8 ms·

Rewind to before the internet, and you never had the right to get your opinions into the 6 o'clock news or the printed newspaper. There are still plenty of pla

by bjt 6y ago

Rewind to before the internet, and you never had the right to get your opinions into the 6 o'clock news or the printed newspaper. There are still plenty of places you can put up your own website. Free speech doesn't mean that others are obligated to subsidize your speech.

falcrist 6y ago
Whatever you do on the internet, you're always at the mercy of private companies. You're always subject to your hosting company or domain registrar or ISP or whatever. On some level, private companies have to allow everyone neutral access. Like phone companies and the USPS, the internet should be accessible. On the other hand, comment sections under news articles are really not the way I'd make this argument. Let's talk about net neutrality first.
- Thorrez 6y ago
  Yep, I think net neutrality should solve the ISP and hosting problems (you can self host out of your basement). Domain registrars are harder; can we get net neutrality to apply to them?
cblconfederate 6y ago
> Free speech doesn't mean that others are obligated to subsidize your speech. Actually, it does, that's the liberal ideal of free speech, that it 's a public protected good. Having a free opinion and practically keeping it to yourself because you have no audience is not freedom of speech.
- Nursie 6y ago
  > Having a free opinion and practically keeping it to yourself because you have no audience is not freedom of speech. It absolutely is. You are still free to propagate your ideas. You have no claim to use other people's tools or access other people's property to do so. You are not entitled to an audience. If that means you're literally screaming into the void because nobody else wants anything to do with you, then that's still free speech.
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    > You are still free to propagate your ideas. I m actually talking about the case where you are not. Private actors cancelling people is exactly that, taking away their freedom to propagate them. They can say "build your own twitteR", but we don't say that about other fundamental needs like, nobody says "build your own electric grid". We live in era of digital communication, and just like in the past the state built roads to connnect people, it needs to build basic infrastructure for communication and social networking. Association is a fundamental human right and that includes digital association (esp. in a time of pandemic and lockdowns)
    - Nursie 6y ago
      > I m actually talking about the case where you are not. No, you aren't. You're talking about using other people's services, infrastructure and registered users. Twitter is not the world. It's a small subset of the world shouting at each other. It's not the way to reach everyone, nor is it the only way to reach people. And it's certainly not the commons or public property. > They can say "build your own twitteR", but we don't say that about other fundamental needs But you can build your own twitter-alike, and people have done, rendering this entire point moot. Further "fundamental need"? Maybe take a step back and look at your life if you don't think you could get by without twitter. I've never joined, I know very few people that bother with it. > Association is a fundamental human right and that includes digital association Clearly it's not a right, as people can be and are frequently denied access to the internet entirely by judges in many countries including the US. And even if it were, using a particular platform is not. Your right to free speech doesn't extend to other people's property, and you do not have a right to access any audience. And you never have had.
      - cblconfederate 6y ago
        > You're talking about using other people's services, infrastructure and registered users. It's always someone else's services, whether that was a printing press or a telegraph. We can't go back to primitivism > Twitter is not the world. Governments are in it in official capacity, and not in some other system. It is a lot more than "one private company" > Further "fundamental need"? Yes communication which includes social networking is a fundamental need for a modern civilized society, i think it should be obvious in this pandemic > Clearly it's not a right, Freedom of association is a fundamental human right. The fact that it being taken as punishment is just an admission of it
- mmaurizi 6y ago
  Part and parcel with free speech (in America it's also right there in the first amendment) is free association. You don't and can never have, a right to an audience, because people have a separate right to choose whom they associate with, and everyone can choose not to be in your audience if you're terrible/boring/stupid enough.
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    exactly you have the right to associate, and in the digital association era this right is being curtailed by private actors. This is a problem, and as an ultimate solution, states should provide social networking/communication services to their citizens. I don't understand the "right to an audience" argument. Maybe CNN can claim they have own their audience because they literally earned it, but in social media individuals earn their own audience and the companies can't claim ownership. Even though one's social network is not yet protected legally, it should, and people's audience grown in a platform still belongs to people, the same way that private information put on a platform is still owned by people
    - Nursie 6y ago
      > this right is being curtailed by private actors. It really isn't. They can keep you off their platform, nothing more. > states should provide social networking/communication services to their citizens. And you think this would be less censored? > in social media individuals earn their own audience So ... individuals got all those people to sign up to twitter? Twitter itself has nothing to do with it? You really think that? Platforms just pop out of the air fully formed?
      - cblconfederate 6y ago
        > individuals got all those people to sign up to twitter? yes?
        Nursie 6y ago
        All of them, signed up to twitter specifically to follow those other people they already knew about? None signed up because of the service itself, and the generic offering? It's nothing at all to do with twitter building the platform, advertising the platform, creating a user base? Nobody followed someone else because the platform promoted something, or made it easy to discover people, anything like that? In that case twitter itself is completely unimportant. If you can build an audience without relying on twitter's existing user base, then why do you care if twitter bans you? Go build that somewhere else.

by bjt 6y ago

falcrist 6y ago

Whatever you do on the internet, you're always at the mercy of private companies. You're always subject to your hosting company or domain registrar or ISP or whatever. On some level, private companies have to allow everyone neutral access. Like phone companies and the USPS, the internet should be accessible. On the other hand, comment sections under news articles are really not the way I'd make this argument. Let's talk about net neutrality first.

