relation with whose ideas are better. Only when the exchange of ideas are free, and only when ideas can participate in this competition without prior approval by powerful incumbents, any healthy democratic society is possible. And yes, whoever in power in such society, which now includes the big tech leadership, have moral if not legal responsibility for it - a responsibility that they are not only neglecting but blatantly violating right now. Censorship by powerful monopolies is as wrong as censorship by the government, and we need to stop hiding behind this stupid idea "but it's not government, so we can ignore it".
- GVIrish 6y ago
  So in the case that participants on a social platform engage in trolling, harassment, and abuse (sometimes with bots), that company should not do anything? If some people who are attempting to exchange ideas and debate in good faith, are shouted down by people hurling epithets and death threats, the platform owners should shrug their shoulders? When people openly promote and even plan violent attacks against others big tech should just leave things be?
  - smsm42 6y ago
    I think we have more than ample proof of Big Tech companies blocking people not for abuse/bots but for expressing viewpoints that the platform management deems politically unacceptable. So let's not pretend that fighting bot abuse, spam, violent threats, etc. is the same as political censorship - the platforms can do one without the other, and actually have been doing it successfully up to about 2019, when they started increasingly censor by political views. And now political bans are pretty much commonplace. Once can pretend that it's all "fighting disinformation" and "preventing violence" but nobody is buying it anymore. It's political censorship, sometimes openly partisan censorship, and nothing more.
BaseS4 6y ago
And you don't have the freedom to measure the presumed audience reach of someone's speech. Furthermore, your calculation of someone's reach isn't entitled to be the standard of how reduction of reach is to be applied. In fact, you don't even own the audience or the platform that you claim you have the right to deny others from using. You have absolutely no say, sway, or stake in anything you are discussing. You're just hiding behind a Google lobbyist's buzzphrase and pretending you are targeting people you don't like.
SiVal 6y ago
By that argument, the US "monopoly or near monopoly" phone company AT&T during the Vietnam War could have decided that anyone who spoke on the phone about their opposition to the Vietnam War was unpatriotic and canceled their telephone service, and leftists who so often now make the argument you're making would have supported their right to do so. "The private phone companies should be allowed to enforce their terms of service prohibiting anything they consider 'hate speech' against America," explains Noam Chomsky, adding that "I don't share their opinions about the war, but it's not as if the govt-run postal service is doing it, so I don't see the problem." The two major credit card companies that dominated could have canceled anti-war "haters'" credit cards in the name of patriotic support of the just cause, banks closed their checking accounts, the major airlines refused to fly them, and so on, and those on the left with your principled commitment to the right of "monopolies and near monopolies" to enforce their political preferences would have had no major objections--as long as it really is a general principle and not just a pretense. Is the government or some other absolute authority censoring wrong? Yes. Are powerful monopolies (or near monopolies) wrong to censor? No, because they have the same speech rights as others And yet I suspect that this support for the "freedom" of the most powerful to silence, control, and enforce their will is not really the general, politically neutral commitment to everyone's freedom of choice that it pretends to be.
- XorNot 6y ago
  They literally could have if the technology and motivation was there, that's why they were considered a monopoly and broken up by act of the state: because the lack of a viable competitor service means that sort of consumer hostile action was possible. Of course, in reality phone company's exchange the right to monitor what you say for common carrier status which makes them legally immune to the fact you are saying it, and credit card companies do in fact ditch whoever they want because they have no such burden. The solution in one case is obvious (protect net neutrality) and the solution in the other case would line up with the calls for US Post to be extended to offering basic banking services to ensure an appropriate floor on the transaction market, and as a government entity would have to allow everyone to transact. It's not clear to me what you seem to think Google, Twitter or Facebook should get in response for becoming a "public plaza" style arrangement which would be detrimental to their business model and wouldn't destroy the rest of the internet in the process? After all is a DDOS attack also free speech? A botnet? What are we going to obligate them to carry and on what basis?
