7 ms·

On Social Media, American-Style Free Speech Is Dead

17 points by echoradio 5y ago

echoradio 5y ago
For those interested in reading Douek’s Columbia Law Review article, it can be found here: https://live-columbia-law-review.pantheonsite.io/content/governing-online-speech-from-posts-as-trumps-to-proportionality-and-probability/ https://live-columbia-law-review.pantheonsite.io/content/gov...
glofish 5y ago
> Instead, platforms are now firmly in the business of balancing societal interests. the problem here of course is that it is not so easy to define what "societal interest" are at any moment, plus what makes Twitter qualified to pass judgment?
- whytaka 5y ago
  > what makes Twitter qualified to pass judgment? Your continued patronage.
- krasicki 5y ago
  whytaka 5 hours ago [–] > what makes Twitter qualified to pass judgment? Liberal fascism is profitable
- wombatmobile 5y ago
  > the problem here of course is that it is not so easy to define what "societal interest" are at any moment, plus what makes Twitter qualified to pass judgment? As you suggest, there is no absolute way to appraise societal interest, since interest is in the eye of the beholder. The value of the methodological shift TFA highlights is not to define a societal interest but rather to change the way content is evaluated. Instead of using the first amendment as a metric, TFA says social media proprietors are now using a different frame - whether content is in the society's interest or not. That's something that individuals are free to argue and differ about, which of course they will, in each individual case. The point is, to win the argument, they have to demonstrate something different than conformance with the first amendment. They have to make the case that including or excluding certain content makes the world a better or less worse place. This change leads to debate and consideration about the merits of content, or at least, its effect on members of the polity. Using the example of holocaust denial, which gets a free pass when judged only by the first amendment, an argument about censorship has to take account the impact of the speech on individuals. That's a significant step towards enabling empathy, which might actually improve the quality of public discourse.
- krapp 5y ago
  >plus what makes Twitter qualified to pass judgment? Why do you believe Twitter is not qualified to pass judgement about what content is and is not acceptable on their platform? If they don't have the right to do so, then who does?
xxxxxxx12 5y ago
I think it's worth recognizing that there is systemic liberal bias in most of the media and cultural institutions. And liberals have been trending towards authoritarianism, no doubt. So it's not all that surprising that lowercase-L liberal attitudes, which can be described as essentially based in protection of individuals from the arbitrary will of majorities, are falling to the wayside in a lot of cultural spheres.
- EricE 5y ago
  "here's a cookie and don't bother thinking for yourself, we can think better for you". Ugh.
EricE 5y ago
Errors that always seem to error in one direction aren't errors :p

17 points by echoradio 5y ago

For those interested in reading Douek’s Columbia Law Review article, it can be found here: https://live-columbia-law-review.pantheonsite.io/content/governing-online-speech-from-posts-as-trumps-to-proportionality-and-probability/ https://live-columbia-law-review.pantheonsite.io/content/gov...

glofish 5y ago

> Instead, platforms are now firmly in the business of balancing societal interests. the problem here of course is that it is not so easy to define what "societal interest" are at any moment, plus what makes Twitter qualified to pass judgment?

whytaka 5y ago
> what makes Twitter qualified to pass judgment? Your continued patronage.
krasicki 5y ago
whytaka 5 hours ago [–] > what makes Twitter qualified to pass judgment? Liberal fascism is profitable
wombatmobile 5y ago
> the problem here of course is that it is not so easy to define what "societal interest" are at any moment, plus what makes Twitter qualified to pass judgment? As you suggest, there is no absolute way to appraise societal interest, since interest is in the eye of the beholder. The value of the methodological shift TFA highlights is not to define a societal interest but rather to change the way content is evaluated. Instead of using the first amendment as a metric, TFA says social media proprietors are now using a different frame - whether content is in the society's interest or not. That's something that individuals are free to argue and differ about, which of course they will, in each individual case. The point is, to win the argument, they have to demonstrate something different than conformance with the first amendment. They have to make the case that including or excluding certain content makes the world a better or less worse place. This change leads to debate and consideration about the merits of content, or at least, its effect on members of the polity. Using the example of holocaust denial, which gets a free pass when judged only by the first amendment, an argument about censorship has to take account the impact of the speech on individuals. That's a significant step towards enabling empathy, which might actually improve the quality of public discourse.
krapp 5y ago
>plus what makes Twitter qualified to pass judgment? Why do you believe Twitter is not qualified to pass judgement about what content is and is not acceptable on their platform? If they don't have the right to do so, then who does?

xxxxxxx12 5y ago

I think it's worth recognizing that there is systemic liberal bias in most of the media and cultural institutions. And liberals have been trending towards authoritarianism, no doubt. So it's not all that surprising that lowercase-L liberal attitudes, which can be described as essentially based in protection of individuals from the arbitrary will of majorities, are falling to the wayside in a lot of cultural spheres.

EricE 5y ago
"here's a cookie and don't bother thinking for yourself, we can think better for you". Ugh.

EricE 5y ago

Errors that always seem to error in one direction aren't errors :p