6 ms·

I've been saying for years that authoritarianism is headed to America if we don't protect it. With the downfall of Florida as well as many other states, perhap

by rc_mob 5y ago

I've been saying for years that authoritarianism is headed to America if we don't protect it. With the downfall of Florida as well as many other states, perhaps authoritarian control has truly taken over. This is all about Ron DeSantis and Florida Republicans being upset that Twitter banned Trump. This law is as authoritarian as it gets.

mc32 5y ago
Maybe but... I think this has to do more with the arbitrary nature of deplatforming. On the one hand you can have groups calling fir violence against another group and that is ignored, which is fine, but then another group engages in similar behavior and they get banned... which is not impartial. That’s a problem if you have received ideology. Moreover, I think not silencing politicians is a good thing. Let all sides broadcast their ideas or platforms and let voters decide rather than an unaccountable private Corp.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  You're basically suggesting that politicians should be above the law on these platforms, immune to rules, because they're politicians. Do I need to explain how bad that is? If a politician breaks the rules, ideally they should be subject to the same rules anyone else is, and the same goes for any other rich or famous people. Obviously in practice that's going to be a hard target to hit, but for God's sake we shouldn't make it an explicit goal to make them a special class that can do whatever they want with impunity.
  - rc_mob 5y ago
    Yeah politicians being held to a different standard than the rest is textbook authoritarianism.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
You're being downvoted, but you're right. There's a reason that first amendment free speech protections apply to the government, and not private actors. And there's no "...unless they get big enough" exception, despite what some seem to think. The government regulating what speech private platforms may allow or ban is textbook authoritarianism. If a private group wants to permit anything that's not outright illegal, or if they want to have very strict rules on what's allowed, either of those should be fine. And if a company is being overly and unreasonably restrictive about rules, that's a perfect opportunity for a disruptor to enter the fray. The very fact that attempted disruptors constantly get slapped down is a good indication that the rules some complain about aren't nearly as unreasonably as they appear. If the market opening was really that big, someone would be able to make it happen effectively.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  Amusing that you think state enforcement of the first amendment on a "neutral platform" is authoritarian while you're perfectly fine with trillion dollar tech monopolies who abuse antitrust law and defamation law lording over the internet and limiting speech in the process, targeting and favoring one political party over another. It doesn't take too much self reflection to understand if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be the one pulling for the state to "do something about it".
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    > Amusing that you think state enforcement of the first amendment on a "neutral platform" is authoritarian That's not what the first amendment is. The first amendment ONLY applies to the government. The fact that so many on hacker news continue to not understand this simple fact no matter how many times it's explained is absolutely mind-boggling. You can complain about Facebook and Twitter's policies as being dumb or bad, fine, but regardless of your opinion on them, they have nothing to do with the first amendment. None. The first amendment has NEVER meant that private groups are obligated to carry your speech. Even if Facebook was explicitly discriminating in the open against one side, that would be entirely within their rights. Maybe that would be a bad thing that you could argue against, but it would have nothing to do with the Constitution. edit: also, what does "neutral platform" even mean? Oh, I'm sure FB and Twitter make some claims to 'neutrality' or 'lack of bias', somewhere, but what legal weight or meaning does that have? None whatsoever. Or are you trying to suggest that if tomorrow Zuckerberg announced, "we're going to be the biggest online social platform for Marxists only" this would make it okay in your eyes?
    - vineyardmike 5y ago
      So, I’m not OP. I know what the 1st amendment is as you defined. BUT the idea of free speech is heavily ingrained in American culture. School children complain about free speech when their teacher asks them to be nice - it’s a freedom learned from a very young age. While the freedom technically only applies to freedom from government, it’s a commonly held belief in America that everyone’s speech is free and should be free, which is applied even on places like fb or Twitter. The idea (even if not the practice) that speech is protected and neutral in all forums of society is VERY American.
chrisco255 5y ago
Florida is one of the least authoritarian states in the union.
- smt88 5y ago
  Tell that to people who want(ed) to have homosexual relationships or an abortion.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    Florida allows for conversion therapy on minors[1], and allows housing discrimination against LGBT people[2], as well. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Florida#Conversion_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Florida#Convers... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States#Anti-discrimination_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_Stat...
    - chrisco255 5y ago
      "However, it died in a House subcommittee on March 11, 2016.[87] A similar bill died in 2017.[88]" Nice drive by, try checking your sources a little more closely.
      - heavyset_go 5y ago
        You should try reading what you're copy and pasting from: > On September 3, 2015, State Representative David Richardson filed a bill to ban the use of conversion therapy on LGBT minors.[86] The bill was introduced to the Florida Legislature on January 12, 2016. However, it died in a House subcommittee on March 11, 2016.[87] A similar bill died in 2017.[88] The bills that died were bills that ban conversion therapy.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    It doesn't count as authoritarianism when they're my restrictive laws.
- 5y ago

by rc_mob 5y ago

mc32 5y ago

Maybe but... I think this has to do more with the arbitrary nature of deplatforming. On the one hand you can have groups calling fir violence against another group and that is ignored, which is fine, but then another group engages in similar behavior and they get banned... which is not impartial. That’s a problem if you have received ideology. Moreover, I think not silencing politicians is a good thing. Let all sides broadcast their ideas or platforms and let voters decide rather than an unaccountable private Corp.