bcgraham 6y ago
> Calling to silence others (that is, encouraging them to take your view of not giving them an audience) is fine as long as people have a choice on how to respond. The urge to preempt what an audience hears is suspect.
NaturalPhallacy 6y ago
>Like most of these rants against "censorship" they skip over people's rights to restrict speech as a form of speech itself: there is no moral (or legal) right to give people you disagree with a forum or audience to express their view. I don't disagree with this as stated. But the reality is different. When the tech-oligopoly has a mono-ideology and they all censor the same people, and then pull the rug (hosting) out from under competing platforms, and then rip up the signs (dns) pointing to alternatives, and then siege the opposing cities (payment processors ban them) it becomes a much worse problem. That moves from the theoretical to the practical. > Are powerful monopolies (or near monopolies) wrong to censor? No, because they have the same speech rights as others, the problem there lies in the market power of the monopolies, not their speech. Yes, because it's not just websites. It's infrastructure and finance colluding with the presentation layer. At what point do we all agree that it's a problem, and admit that the powerful aren't always right?
slibhb 6y ago
> Like most of these rants against "censorship" they skip over people's rights to restrict speech as a form of speech itself: there is no moral (or legal) right to give people you disagree with a forum or audience to express their view. Free expression is a moral right. And what is a platform anyway? A wordpress site? A twitter account? An IP address? A bank account? A megaphone? A street corner? A sign? How far are you willing to go to shut other people up because you disagree with them? > Calling to silence others (that is, encouraging them to take your view of not giving them an audience) is fine as long as people have a choice on how to respond. How did we turn so quickly to this view? When I was growing up, everyone would have blanched at the suggestion that attempting to "silence others" is a-okay. It wasn't that it was illegal. It was that it was a strategy that would only occur to weak, ineffectual people who were afraid to argue on the merits. > Is the government or some other absolute authority censoring wrong? Yes. Are powerful monopolies (or near monopolies) wrong to censor? No, because they have the same speech rights as others, the problem there lies in the market power of the monopolies, not their speech. By what principle is it wrong for the government to censor? Once you've answered that, please explain how that principle magically stops at the government.
- mahogany 6y ago
  > And what is a platform anyway? A wordpress site? A twitter account? An IP address? A bank account? A megaphone? A street corner? A sign? How far are you willing to go to shut other people up because you disagree with them? Well, I'm curious, what do you think it is? If I run a forum or a blog, should I have to allow any comment, to be morally in the right? Let's say I run a forum dedicated to discussing Christianity, and some person keeps posting arguments that God isn't real, or posts pictures of aborted fetuses, in every thread on my forum. If free expression is a moral right, is it immoral for me to remove such content from any thread? Even threads about daily worship or about lost loved ones?
- tablespoon 6y ago
  >> Like most of these rants against "censorship" they skip over people's rights to restrict speech as a form of speech itself: there is no moral (or legal) right to give people you disagree with a forum or audience to express their view. > Free expression is a moral right. > And what is a platform anyway? A wordpress site? A twitter account? An IP address? A bank account? A megaphone? A street corner? A sign? How far are you willing to go to shut other people up because you disagree with them? ... > By what principle is it wrong for the government to censor? Once you've answered that, please explain how that principle magically stops at the government. Yeah, it's a moral right, but its implementation is more complicated than a lot of people want to acknowledge. Is it censorship for you to refuse to wear a shirt that I give you with some slogan I agree with? No. Is it censorship for you to take down a yard sign with that slogan that I placed in your front yard? No. What if you allowed someone else to put up a yard sign that you agree with? Still no. If literally one guy owns all the land in the world, is it censorship for him to control what signs get put up? Almost certainly. No one's going to be able to give you a pithy principle that fits in an internet comment that tells you where the censorship/not censorship line is, given the huge grey areas between those extremes. This is an area where lots of interests need to be balanced, and where reasonable people can disagree.

