6 ms·

Even despot, tyrannically insane people have rights. Those rights are provided by the Constitution of the USA. That said, free speech is not an absolute right

Even despot, tyrannically insane people have rights. Those rights are provided by the Constitution of the USA. That said, free speech is not an absolute right, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#:~:text=United%20States-,Decision,draft%20during%20World%20War%20I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the.... Private companies are free to run their business any way they want. If they choose to ban a person based on the 45th president promoting an overthrow of the government, so be it. Just as hacker news has rules so does Facebook, if you don't like it, go somewhere else. In the case of our previous president (45th that is) that tends to exaggerate his wealth, why doesn't he just buy enough stock in Facebook to control it and change it's rules?

HarryHirsch 5y ago
Just as hacker news has rules so does Facebook, if you don't like it, go somewhere else. What do you do when Facebook is the monopolist and you can't go anywhere else?
- erdaniels 5y ago
  They’re not though
  - HarryHirsch 5y ago
    In many peoples' minds, Facebook is social media, in the way that Google is websearch. OK, if you won't/can't use Google there's Bing or DDG, but, seriously, what's the alternative to Facebook?
    - krapp 5y ago
      >In many peoples' minds, Facebook is social media, in the way that Google is websearch. This is a popular meme, but I'm not certain it's true. Given how many people use Twitter, Reddit, Tiktok, Twitch, Instagram, Discord, etc, it doesn't seem as if they're somehow also unaware that the rest of the web or alternative means of communication exist. I mean, Donald Trump literally just started his own "social media platform," and his followers have been bouncing around right-wing "alternative" platforms for years. Not even the people primarily responsible for pushing the fear narrative around social media and it's "Orwellian" control of free speech really seem to be suffering under its hypothetical jackboot.
      - HarryHirsch 5y ago
        This is a popular meme, but I'm not certain it's true. Given how many people use Twitter, Reddit, Tiktok, Twitch, Instagram, Discord, etc, it doesn't seem as if they're somehow also unaware that the rest of the web or alternative means of communication exist. There's exactly one, maybe two of each for each type of media. Twitter for soundbits, Tiktok for video, Instagram for photo - in the past you had your choice of publishers. If one didn't like you you could go to another and at least get the message out. I'm seeing the concentration in the media market with great concern, it gives excessive power to shape opinion to a few magnates. The Trump ban is just a symptom.
        krapp 5y ago
        In the past, you had far less choice than you do now. There are literally hundreds of social media platforms on the web, not even counting the decentralized offerings like Mastodon and Diaspora. And Trump is proving that the tried and true model of just setting up your own site still works. Somehow, despite everyone claiming he's been memory-holed and erased like Stalin erased Trotsky, he seems to be doing just fine. We seem to be living in different realities. Where you're seeing media concentrating, I'm seeing it fragmenting and diverge. The big social media silos are popular, but that popularity doesn't translate to control of the medium.
        nailer 5y ago
        Network effects make Mastodon and Diaspora irrelevant. Facebook is political discussion with your contacts., Twitter is public political discussion.
        krapp 5y ago
        You're overstating the strength of network effects, political discussion happens everywhere.
        nailer 5y ago
emouryto 5y ago
> Just as hacker news has rules so does Facebook, if you don't like it, go somewhere else. Sometimes those rules are illegal. For both Facebook and HN. But sure, let's just pretend money means you don't live under any state jurisdiction.
throwaway292893 5y ago
The shouting fire being illegal is a myth. The court case was about the Espionage Act of 1917, and was extremely unconstitutional. It was about speaking about against the draft. Holmes justified his ruling with the fire statement at the end of the case, but it has nothing to do with constitutional law, it was an emotional statement. The court case itself was unconstitutional, and that statement everyone repeats has no legal binding whatsoever as it had no bearing on anything. I doubt you agree with the outcome of that case (socialists being imprisoned for speaking out against the draft) so why would you use an emotional statement used to justify it? Private companies are not free to do whatever they want, there are regulations. When companies get too large they should be regulated. You can argue these companies have possibly outgrown their Section 230 immunities as they are no longer acting as a neutral platform. They are editorializing their content, acting as a publisher. The social media giants are entrenched with government and businesses solely using them for support and communications, you cannot simply move off. I guess you are very pro corporate and you feel like corporations should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want. It being legally okay, does not make it morally okay and laws can change to meet the morals. Maybe we should apply the 1A to these platforms.
- hsnewman 5y ago
  Your saying that the supreme court ruling is unconstitutional? Really? I guess I can guess you think the election was fixed too.
  - throwaway292893 5y ago
    Considering that it was mostly overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio, SCOTUS agreed that it was unconstitutional and overreaching. They held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". But yes overall I say their first decision of imprisoning people for speaking out against the draft was unconstitutional, socialist or not.
    - hsnewman 5y ago
caseysoftware 5y ago
The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" case was mostly overturned 50 years later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio > Private companies are free to run their business any way they want. On that aspect, is there a point where they're no longer acting as themselves but as an extension of the government? - If the government has requested particular action? - If they're under contract by the government? - If they've been ordered by the government via a judicial preceding? - If they've been ordered by the government via law or even just Executive action? We're well into a time where governments are hiring corporations to do what they themselves are legally barred from doing. If there are no boundaries, there are few (no?) rules.
kyleblarson 5y ago
"Private companies are free to run their business any way they want. If they choose to ban a person based on the 45th president promoting an overthrow of the government, so be it." Big pharma can charge whatever they want right? They are private companies. If you don't want that insulin injection or epi-pen then just don't buy one.
gilbetron 5y ago
Furthermore, if Facebook or Twitter are so large that they function as the new public space, the answer isn't to prevent them from banning people, but to break them up. The issue isn't a private company determining who gets to be on their platform, but that their platform is effectively a monopoly and monopolies are bad.
HNfriend234 5y ago
except these people do go to other places and then people tell ISPs and the such to block those websites...see 8chan. Look at the controversy over platforms like parler and gab as well. This is why I think the ultimate solution is to have platforms that are fully encrypted, anonymized (TOR) and decentralized. This is the only way to ensure people can exercise their freedom of speech without harassment. Basic implementations have already been built, bitmessage, for example but that technology needs to be expanded into more of a reddit-like website. Make posters/comments/upvotes burn CPU cycles to participate and pay rewards to the people hosting/mining.

