4 ms·

This is somewhat true. For example, they put out a press release talking about Facebook / Twitter's unchecked power when they banned President Trump, but they

by skrowl 5y ago

This is somewhat true. For example, they put out a press release talking about Facebook / Twitter's unchecked power when they banned President Trump, but they didn't go further than that. Speech they hate gets a strongly worded press release. Speech they like gets actual litigation support.

joshuamorton 5y ago
> For example, they put out a press release talking about Facebook / Twitter's unchecked power when they banned President Trump, but they didn't go further than that. What exactly could they do? The ACLU is an organization that checks government overreach. What government overreach was involved when twitter banned Trump? Twitter banning Trump didn't violate anyone's civil liberties.
- engineer_22 5y ago
  You're right, private speech on private platforms is not protected by the constitution. However, I think we need to realize the physics of censorship have changed. Censure was once only available to the government, since they ostensibly controlled all public spaces and had the forces to make it so. Today, private companies control the largest forums for civic discourse, of which there is only a small handful of companies with wide reaching networks. These private companies therefore can have an undue effect on our civil government simply by exercising their rights to censor speech on their platforms. So, we could say, that Trump's civil liberties as currently defined were not violated. But it may be in everyone's interest to update our shared obligation to free speech (for what if the shoe was on the other foot?).
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    The only way I can imagine this making sense is if you admit that the US is a failed state. If the President of the United States needs assistance from a legal nonprofit to defend his civil liberties, then the US government has failed entirely and we should just start anew. I don't think this is the case, so I'm led to think there's some other flaw in this line of reasoning. Notably, > Censure was once only available to the government, since they ostensibly controlled all public spaces and had the forces to make it so. Is plainly false. You've never had the "right to distribution". A printing press owner didn't have to publish your pamphlet. The church never needed to let you give a sermon. The NYT didn't have to publish your article. CNN has never had an obligation to let you on air. There has always been a "best" method of distribution, and its always been private. Twitter blocking Trump isn't functionally different than the NYT or WaPo publishing the pentagon papers. It is a private organization exercising their right to push back against government propaganda. It is first amendment protected, and it should unequivocally be defended by those who believe in civil liberties.
    - emc3 5y ago
      > Twitter blocking Trump isn't functionally different than the NYT or WaPo publishing the pentagon papers. It is a private organization exercising their right to push back against government propaganda. It is first amendment protected, and it should unequivocally be defended by those who believe in civil liberties. This argument needs to be made more often. Thanks!
    - engineer_22 5y ago
      What happens, my dear fellow never-trumpers, if the shoe is on our own foot? What stops Twitter, Facebook, et al from silencing a political candidate with whom we agree? Let's imagine a popular progressive candidate running on a platform of anti-monopoly / privacy reform. If these companies feel threatened they have their marketing company come up with a scandal and pull the plug on the rising candidate. Is that acceptable? Can we trust big tech to do the right thing?
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        > What stops Twitter, Facebook, et al from silencing a political candidate with whom we agree? Well, why haven't they banned Sanders or Warren or Klobuchar or Markey or AoC who have all called for various things from anti-trust cases to explicitly breaking up big tech companies? > What happens, my dear fellow never-trumpers, if the shoe is on our own foot? Get back to me when facebook updates their acceptable use policy to disallow criticism of facebook.
  - clucas 5y ago
    What are the criteria for when a private site crosses the line to become a "public" site where it is no longer allowed to moderate its content (or has to moderate its content based on federal rules)? If it's based on average users over a time period, do we trust the site to report it accurately? If a user gets banned from a "private" site that has not yet hit the size threshold, and the user complains to the government and alleges that the site actually is big enough, does the the government go in and audit the company's logs to make a determination over whether it should be a "public" site? If it's based on something looser, like "percentage of people who use this site as their only news source," (which does seem more defensible, to me) how do we set up the criteria for making the determination? Also, how would the federal rules for content moderation look? Would a call for open insurrection still be bannable? What if two roughtly equal portions of the electorate don't agree about whether it was a call for insurrection? Who decides if it was? I think questions like these need to be thought through and answered before we can seriously talk about making a law that prevents social media companies from banning anyone they choose.
    - engineer_22 5y ago
      Yup, let's begin immediately!
      - clucas 5y ago
        Well, I can't see any answers to those questions that don't have serious flaws, worse than the problems such government control would prevent. Which is why I think government control over social media moderation is a really bad idea. Since you're the one who wants to change the status quo, why don't you suggest a proposal for how such federal moderation regulation would work? I'm willing to acknowledge that I may just be suffering a failure of imagination. Though, maybe not in this thread... contact in profile, or I'm sure we can discuss it next week when it comes up on HN again. :)
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure the ACLU took a side when hotels and restaurants weren't serving black people. There wasn't any government overreach there either.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    Fair point, but then I think my other reply makes sense here: if you believe that twitter's is "unchecked", you have to first admit that the US is a failed state. There's no other reasonable argument I can find where the US government would be unable to enjoin twitter from doing what it did. Either that, or what twitter did is perfectly in line with civil liberties as defined by pretty much everyone. They exercised their right to free association. What law would you create to enjoin them from having done so?
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    Perhaps you can cite something to add additional context. You amy or may not be aware that there are already laws designed to prevent discrimination against protected classes, and one sort of civil liberty is being able to enjoy the protection of the laws. You're comparing the ban of an individual with the ban of a whole ethnicity, which are obviously not equivalent.