bopbeepboop 6y ago

“Free speech” in the moral sense is exactly that people who operate civil infrastructure shouldn’t use their privilege for censorship. So... people who believe in “free speech” as a moral value will disagree with your first paragraph — and hence, your entire post. You assume your conclusion, so your argument fails to be persuasive. “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to say it” is a maxim of free speech — and a bold declaration of the exact opposite of your message: if we want a free society, we have a moral duty to aid the freedom of others — not suppress it.

hnhg 6y ago
I guess you have a problem with news editorial decisions then? For example, Fox News have a strong bias running through their programming. Isn't that a kind of implicit censorship of ideas?
- smaryjerry 6y ago
  Opinions are biased and specific people and programs are biased on Fox News and many other channels, but to be a journalist you literally have to correct false statements you make. This makes Fox News as reliable as all other stations. People often post memes about Fox News or CNN saying something wildly stupid but don’t realize they are posting a literal opinion from an opinion show not news from a news show.
  - GVIrish 6y ago
    > but to be a journalist you literally have to correct false statements you make What? No, you absolutely do not have to correct false statements you make to be a journalist. Reputable publications post retractions and clarifications because that is how they maintain their reputation, but it is in no way a requirement.
    - smaryjerry 6y ago
      You actually do or you can lose your license to broadcast. The FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge. This is also besides slander and libel, lying about an individual or organization.
      - GVIrish 6y ago
        > It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge. What particular laws are you referring to? > This is also besides slander and libel, lying about an individual or organization. Sure, you can get sued for that. But getting sued for libel or defamation doesn't mean you can't be a journalist anymore. A journalist who loses a libel lawsuit can keep writing even if they've been sued into oblivion.
tshaddox 6y ago
Note how “to defend your right to say it” actually makes sense in its normal context of positive and negative rights. One can in theory fight to defend every person’s right to say what they want to say, because saying something generally does not preclude anyone else from also saying something. However, these modifications doesn’t work the same way: “to defend your right to be trending on Twitter” or “to defend your right to be on CNN tonight.” These things are still forms of speech, of course, and yet their exercise does in fact preclude others from likewise exercising. It doesn’t make sense do defend every person’s right to be trending on Twitter.
- bopbeepboop 6y ago
  The response is that Twitter is more like a neighborhood bar than CNN — and yeah, it would be pretty weird to exclude people from the bar’s karaoke or comedy night based on their political beliefs. Being able to speak your mind at the bar (or other neighborhood center) is exactly what free speech is about. Actually, it would be illegal to ban people based on politics (as Twitter does) where I live (Seattle), as doing so violates rules for public accommodations which require the owner (a private company) not to discriminate based on political ideology. Rules for private establishments to enforce public access and equality are normal. Whether or not you think it makes sense to defend the right to be trending on Twitter depends on whether you view it like the bar (mic night open to all) or like CNN (editorial control). Of course, if Twitter is like CNN and not the bar, they should lose copyright protections — those aren’t meant for edited anthologies (like CNN).
- vladvasiliu 6y ago
  Disclaimer: I don't really use Twitter, so my understanding of its mechanics might be wrong. Isn't "trending on Twitter" a popularity contest? As in something's "trending" because more people (users, as opposed to Twitter the company or their moderators) have chosen to interact with that tweet instead of some other? I think that "to defend your right to say it", in this context, does mean "to defend your right to be trending on Twitter". What I understand by that is that anyone has a right to not be artificially prevented from trending, such as hiding the tweet from other users (censorship) or "not counting the votes" correctly which won't have a tweet "trend" even though it's the most retweeted / replied to. As I've said on another comment on this thread, my tweet is my speech, it's not Twitter's. And if the "trending" is the effect of the users' actions, having a tweet become trending is the collective speech of the users, not twitter's. It's pretty much the same thing with CNN. Having someone on "cnn tonight" is CNN's speech. They choose to have person A instead of person B. Twitter removing a tweet or otherwise preventing it from trending is like some external entity – e.g. the cable company – preventing CNN from having person C on the show because they don't agree with person C's speech. In my opinion, in this scenario, CNN is like the Twitter user, not like Twitter the company. Just because they have some third party on the show doesn't make CNN any less of a publisher of speech. Just as if a Twitter user chooses to quote someone instead of someone else (as opposed to twitting an "original thought" or "own opinion").
Bud 6y ago
We don't have a "moral duty" to force corporations to allow Nazis on their platform, though. The Nazis are perfectly capable of building their own platform.
- bopbeepboop 6y ago
  Twitter allows the CCP to post pro-genocide propaganda about how they “emancipate” the minds of Uyghur women. Disney filmed Mulan next to a concentration camp where people are butchered for organs and thanked the CCP for their generous support. These are actual acts supporting a genocidal regime engaged in ethnic cleansing. The “Nazis” of modern America are solidly on the left — and generally the people calling for censorship. Twitter’s support of pro-genocide propaganda from the CCP shows they’re definitely unqualified to act as a censor.
- esja 6y ago
  What percentage of the people being kicked off these platforms are actually Nazis? It seems very close to zero.

