3 ms·

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 the

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.
    - TulliusCicero 5y ago
      > 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. I mean, that actually does potentially apply there, assuming it's a public school. In practice, speech there does tend to be limited anyway, but there have absolutely been first amendment court cases about what schools are and aren't allowed to restrict. > 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. Not really, though. Everyone gets that even if you send in a letter to the editor, that doesn't make them obligated to reprint it. Almost every other kind of company, people already accept that they aren't obligated to work with you or allow you to publish what you want. Everyone's seen those signs about, "we reserve the right to refuse service blah blah blah" hanging around all kinds of retail stores. In fact, the people complaining the loudest here -- conservatives -- are usually the people saying, "government should stay out of business, let businesses do whatever they want". It's only now that this principle works against them that they're finding that suddenly they don't agree anymore, and they would rather the government micromanage business policies to their political advantage. It's naked partisanship.
    - anjbe 5y ago
      A counterpoint to that is that in American thought, freedom of speech includes the right to not be compelled to speak. An individual or a private company generally can’t be forced to promulgate opinions they don’t wish to, thanks to the protections of the First Amendment.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

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.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    > 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. I mean, that actually does potentially apply there, assuming it's a public school. In practice, speech there does tend to be limited anyway, but there have absolutely been first amendment court cases about what schools are and aren't allowed to restrict. > 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. Not really, though. Everyone gets that even if you send in a letter to the editor, that doesn't make them obligated to reprint it. Almost every other kind of company, people already accept that they aren't obligated to work with you or allow you to publish what you want. Everyone's seen those signs about, "we reserve the right to refuse service blah blah blah" hanging around all kinds of retail stores. In fact, the people complaining the loudest here -- conservatives -- are usually the people saying, "government should stay out of business, let businesses do whatever they want". It's only now that this principle works against them that they're finding that suddenly they don't agree anymore, and they would rather the government micromanage business policies to their political advantage. It's naked partisanship.
  - anjbe 5y ago
    A counterpoint to that is that in American thought, freedom of speech includes the right to not be compelled to speak. An individual or a private company generally can’t be forced to promulgate opinions they don’t wish to, thanks to the protections of the First Amendment.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]