41 ms·

Because this is always brought up, I will remark that I believe what the majority of commenters likely mean by free speech is the principle itself, and not the

by ronsor 6y ago

Because this is always brought up, I will remark that I believe what the majority of commenters likely mean by free speech is the principle itself, and not the restrictions imposed on the government by the First Amendment. First and foremost, free speech is a moral principle. Secondly, while private companies can do what they want, that does not mean they should. Private companies like Apple can avoid taxes, yet many here would not say they should. Morals and ethics are often divorced from what the law requires.

tssva 6y ago
Free speech is several principles. One is that you should be free to express yourself. Another is that others should not be able to coerce you into forced speech. Many commenters on HN like to forget that 2nd part because most of their 'solutions" to the first principle violate the 2nd.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  So if I say bad things on Twitch OR ELSEWHERE, that this is “their speech”? I disagree, but what you are saying is Twitch is a publisher, not a platform? If Twitch can’t be compelled to publish my unpopular comments, then any comments they do publish should be legally theirs, and if illegal be held liable for them? Something tells me you aren’t on board anymore. Are you trying to have it all-the-ways? That Citizens United is wrong and companies don’t have free speech, but also that companies don’t need to recognize free speech but can retain their platform status (when convenient), then also Citizen’s United is right and companies have any speech they want if it means restricting yours? Quick question... socially, what do we do when I’m banned from Twitch for saying something NOT ON TWITCH that was at the time unpopular but eventually proven correct? Or similarly let’s say I quote the CDC website but am banned because the data is unpopular. Or lastly I quote something that was true at the time according to “official sources” (sarcasm detectable) but later incorrect and I’m retro actively banned? Instead of all this shifting convenience and liquid enforceability... maybe we just stick to free speech and take the small bad with the giant good? Seems morally just and logically reasonable to me.
- HanayamaTriplet 6y ago
  There are already narrowly-defined exceptions to the freedom of association in the form of anti-discrimination laws. There is clearly a question of balance to be made.
  - mlindner 6y ago
    Indeed. Unfortunately there's no governmental protection in the US of "political discrimination". Political view differences are not a protected class at the moment.
SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
> First and foremost, free speech is a moral principle. Entirely. But... man I’m not so sure as many people believe this as they should. Can we not ignore that as soon as these tech companies get monopoly status, they close their fists in more every day? Something has to give. We would (should) not accept that someone with “wrong” views be denied a bank account or to shop at a grocery store. Why does government need to step in and whitelist which services are protected? When are we going to be honest that none of this is about protecting people, but protecting ideas? The idea my political wedge issue is correct, so I’ll ban anyone that disagrees. The idea that I should be allowed to run a monopoly, eating and smashing any potential competitors? None of this is about Black Lives or Covid or Elections. That’s the cover to get the thing they really want. Agreement with ideas you have or that keep you in power.
- sneak 6y ago
  > We would (should) not accept that someone with “wrong” views be denied a bank account or to shop at a grocery store. Why? I am fine with banks and grocery stores having freedom of association, just as any other business or person should. Being a KKK member is not a protected class, and discriminating against KKK members in hiring and in the provision of goods or services is entirely in-bounds.
  - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
    You're fine with preventing KKK members from buying food? You would literally have them starve to death? And you're fine with private corporations making decisions on who has the right to live and who doesn't? Personally, I value human rights. I think even KKK members have the right to live.
    - sneak 6y ago
      No, I'm fine with any individual who sells food (or any other thing) being able to opt to not do business with anyone they like. That's a big difference from what you claimed. That's actually already true now (outside of protected classes). Any restaurant can ask KKK members to leave if they so desire. Same with any supermarket. Any individual proprietor having freedom of association is a long long way from "specific types of customers should be barred from buying food from anyone and should literally starve to death". That's a strawman position that you invented.
paxys 6y ago
The fundamental problem always will be that a company running a large and popular platform on the internet has operating costs and wants to make money. The only reasonable way to do that right now is via advertising, and these advertisers only want safe, family friendly content to not tarnish their brand. I would love it if there was a similar platform with a monthly fee free of advertiser influence, but it's impossible to get a critical mass of people to pay for it.
- malandrew 6y ago
  I work for a company whose primary source is direct revenue from users and it's edging towards this dystopian direction. Advertising revenue certainly doesn't help, but it's not a pre-requisite for this problem to exist.
Lammy 6y ago
We only call it "speech" because speech is the lowest-latency and highest-bandwidth method us humans have to exchange ideas. I tend to distrust people who are pro-eumemics the same as I would distrust a person who is pro-eugenics.
ngokevin 6y ago
"Terrorist activities, child sexual exploitation, violent extremism, credible threats of mass violence, carrying out or deliberately acting as an accomplice to sexual assault" This does not fall under free speech.

by ronsor 6y ago

tssva 6y ago

Free speech is several principles. One is that you should be free to express yourself. Another is that others should not be able to coerce you into forced speech. Many commenters on HN like to forget that 2nd part because most of their 'solutions" to the first principle violate the 2nd.