benchaney 6y ago

This article has nothing to do with whether or not platforms ought to be able to perform content moderation. The point you are making is just not relevant. Not even tenuously.

blastro 6y ago

> Calling to silence others (that is, encouraging them to take your view of not giving them an audience) is fine as long as people have a choice on how to respond. This succinctly expresses a feeling of mine I hadn't been able to put into words so beautifully. Thank you!

jonemi 6y ago

The article made the distinction between empirical "can" you censor and normative "should". His point is that censorship or cancelling isn't effective.

dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago

Watching the score on this post go up and down so much is fascinating. But a warning to those who downvote: It's a trap! By doing so you're agreeing with me.

triceratops 6y ago
Hahaha!

ycombigator 6y ago

Choosing not to be part of an audience (and encouraging others not to be) is not the same as denying others from being part of one they wish to be part of.

vladvasiliu 6y ago

I think you have a point in that no one has a right to force me to listen to their speech. However, I think that in the case of the monopolies being discussed here, it's different. The issue is that they "enable" speech in a generic way. They don't enable this or that speech in particular. They also don't force A to listen to B's speech. If anything, they do the complete opposite, what with the whole "echo chamber" situation. I think this is the whole meat of the "platform vs publisher" debate. A newspaper or other media have to actively "enable" something. When they publish speech A, they choose to not publish speech B. It's often an "either / or", at least for questions of space. They produce whatever speech they print / show. It's theirs, it's their point of view. However, Facebook, Twitter and other similar companies only put out a tool. This tool is then used by this or that person to speak this or that argument. FB doesn't actively and directly help speaker A anymore that they help speaker B. Also, as an FB user, no one forces you to listen to B's speech if you don't care for it. Your right not to listen to speech you disagree with is not infringed. If I publish a story on FB, it's my story, my speech, not Facebook's. Just as if I shout in the town square it's my speech that I shout. It doesn't become the mayor's speech because it's in his town or the square's architect because he built it in such a way that my voice can physically be heard. If you consider that FB has some right to prevent people from speaking "wrong" views, then why stop at FB? We should come up with ways to help other companies to prevent their product from being used for speech and other actions they don't agree with. Like the power company. Maybe they don't like their electricity being used to spread some "wrong" ideas. I'm pretty sure the local bakery isn't all that happy either to support some X-ist fanatic. Where do we draw the line?

adamcstephens 6y ago
The argument is we draw the line at public versus private. Elected governments are not allowed to restrict speech, but private companies are. I don’t subscribe to this view, but it’s what the libertarian paternalists think.
GVIrish 6y ago
> However, Facebook, Twitter and other similar companies only put out a tool. This tool is then used by this or that person to speak this or that argument. FB doesn't actively and directly help speaker A anymore that they help speaker B. Facebook actually deliberately manipulates people's feeds in order to promote content that will increase engagement. Twitter does the same by default. > Just as if I shout in the town square it's my speech that I shout. It doesn't become the mayor's speech because it's in his town or the square's architect because he built it in such a way that my voice can physically be heard. The town square is public property. If you instead decide to step inside a private business and shout they can have you removed from the premises. > Like the power company. Maybe they don't like their electricity being used to spread some "wrong" ideas. Electricity is regulated as a utility and as such wouldn't be allowed to cut service for that reason. A bakery could refuse to bake cakes with swatiskas on them if they so chose for example. Where the private business's choices on refusing service runs into trouble is when they refuse service based on a customer's race/ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.

spoonjim 6y ago

I feel like the choice on how to respond is less than it ever was, at least for myself. It is 100% infeasible for me to contract any of the canon taught in my office: diversity is a top priority, women are oppressed, etc. I don’t even disagree with all of it, but I do know that I don’t have the option of doing anything but earnestly nodding my head at the diversity events.

refurb 6y ago

If you are calling to silence people then you don’t believe in free speech. Simple as that.

elastolin 6y ago
Pretty much this.