by skrowl 5y ago

joshuamorton 5y ago

> For example, they put out a press release talking about Facebook / Twitter's unchecked power when they banned President Trump, but they didn't go further than that. What exactly could they do? The ACLU is an organization that checks government overreach. What government overreach was involved when twitter banned Trump? Twitter banning Trump didn't violate anyone's civil liberties.

engineer_22 5y ago
You're right, private speech on private platforms is not protected by the constitution. However, I think we need to realize the physics of censorship have changed. Censure was once only available to the government, since they ostensibly controlled all public spaces and had the forces to make it so. Today, private companies control the largest forums for civic discourse, of which there is only a small handful of companies with wide reaching networks. These private companies therefore can have an undue effect on our civil government simply by exercising their rights to censor speech on their platforms. So, we could say, that Trump's civil liberties as currently defined were not violated. But it may be in everyone's interest to update our shared obligation to free speech (for what if the shoe was on the other foot?).
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  The only way I can imagine this making sense is if you admit that the US is a failed state. If the President of the United States needs assistance from a legal nonprofit to defend his civil liberties, then the US government has failed entirely and we should just start anew. I don't think this is the case, so I'm led to think there's some other flaw in this line of reasoning. Notably, > Censure was once only available to the government, since they ostensibly controlled all public spaces and had the forces to make it so. Is plainly false. You've never had the "right to distribution". A printing press owner didn't have to publish your pamphlet. The church never needed to let you give a sermon. The NYT didn't have to publish your article. CNN has never had an obligation to let you on air. There has always been a "best" method of distribution, and its always been private. Twitter blocking Trump isn't functionally different than the NYT or WaPo publishing the pentagon papers. It is a private organization exercising their right to push back against government propaganda. It is first amendment protected, and it should unequivocally be defended by those who believe in civil liberties.
  - emc3 5y ago
    > Twitter blocking Trump isn't functionally different than the NYT or WaPo publishing the pentagon papers. It is a private organization exercising their right to push back against government propaganda. It is first amendment protected, and it should unequivocally be defended by those who believe in civil liberties. This argument needs to be made more often. Thanks!
  - engineer_22 5y ago
    What happens, my dear fellow never-trumpers, if the shoe is on our own foot? What stops Twitter, Facebook, et al from silencing a political candidate with whom we agree? Let's imagine a popular progressive candidate running on a platform of anti-monopoly / privacy reform. If these companies feel threatened they have their marketing company come up with a scandal and pull the plug on the rising candidate. Is that acceptable? Can we trust big tech to do the right thing?
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      > What stops Twitter, Facebook, et al from silencing a political candidate with whom we agree? Well, why haven't they banned Sanders or Warren or Klobuchar or Markey or AoC who have all called for various things from anti-trust cases to explicitly breaking up big tech companies? > What happens, my dear fellow never-trumpers, if the shoe is on our own foot? Get back to me when facebook updates their acceptable use policy to disallow criticism of facebook.
- clucas 5y ago
  What are the criteria for when a private site crosses the line to become a "public" site where it is no longer allowed to moderate its content (or has to moderate its content based on federal rules)? If it's based on average users over a time period, do we trust the site to report it accurately? If a user gets banned from a "private" site that has not yet hit the size threshold, and the user complains to the government and alleges that the site actually is big enough, does the the government go in and audit the company's logs to make a determination over whether it should be a "public" site? If it's based on something looser, like "percentage of people who use this site as their only news source," (which does seem more defensible, to me) how do we set up the criteria for making the determination? Also, how would the federal rules for content moderation look? Would a call for open insurrection still be bannable? What if two roughtly equal portions of the electorate don't agree about whether it was a call for insurrection? Who decides if it was? I think questions like these need to be thought through and answered before we can seriously talk about making a law that prevents social media companies from banning anyone they choose.
  - engineer_22 5y ago
    Yup, let's begin immediately!
    - clucas 5y ago
      Well, I can't see any answers to those questions that don't have serious flaws, worse than the problems such government control would prevent. Which is why I think government control over social media moderation is a really bad idea. Since you're the one who wants to change the status quo, why don't you suggest a proposal for how such federal moderation regulation would work? I'm willing to acknowledge that I may just be suffering a failure of imagination. Though, maybe not in this thread... contact in profile, or I'm sure we can discuss it next week when it comes up on HN again. :)
throwawayboise 5y ago
I'm pretty sure the ACLU took a side when hotels and restaurants weren't serving black people. There wasn't any government overreach there either.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  Fair point, but then I think my other reply makes sense here: if you believe that twitter's is "unchecked", you have to first admit that the US is a failed state. There's no other reasonable argument I can find where the US government would be unable to enjoin twitter from doing what it did. Either that, or what twitter did is perfectly in line with civil liberties as defined by pretty much everyone. They exercised their right to free association. What law would you create to enjoin them from having done so?
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Perhaps you can cite something to add additional context. You amy or may not be aware that there are already laws designed to prevent discrimination against protected classes, and one sort of civil liberty is being able to enjoy the protection of the laws. You're comparing the ban of an individual with the ban of a whole ethnicity, which are obviously not equivalent.