TulliusCicero 5y ago
You're basically suggesting that politicians should be above the law on these platforms, immune to rules, because they're politicians. Do I need to explain how bad that is? If a politician breaks the rules, ideally they should be subject to the same rules anyone else is, and the same goes for any other rich or famous people. Obviously in practice that's going to be a hard target to hit, but for God's sake we shouldn't make it an explicit goal to make them a special class that can do whatever they want with impunity.
- rc_mob 5y ago
  Yeah politicians being held to a different standard than the rest is textbook authoritarianism.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

You're being downvoted, but you're right. There's a reason that first amendment free speech protections apply to the government, and not private actors. And there's no "...unless they get big enough" exception, despite what some seem to think. The government regulating what speech private platforms may allow or ban is textbook authoritarianism. If a private group wants to permit anything that's not outright illegal, or if they want to have very strict rules on what's allowed, either of those should be fine. And if a company is being overly and unreasonably restrictive about rules, that's a perfect opportunity for a disruptor to enter the fray. The very fact that attempted disruptors constantly get slapped down is a good indication that the rules some complain about aren't nearly as unreasonably as they appear. If the market opening was really that big, someone would be able to make it happen effectively.

chrisco255 5y ago
Amusing that you think state enforcement of the first amendment on a "neutral platform" is authoritarian while you're perfectly fine with trillion dollar tech monopolies who abuse antitrust law and defamation law lording over the internet and limiting speech in the process, targeting and favoring one political party over another. It doesn't take too much self reflection to understand if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be the one pulling for the state to "do something about it".
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  > Amusing that you think state enforcement of the first amendment on a "neutral platform" is authoritarian That's not what the first amendment is. The first amendment ONLY applies to the government. The fact that so many on hacker news continue to not understand this simple fact no matter how many times it's explained is absolutely mind-boggling. You can complain about Facebook and Twitter's policies as being dumb or bad, fine, but regardless of your opinion on them, they have nothing to do with the first amendment. None. The first amendment has NEVER meant that private groups are obligated to carry your speech. Even if Facebook was explicitly discriminating in the open against one side, that would be entirely within their rights. Maybe that would be a bad thing that you could argue against, but it would have nothing to do with the Constitution. edit: also, what does "neutral platform" even mean? Oh, I'm sure FB and Twitter make some claims to 'neutrality' or 'lack of bias', somewhere, but what legal weight or meaning does that have? None whatsoever. Or are you trying to suggest that if tomorrow Zuckerberg announced, "we're going to be the biggest online social platform for Marxists only" this would make it okay in your eyes?
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    So, I’m not OP. I know what the 1st amendment is as you defined. BUT the idea of free speech is heavily ingrained in American culture. School children complain about free speech when their teacher asks them to be nice - it’s a freedom learned from a very young age. While the freedom technically only applies to freedom from government, it’s a commonly held belief in America that everyone’s speech is free and should be free, which is applied even on places like fb or Twitter. The idea (even if not the practice) that speech is protected and neutral in all forums of society is VERY American.

chrisco255 5y ago

Florida is one of the least authoritarian states in the union.

smt88 5y ago
Tell that to people who want(ed) to have homosexual relationships or an abortion.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  Florida allows for conversion therapy on minors[1], and allows housing discrimination against LGBT people[2], as well. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Florida#Conversion_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Florida#Convers... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States#Anti-discrimination_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_Stat...
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    "However, it died in a House subcommittee on March 11, 2016.[87] A similar bill died in 2017.[88]" Nice drive by, try checking your sources a little more closely.
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      You should try reading what you're copy and pasting from: > On September 3, 2015, State Representative David Richardson filed a bill to ban the use of conversion therapy on LGBT minors.[86] The bill was introduced to the Florida Legislature on January 12, 2016. However, it died in a House subcommittee on March 11, 2016.[87] A similar bill died in 2017.[88] The bills that died were bills that ban conversion therapy.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  It doesn't count as authoritarianism when they're my restrictive laws.
5y ago