square_usual 6y ago

> Are powerful monopolies (or near monopolies) wrong to censor? No, because they have the same speech rights as others, the problem there lies in the market power of the monopolies, not their speech. This doesn't work if every platform - whether they have market power or not - are compelled to censor by mobs. Most recently, Glenn Greenwald wrote about journalists trying to get Substack to censor its authors [1]. Well before, Signal employees tried to make their company have an anti-extremism policy [2]. The fact of the matter is, most people don't know enough about censorship to fight against it, and so small groups of dedicated people can create enough of an uproar in their circles about something to make it untenable for any major platform to speak about it, simply because those platforms now have to contend with a vocal minority pushing a narrative. This has been a very common tactic in India, where I'm from: interest groups will object to a movie or a book loudly enough to de-facto, and even sometimes, de-jure censor it. Most recently, a Netflix series lead to a controversy as it dared to show teenagers doing drugs. This lead to Netflix being notified buy the Indian equivalent of the CPS, and was directly caused by people complaining about the show on Twitter. [3] There is a pardadox of tolerance with respect to free speech. We cannot expect to maintain freedom of expression if we treat everyone who actually expresses themselves as a sinner. 1: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-start-demanding-substack https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-start-demanding... 2: https://www.theverge.com/22249391/signal-app-abuse-messaging-employees-violence-misinformation https://www.theverge.com/22249391/signal-app-abuse-messaging... 3: https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2021/mar/11/netflix-gets-notice-from-top-child-rights-body-for-wrongful-depiction-of-kids-in-bombay-begum-2275353.html https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2021/mar/11/netflix-...

NaturalPhallacy 6y ago
>There is a pardadox of tolerance with respect to free speech. We cannot expect to maintain freedom of expression if we treat everyone who actually expresses themselves as a sinner. In every thread about free speech, the people against it cite the 'paradox of tolerance'. Or half of it anyway. They invariably leave off the back half, which is pointedly anti-censorship: >Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — *In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.* But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. -Karl Popper

Impossible 6y ago

There are multiple issues with free speech no matter what, and some of them are the result of closed platforms that have too much power over communication channels, but ultimately need to moderate to avoid turning their platform into 8chan. I agree with you that many complaints about free speech on the internet have weird caveats like... You should have the right to say whatever you want without criticism or you should have the right to engage in rational debate or play devil's advocate on any topic even if another party doesn't want to. Like you said this might make the free speech proponent happier, but ends up limiting the speech of the person that doesn't want to engage in that way.

tsimionescu 6y ago

So, if AT&T cut out phone service from union sympathizers, that would be OK, because they are just expressing their right to free speech? I think there is such a thing as critical communication infrastructure, and even if it run by private companies, it should be protected from censorship. Whether all of FB or just private messaging fall under this is more debatable, but there have to be clear limits on what a company that facilitates communication between 1 billion people can do.

Griffinsauce 6y ago
> the problem there lies in the market power of the monopolies, not their speech.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  So if there were 50 companies, and all of them censored you for saying something really unpopular, would things be any better? Critical infrastructure must be legally protected from censorship and (private, mandate-less) eavesdropping. Whether it is run by a monopoly or many small companies is immaterial.
  - NaturalPhallacy 6y ago
    >Critical infrastructure must be legally protected from censorship and (private, mandate-less) eavesdropping. Whether it is run by a monopoly or many small companies is immaterial. Well said. What we have today is an oligopoly on speech by a small handful of ideologically identical technotyrants who have managed to circumvent the first amendment without ever having had to so much as introduce a bill to Congress. If this keeps going it isn't going to end well.
  - XorNot 6y ago
    Critical infrastructure has never been regarded as a public platform. No one has been prevented from buying their own internet connection or DNS names and running their own site over the "common carrier" status internet backbone infrastructure. It's just a lot less useful when your goal is radicalization and you need to hit the widest possible audience to get conversions.