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
So if I say bad things on Twitch OR ELSEWHERE, that this is “their speech”? I disagree, but what you are saying is Twitch is a publisher, not a platform? If Twitch can’t be compelled to publish my unpopular comments, then any comments they do publish should be legally theirs, and if illegal be held liable for them? Something tells me you aren’t on board anymore. Are you trying to have it all-the-ways? That Citizens United is wrong and companies don’t have free speech, but also that companies don’t need to recognize free speech but can retain their platform status (when convenient), then also Citizen’s United is right and companies have any speech they want if it means restricting yours? Quick question... socially, what do we do when I’m banned from Twitch for saying something NOT ON TWITCH that was at the time unpopular but eventually proven correct? Or similarly let’s say I quote the CDC website but am banned because the data is unpopular. Or lastly I quote something that was true at the time according to “official sources” (sarcasm detectable) but later incorrect and I’m retro actively banned? Instead of all this shifting convenience and liquid enforceability... maybe we just stick to free speech and take the small bad with the giant good? Seems morally just and logically reasonable to me.
HanayamaTriplet 6y ago
There are already narrowly-defined exceptions to the freedom of association in the form of anti-discrimination laws. There is clearly a question of balance to be made.
- mlindner 6y ago
  Indeed. Unfortunately there's no governmental protection in the US of "political discrimination". Political view differences are not a protected class at the moment.

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago

> First and foremost, free speech is a moral principle. Entirely. But... man I’m not so sure as many people believe this as they should. Can we not ignore that as soon as these tech companies get monopoly status, they close their fists in more every day? Something has to give. We would (should) not accept that someone with “wrong” views be denied a bank account or to shop at a grocery store. Why does government need to step in and whitelist which services are protected? When are we going to be honest that none of this is about protecting people, but protecting ideas? The idea my political wedge issue is correct, so I’ll ban anyone that disagrees. The idea that I should be allowed to run a monopoly, eating and smashing any potential competitors? None of this is about Black Lives or Covid or Elections. That’s the cover to get the thing they really want. Agreement with ideas you have or that keep you in power.

sneak 6y ago
> We would (should) not accept that someone with “wrong” views be denied a bank account or to shop at a grocery store. Why? I am fine with banks and grocery stores having freedom of association, just as any other business or person should. Being a KKK member is not a protected class, and discriminating against KKK members in hiring and in the provision of goods or services is entirely in-bounds.
- baobabKoodaa 6y ago
  You're fine with preventing KKK members from buying food? You would literally have them starve to death? And you're fine with private corporations making decisions on who has the right to live and who doesn't? Personally, I value human rights. I think even KKK members have the right to live.
  - sneak 6y ago
    No, I'm fine with any individual who sells food (or any other thing) being able to opt to not do business with anyone they like. That's a big difference from what you claimed. That's actually already true now (outside of protected classes). Any restaurant can ask KKK members to leave if they so desire. Same with any supermarket. Any individual proprietor having freedom of association is a long long way from "specific types of customers should be barred from buying food from anyone and should literally starve to death". That's a strawman position that you invented.

paxys 6y ago

The fundamental problem always will be that a company running a large and popular platform on the internet has operating costs and wants to make money. The only reasonable way to do that right now is via advertising, and these advertisers only want safe, family friendly content to not tarnish their brand. I would love it if there was a similar platform with a monthly fee free of advertiser influence, but it's impossible to get a critical mass of people to pay for it.

malandrew 6y ago
I work for a company whose primary source is direct revenue from users and it's edging towards this dystopian direction. Advertising revenue certainly doesn't help, but it's not a pre-requisite for this problem to exist.

Lammy 6y ago

We only call it "speech" because speech is the lowest-latency and highest-bandwidth method us humans have to exchange ideas. I tend to distrust people who are pro-eumemics the same as I would distrust a person who is pro-eugenics.

ngokevin 6y ago

"Terrorist activities, child sexual exploitation, violent extremism, credible threats of mass violence, carrying out or deliberately acting as an accomplice to sexual assault" This does not fall under free speech.