HarryHirsch 5y ago

Just as hacker news has rules so does Facebook, if you don't like it, go somewhere else. What do you do when Facebook is the monopolist and you can't go anywhere else?

erdaniels 5y ago
They’re not though
- HarryHirsch 5y ago
  In many peoples' minds, Facebook is social media, in the way that Google is websearch. OK, if you won't/can't use Google there's Bing or DDG, but, seriously, what's the alternative to Facebook?
  - krapp 5y ago
    >In many peoples' minds, Facebook is social media, in the way that Google is websearch. This is a popular meme, but I'm not certain it's true. Given how many people use Twitter, Reddit, Tiktok, Twitch, Instagram, Discord, etc, it doesn't seem as if they're somehow also unaware that the rest of the web or alternative means of communication exist. I mean, Donald Trump literally just started his own "social media platform," and his followers have been bouncing around right-wing "alternative" platforms for years. Not even the people primarily responsible for pushing the fear narrative around social media and it's "Orwellian" control of free speech really seem to be suffering under its hypothetical jackboot.
    - HarryHirsch 5y ago
      This is a popular meme, but I'm not certain it's true. Given how many people use Twitter, Reddit, Tiktok, Twitch, Instagram, Discord, etc, it doesn't seem as if they're somehow also unaware that the rest of the web or alternative means of communication exist. There's exactly one, maybe two of each for each type of media. Twitter for soundbits, Tiktok for video, Instagram for photo - in the past you had your choice of publishers. If one didn't like you you could go to another and at least get the message out. I'm seeing the concentration in the media market with great concern, it gives excessive power to shape opinion to a few magnates. The Trump ban is just a symptom.
      - krapp 5y ago
        In the past, you had far less choice than you do now. There are literally hundreds of social media platforms on the web, not even counting the decentralized offerings like Mastodon and Diaspora. And Trump is proving that the tried and true model of just setting up your own site still works. Somehow, despite everyone claiming he's been memory-holed and erased like Stalin erased Trotsky, he seems to be doing just fine. We seem to be living in different realities. Where you're seeing media concentrating, I'm seeing it fragmenting and diverge. The big social media silos are popular, but that popularity doesn't translate to control of the medium.
        nailer 5y ago
        Network effects make Mastodon and Diaspora irrelevant. Facebook is political discussion with your contacts., Twitter is public political discussion.
        krapp 5y ago
        You're overstating the strength of network effects, political discussion happens everywhere.
        nailer 5y ago