FeepingCreature 6y ago

> there is no moral (or legal) right to give people you disagree with a forum or audience to express their view. I think there actually is such a moral obligation.

smsm42 6y ago

There's no legal right, unless you are a government employee (who btw routinely censor anyway, e.g. any state university with a content-based speech policy is violating the law). But there's very much a moral right and moral obligation - if you are in a position of power, as people leading the high-tech industry and prominent politicians are, you are responsible for maintaining the society that promoted you to that power in good health. And good health of the society requires free exchange of ideas and freedom to debate this ideas without fear of being persecuted and punished. Yes, even if you're end up being wrong - in fact, freedom to be wrong (excluding, of course, recognition that you're wrong) is vital to any proper debate, since if being wrong implies one's destruction and punishment, no serious and honest debate is possible, and no serious and honest truth-seeking through free exchange of ideas is possible either. You'd either fear to express your ideas, if you're powerless, or use your power to suppress other's ideas and punish them, if you're powerful - and that would have no relation with whose ideas are better. Only when the exchange of ideas are free, and only when ideas can participate in this competition without prior approval by powerful incumbents, any healthy democratic society is possible. And yes, whoever in power in such society, which now includes the big tech leadership, have moral if not legal responsibility for it - a responsibility that they are not only neglecting but blatantly violating right now. Censorship by powerful monopolies is as wrong as censorship by the government, and we need to stop hiding behind this stupid idea "but it's not government, so we can ignore it".

GVIrish 6y ago
So in the case that participants on a social platform engage in trolling, harassment, and abuse (sometimes with bots), that company should not do anything? If some people who are attempting to exchange ideas and debate in good faith, are shouted down by people hurling epithets and death threats, the platform owners should shrug their shoulders? When people openly promote and even plan violent attacks against others big tech should just leave things be?
- smsm42 6y ago
  I think we have more than ample proof of Big Tech companies blocking people not for abuse/bots but for expressing viewpoints that the platform management deems politically unacceptable. So let's not pretend that fighting bot abuse, spam, violent threats, etc. is the same as political censorship - the platforms can do one without the other, and actually have been doing it successfully up to about 2019, when they started increasingly censor by political views. And now political bans are pretty much commonplace. Once can pretend that it's all "fighting disinformation" and "preventing violence" but nobody is buying it anymore. It's political censorship, sometimes openly partisan censorship, and nothing more.

BaseS4 6y ago

And you don't have the freedom to measure the presumed audience reach of someone's speech. Furthermore, your calculation of someone's reach isn't entitled to be the standard of how reduction of reach is to be applied. In fact, you don't even own the audience or the platform that you claim you have the right to deny others from using. You have absolutely no say, sway, or stake in anything you are discussing. You're just hiding behind a Google lobbyist's buzzphrase and pretending you are targeting people you don't like.

SiVal 6y ago

By that argument, the US "monopoly or near monopoly" phone company AT&T during the Vietnam War could have decided that anyone who spoke on the phone about their opposition to the Vietnam War was unpatriotic and canceled their telephone service, and leftists who so often now make the argument you're making would have supported their right to do so. "The private phone companies should be allowed to enforce their terms of service prohibiting anything they consider 'hate speech' against America," explains Noam Chomsky, adding that "I don't share their opinions about the war, but it's not as if the govt-run postal service is doing it, so I don't see the problem." The two major credit card companies that dominated could have canceled anti-war "haters'" credit cards in the name of patriotic support of the just cause, banks closed their checking accounts, the major airlines refused to fly them, and so on, and those on the left with your principled commitment to the right of "monopolies and near monopolies" to enforce their political preferences would have had no major objections--as long as it really is a general principle and not just a pretense. Is the government or some other absolute authority censoring wrong? Yes. Are powerful monopolies (or near monopolies) wrong to censor? No, because they have the same speech rights as others And yet I suspect that this support for the "freedom" of the most powerful to silence, control, and enforce their will is not really the general, politically neutral commitment to everyone's freedom of choice that it pretends to be.

XorNot 6y ago
They literally could have if the technology and motivation was there, that's why they were considered a monopoly and broken up by act of the state: because the lack of a viable competitor service means that sort of consumer hostile action was possible. Of course, in reality phone company's exchange the right to monitor what you say for common carrier status which makes them legally immune to the fact you are saying it, and credit card companies do in fact ditch whoever they want because they have no such burden. The solution in one case is obvious (protect net neutrality) and the solution in the other case would line up with the calls for US Post to be extended to offering basic banking services to ensure an appropriate floor on the transaction market, and as a government entity would have to allow everyone to transact. It's not clear to me what you seem to think Google, Twitter or Facebook should get in response for becoming a "public plaza" style arrangement which would be detrimental to their business model and wouldn't destroy the rest of the internet in the process? After all is a DDOS attack also free speech? A botnet? What are we going to obligate them to carry and on what basis?

bcgraham 6y ago

> Calling to silence others (that is, encouraging them to take your view of not giving them an audience) is fine as long as people have a choice on how to respond. The urge to preempt what an audience hears is suspect.

