8 ms·

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 aud

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.
      - cblconfederate 6y ago
        What content did twitter.com create in order to attract these users, other than some boring company announcement?
        Nursie 6y ago
        So twitter is both a fundamental right that cannot be easily replicated, and a complete irrelevance that has done nothing at all that would give them any claim to their own user-base? Interesting view of the world.
        cblconfederate 6y ago
        That's evading the issue, but that world view is by no means uncommon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utili...
        Nursie 6y ago
        > That's evading the issue Your question is poorly worded. Twitter created the platform and fostered the community. The content creators and the platform have grown together. I'm challenging your idea that the platform has contributed nothing, not asserting that it contributes everything. Without their creative ideas to build the platform in the first place, make content discoverable etc etc, it wouldn't exist either. > that world view is by no means uncommon I'm not convinced that wikipedia article describes the worldview above - "twitter is both a fundamental right that cannot be easily replicated, and a complete irrelevance that has done nothing at all" I understand why there might be interest in developing ideas around digital communication rights. It's definitely an interesting topic and one that's going to become more relevant over time. I am specifically challenging you on the idea that they already exist, and are encompassed by rights such as freedom of speech, which has never encompassed free access to the means to disseminate that speech, or freedom of assembly, which has never included the right to assemble on someone else's property. Go ahead and argue these are useful ideas we need to talk about, that existing rights need to be mapped and interpreted more expansively in the digital world, that we should start building platforms as a society which encompass these ideas, I might even be on your side. But being banned on twitter is no violation of any existing right. Especially as twitter is a niche communication tool.
  - lordloki 6y ago
    >They can keep you off their platform, nothing more. Why? Because you believe corporations are people? >And you think this would be less censored? By law, in the USA, it would have to be less censored. They could only censor constitutionally unprotected speech. >> in social media individuals earn their own audience >So ... individuals got all those people to sign up to twitter? Is this honestly how you interpreted the OP comment? Without people posting to Twitter nobody would be following Twitter. They are nothing without the content creators since they don't create any content.
    - Nursie 6y ago
      > Why? Because you believe corporations are people? No, but I believe that in general they have a legal right to control the services they make available, within the limits of the laws on hate, discrimination etc. > By law, in the USA, it would have to be less censored. They could only censor constitutionally unprotected speech. Twitter is not just in the USA, FYI. People engaging in unpopular speech on "Gov Twitter" could still be sidelined effectively, by other groups. I imagine an adblock-style distributed blacklist might spring up pretty fast. Then what? I have a right to be heard by anyone I choose to spew my opinions at? > Without people posting to Twitter nobody would be following Twitter. Without the platform on which to create and disseminate said content there would be no audience. I'm not trying to say that it's all one party responsible. Quite the opposite. I'm trying to point out that this - "in social media individuals earn their own audience and the companies can't claim ownership" - is wrong. The company have provided a platform and fostered its use, which gives people a place to go and gather an audience. It's symbiotic. You can't at the same time claim that twitter is a fundamental, irreplaceable human need (that 98% of humans apparently don't need) while claiming it's contributed nothing to creating a community and an audience.
- 8fGTBjZxBcHq 6y ago
  This is a popular idea around here but is actually fairly radical and a pretty significant departure from what free speech has been understood to mean in the past. That doesn't make it wrong and we do seem to be headed in that general direction. Just understand that what you're proposing doesn't necessarily follow from pre-internet free speech protections and is a different ideal.
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    > free speech has been understood to mean in the past. I actually think the opposite , that in the past free speech was a well guarded liberalist ideal, and we 've regressed to confusing the freedom of internal monologue as free speech.
    - alchemism 6y ago
      The people banned from Twitter or otherwise 'censored' by private business are still free to use a literal soapbox in the literal town square to communicate with fellow citizens. It does require more effort though; there is that.
      - cblconfederate 6y ago
        not in a pandemic

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.
    - cblconfederate 6y ago
      What content did twitter.com create in order to attract these users, other than some boring company announcement?
      - Nursie 6y ago
        So twitter is both a fundamental right that cannot be easily replicated, and a complete irrelevance that has done nothing at all that would give them any claim to their own user-base? Interesting view of the world.
        cblconfederate 6y ago
        That's evading the issue, but that world view is by no means uncommon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utili...
        Nursie 6y ago
        > That's evading the issue Your question is poorly worded. Twitter created the platform and fostered the community. The content creators and the platform have grown together. I'm challenging your idea that the platform has contributed nothing, not asserting that it contributes everything. Without their creative ideas to build the platform in the first place, make content discoverable etc etc, it wouldn't exist either. > that world view is by no means uncommon I'm not convinced that wikipedia article describes the worldview above - "twitter is both a fundamental right that cannot be easily replicated, and a complete irrelevance that has done nothing at all" I understand why there might be interest in developing ideas around digital communication rights. It's definitely an interesting topic and one that's going to become more relevant over time. I am specifically challenging you on the idea that they already exist, and are encompassed by rights such as freedom of speech, which has never encompassed free access to the means to disseminate that speech, or freedom of assembly, which has never included the right to assemble on someone else's property. Go ahead and argue these are useful ideas we need to talk about, that existing rights need to be mapped and interpreted more expansively in the digital world, that we should start building platforms as a society which encompass these ideas, I might even be on your side. But being banned on twitter is no violation of any existing right. Especially as twitter is a niche communication tool.
- lordloki 6y ago
  >They can keep you off their platform, nothing more. Why? Because you believe corporations are people? >And you think this would be less censored? By law, in the USA, it would have to be less censored. They could only censor constitutionally unprotected speech. >> in social media individuals earn their own audience >So ... individuals got all those people to sign up to twitter? Is this honestly how you interpreted the OP comment? Without people posting to Twitter nobody would be following Twitter. They are nothing without the content creators since they don't create any content.
  - Nursie 6y ago
    > Why? Because you believe corporations are people? No, but I believe that in general they have a legal right to control the services they make available, within the limits of the laws on hate, discrimination etc. > By law, in the USA, it would have to be less censored. They could only censor constitutionally unprotected speech. Twitter is not just in the USA, FYI. People engaging in unpopular speech on "Gov Twitter" could still be sidelined effectively, by other groups. I imagine an adblock-style distributed blacklist might spring up pretty fast. Then what? I have a right to be heard by anyone I choose to spew my opinions at? > Without people posting to Twitter nobody would be following Twitter. Without the platform on which to create and disseminate said content there would be no audience. I'm not trying to say that it's all one party responsible. Quite the opposite. I'm trying to point out that this - "in social media individuals earn their own audience and the companies can't claim ownership" - is wrong. The company have provided a platform and fostered its use, which gives people a place to go and gather an audience. It's symbiotic. You can't at the same time claim that twitter is a fundamental, irreplaceable human need (that 98% of humans apparently don't need) while claiming it's contributed nothing to creating a community and an audience.
8fGTBjZxBcHq 6y ago
This is a popular idea around here but is actually fairly radical and a pretty significant departure from what free speech has been understood to mean in the past. That doesn't make it wrong and we do seem to be headed in that general direction. Just understand that what you're proposing doesn't necessarily follow from pre-internet free speech protections and is a different ideal.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  > free speech has been understood to mean in the past. I actually think the opposite , that in the past free speech was a well guarded liberalist ideal, and we 've regressed to confusing the freedom of internal monologue as free speech.
  - alchemism 6y ago
    The people banned from Twitter or otherwise 'censored' by private business are still free to use a literal soapbox in the literal town square to communicate with fellow citizens. It does require more effort though; there is that.
    - cblconfederate 6y ago
      not in a pandemic