emouryto 5y ago

> Just as hacker news has rules so does Facebook, if you don't like it, go somewhere else. Sometimes those rules are illegal. For both Facebook and HN. But sure, let's just pretend money means you don't live under any state jurisdiction.

throwaway292893 5y ago

The shouting fire being illegal is a myth. The court case was about the Espionage Act of 1917, and was extremely unconstitutional. It was about speaking about against the draft. Holmes justified his ruling with the fire statement at the end of the case, but it has nothing to do with constitutional law, it was an emotional statement. The court case itself was unconstitutional, and that statement everyone repeats has no legal binding whatsoever as it had no bearing on anything. I doubt you agree with the outcome of that case (socialists being imprisoned for speaking out against the draft) so why would you use an emotional statement used to justify it? Private companies are not free to do whatever they want, there are regulations. When companies get too large they should be regulated. You can argue these companies have possibly outgrown their Section 230 immunities as they are no longer acting as a neutral platform. They are editorializing their content, acting as a publisher. The social media giants are entrenched with government and businesses solely using them for support and communications, you cannot simply move off. I guess you are very pro corporate and you feel like corporations should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want. It being legally okay, does not make it morally okay and laws can change to meet the morals. Maybe we should apply the 1A to these platforms.

hsnewman 5y ago
Your saying that the supreme court ruling is unconstitutional? Really? I guess I can guess you think the election was fixed too.
- throwaway292893 5y ago
  Considering that it was mostly overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio, SCOTUS agreed that it was unconstitutional and overreaching. They held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". But yes overall I say their first decision of imprisoning people for speaking out against the draft was unconstitutional, socialist or not.
  - hsnewman 5y ago

caseysoftware 5y ago

The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" case was mostly overturned 50 years later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio > Private companies are free to run their business any way they want. On that aspect, is there a point where they're no longer acting as themselves but as an extension of the government? - If the government has requested particular action? - If they're under contract by the government? - If they've been ordered by the government via a judicial preceding? - If they've been ordered by the government via law or even just Executive action? We're well into a time where governments are hiring corporations to do what they themselves are legally barred from doing. If there are no boundaries, there are few (no?) rules.

kyleblarson 5y ago

"Private companies are free to run their business any way they want. If they choose to ban a person based on the 45th president promoting an overthrow of the government, so be it." Big pharma can charge whatever they want right? They are private companies. If you don't want that insulin injection or epi-pen then just don't buy one.

gilbetron 5y ago

Furthermore, if Facebook or Twitter are so large that they function as the new public space, the answer isn't to prevent them from banning people, but to break them up. The issue isn't a private company determining who gets to be on their platform, but that their platform is effectively a monopoly and monopolies are bad.

HNfriend234 5y ago

except these people do go to other places and then people tell ISPs and the such to block those websites...see 8chan. Look at the controversy over platforms like parler and gab as well. This is why I think the ultimate solution is to have platforms that are fully encrypted, anonymized (TOR) and decentralized. This is the only way to ensure people can exercise their freedom of speech without harassment. Basic implementations have already been built, bitmessage, for example but that technology needs to be expanded into more of a reddit-like website. Make posters/comments/upvotes burn CPU cycles to participate and pay rewards to the people hosting/mining.