Thorrez 6y ago
Yep, I think net neutrality should solve the ISP and hosting problems (you can self host out of your basement). Domain registrars are harder; can we get net neutrality to apply to them?

cblconfederate 6y ago

> Free speech doesn't mean that others are obligated to subsidize your speech. Actually, it does, that's the liberal ideal of free speech, that it 's a public protected good. Having a free opinion and practically keeping it to yourself because you have no audience is not freedom of speech.

Nursie 6y ago
> Having a free opinion and practically keeping it to yourself because you have no audience is not freedom of speech. It absolutely is. You are still free to propagate your ideas. You have no claim to use other people's tools or access other people's property to do so. You are not entitled to an audience. If that means you're literally screaming into the void because nobody else wants anything to do with you, then that's still free speech.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  > You are still free to propagate your ideas. I m actually talking about the case where you are not. Private actors cancelling people is exactly that, taking away their freedom to propagate them. They can say "build your own twitteR", but we don't say that about other fundamental needs like, nobody says "build your own electric grid". We live in era of digital communication, and just like in the past the state built roads to connnect people, it needs to build basic infrastructure for communication and social networking. Association is a fundamental human right and that includes digital association (esp. in a time of pandemic and lockdowns)
  - Nursie 6y ago
    > I m actually talking about the case where you are not. No, you aren't. You're talking about using other people's services, infrastructure and registered users. Twitter is not the world. It's a small subset of the world shouting at each other. It's not the way to reach everyone, nor is it the only way to reach people. And it's certainly not the commons or public property. > They can say "build your own twitteR", but we don't say that about other fundamental needs But you can build your own twitter-alike, and people have done, rendering this entire point moot. Further "fundamental need"? Maybe take a step back and look at your life if you don't think you could get by without twitter. I've never joined, I know very few people that bother with it. > Association is a fundamental human right and that includes digital association Clearly it's not a right, as people can be and are frequently denied access to the internet entirely by judges in many countries including the US. And even if it were, using a particular platform is not. Your right to free speech doesn't extend to other people's property, and you do not have a right to access any audience. And you never have had.
    - cblconfederate 6y ago
      > You're talking about using other people's services, infrastructure and registered users. It's always someone else's services, whether that was a printing press or a telegraph. We can't go back to primitivism > Twitter is not the world. Governments are in it in official capacity, and not in some other system. It is a lot more than "one private company" > Further "fundamental need"? Yes communication which includes social networking is a fundamental need for a modern civilized society, i think it should be obvious in this pandemic > Clearly it's not a right, Freedom of association is a fundamental human right. The fact that it being taken as punishment is just an admission of it
mmaurizi 6y ago
Part and parcel with free speech (in America it's also right there in the first amendment) is free association. You don't and can never have, a right to an audience, because people have a separate right to choose whom they associate with, and everyone can choose not to be in your audience if you're terrible/boring/stupid enough.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  exactly you have the right to associate, and in the digital association era this right is being curtailed by private actors. This is a problem, and as an ultimate solution, states should provide social networking/communication services to their citizens. I don't understand the "right to an audience" argument. Maybe CNN can claim they have own their audience because they literally earned it, but in social media individuals earn their own audience and the companies can't claim ownership. Even though one's social network is not yet protected legally, it should, and people's audience grown in a platform still belongs to people, the same way that private information put on a platform is still owned by people
  - Nursie 6y ago
    > this right is being curtailed by private actors. It really isn't. They can keep you off their platform, nothing more. > states should provide social networking/communication services to their citizens. And you think this would be less censored? > in social media individuals earn their own audience So ... individuals got all those people to sign up to twitter? Twitter itself has nothing to do with it? You really think that? Platforms just pop out of the air fully formed?
    - cblconfederate 6y ago
      > individuals got all those people to sign up to twitter? yes?
      - Nursie 6y ago
        All of them, signed up to twitter specifically to follow those other people they already knew about? None signed up because of the service itself, and the generic offering? It's nothing at all to do with twitter building the platform, advertising the platform, creating a user base? Nobody followed someone else because the platform promoted something, or made it easy to discover people, anything like that? In that case twitter itself is completely unimportant. If you can build an audience without relying on twitter's existing user base, then why do you care if twitter bans you? Go build that somewhere else.