NaturalPhallacy 6y ago

>Like most of these rants against "censorship" they skip over people's rights to restrict speech as a form of speech itself: there is no moral (or legal) right to give people you disagree with a forum or audience to express their view. I don't disagree with this as stated. But the reality is different. When the tech-oligopoly has a mono-ideology and they all censor the same people, and then pull the rug (hosting) out from under competing platforms, and then rip up the signs (dns) pointing to alternatives, and then siege the opposing cities (payment processors ban them) it becomes a much worse problem. That moves from the theoretical to the practical. > Are powerful monopolies (or near monopolies) wrong to censor? No, because they have the same speech rights as others, the problem there lies in the market power of the monopolies, not their speech. Yes, because it's not just websites. It's infrastructure and finance colluding with the presentation layer. At what point do we all agree that it's a problem, and admit that the powerful aren't always right?

slibhb 6y ago

> Like most of these rants against "censorship" they skip over people's rights to restrict speech as a form of speech itself: there is no moral (or legal) right to give people you disagree with a forum or audience to express their view. Free expression is a moral right. And what is a platform anyway? A wordpress site? A twitter account? An IP address? A bank account? A megaphone? A street corner? A sign? How far are you willing to go to shut other people up because you disagree with them? > Calling to silence others (that is, encouraging them to take your view of not giving them an audience) is fine as long as people have a choice on how to respond. How did we turn so quickly to this view? When I was growing up, everyone would have blanched at the suggestion that attempting to "silence others" is a-okay. It wasn't that it was illegal. It was that it was a strategy that would only occur to weak, ineffectual people who were afraid to argue on the merits. > Is the government or some other absolute authority censoring wrong? Yes. Are powerful monopolies (or near monopolies) wrong to censor? No, because they have the same speech rights as others, the problem there lies in the market power of the monopolies, not their speech. By what principle is it wrong for the government to censor? Once you've answered that, please explain how that principle magically stops at the government.

mahogany 6y ago
> And what is a platform anyway? A wordpress site? A twitter account? An IP address? A bank account? A megaphone? A street corner? A sign? How far are you willing to go to shut other people up because you disagree with them? Well, I'm curious, what do you think it is? If I run a forum or a blog, should I have to allow any comment, to be morally in the right? Let's say I run a forum dedicated to discussing Christianity, and some person keeps posting arguments that God isn't real, or posts pictures of aborted fetuses, in every thread on my forum. If free expression is a moral right, is it immoral for me to remove such content from any thread? Even threads about daily worship or about lost loved ones?
tablespoon 6y ago
>> Like most of these rants against "censorship" they skip over people's rights to restrict speech as a form of speech itself: there is no moral (or legal) right to give people you disagree with a forum or audience to express their view. > Free expression is a moral right. > And what is a platform anyway? A wordpress site? A twitter account? An IP address? A bank account? A megaphone? A street corner? A sign? How far are you willing to go to shut other people up because you disagree with them? ... > By what principle is it wrong for the government to censor? Once you've answered that, please explain how that principle magically stops at the government. Yeah, it's a moral right, but its implementation is more complicated than a lot of people want to acknowledge. Is it censorship for you to refuse to wear a shirt that I give you with some slogan I agree with? No. Is it censorship for you to take down a yard sign with that slogan that I placed in your front yard? No. What if you allowed someone else to put up a yard sign that you agree with? Still no. If literally one guy owns all the land in the world, is it censorship for him to control what signs get put up? Almost certainly. No one's going to be able to give you a pithy principle that fits in an internet comment that tells you where the censorship/not censorship line is, given the huge grey areas between those extremes. This is an area where lots of interests need to be balanced, and where reasonable people can disagree.