7 ms·

I mean, I disagree with (some of) platforms' content removal, but I don't disagree with their legal right to do so. If Twitter becomes a propaganda machine del

by OzyM 5y ago

I mean, I disagree with (some of) platforms' content removal, but I don't disagree with their legal right to do so. If Twitter becomes a propaganda machine deleting any tweet it disagrees with, I think that's shitty and if I had an account I'd delete it to avoid participating, but I'm not sold on why the government should make that illegal. People and private organizations currently have the right to propagandize in the U.S. (without explicitly calling for violent uprisings, etc). What's the major difference between Twitter moderating tweets and a privately-owned forum moderating comments?

jaywalk 5y ago
> What's the major difference between Twitter moderating tweets and a privately-owned forum moderating comments? Reach.
- penultimatename 5y ago
  Compelling counter argument. Why would the First Amendment's freedom of association change because a group is too large or loud in the public sphere?
  - peytn 5y ago
    Where does the First Amendment mention freedom of association?
    - suzumer 5y ago
      Freedom of speech implies freedom of association: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association#United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association#United_...
    - dec0dedab0de 5y ago
      While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) that freedom of association is an essential part of freedom of speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others. from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
    - bilbo0s 5y ago
      The fact that Freedom of Association is implicit in the First is not in question. All that's well litigated, and well understood. Which is why one can have country clubs with, for example, racial exclusivity clauses. I'm not saying a like the idea of racial exclusivity policies. I'm only saying the First clearly grants private organizations a right to practice racial exclusivity.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    The First Amendment explicitly differentiates on scale, as in "the people" versus "the government". When companies get large enough to wield power as de facto government, then it makes sense to demand that they too respect our natural rights.
    - mahogany 5y ago
      > When companies get large enough to wield power as de facto government, then it makes sense to demand that they too respect our natural rights. How do you encode "large enough" in the law? And are you suggesting Twitter is wielding power equivalent to that of a government?
      - mindslight 5y ago
        I didn't propose any specific legal encoding of "large enough", because yes, such a thing is hard to nail down and fraught with arguments. I am pointing out that if we view freedom of speech/association as a natural/human right, it is possible for entiti(es) that are not the bona fide "government" to be oppressing that right. This is trivially demonstrable by interpreting any existing society as an anarcho-capitalist paradise where there is no government, just one large company you're forced to contract with to obtain vital necessities. For a real world example within our society, take a look at the list of songs censored by Clear Channel in the wake of September 11, 2001. There was no bona fide government edict declaring this, just opaque corporate power ultimately wielded by the same people marching us to war in most other forums.
        mahogany 5y ago
        I think most people view freedom of speech as a right in a broad sense, particularly with respect to the government, but are also okay with a violation of it in certain contexts, like in a private domain. It seems to me that a bar owner kicking out a loud or inflammatory patron is an example of "oppressing that right", but most people understand this and have no problem with it because the alternative -- a world where the bar owner is forced to let the patron say anything they want on the bar owner's property -- is worse. There's a significant difference between private enterprise and government. For example, no matter how much a business doesn't like you, they can't jail you based on their own set of rules (laws).
- OzyM 5y ago
  So there's some popularity point where after people use a platform to talk enough times, the platform is no longer allowed to moderate the speech on it? Why? If I operate the world's biggest single-political-party discussion forum, is there a point where the forum is now legally compelled to host the other political party's opinions? (To be clear: I'm not saying that example is exactly analogous to Twitter, but I don't understand why one would be legally different)
  - adventured 5y ago
    > So there's some popularity point where after people use a platform to talk enough times, the platform is no longer allowed to moderate the speech on it? Why? Yes, such a point exists. If you have a monopoly, for instance, then you should be subject to very different considerations. If you possess a monopoly on a discussion/communication platform so massive that it has become very important to societal communication and reach, then your ability to do what you want in terms of censoring content, should be curtailed in the favor of promoting free speech rather than the opposite. Meaning even if the monopolist wants to pursue their own political agenda and censor speech, they are barred from doing so. That is the price a corporation should pay for owning such an important platform, their responsibility should be greater, their freedom of action should be restricted more. You may be allowed to sell ads in that important quasi-public square, however you should not be allowed to restrict human rights in the square. It is said, frequently and incorrectly, that only the government has the ability to censor. That's not correct. A monopoly, well positioned, can accomplish an identical outcome: it can restrict your voice in very comprehensive ways, including up to the point of literally denying you access to the Internet. And a group of monopolies that conspire together in pursuit of a political agenda, well it's just that much worse. Facebook (taking into account Facebook core + Instagram + WhatsApp) has a social media monopoly position, or something very close to it. They shouldn't get the same regulatory consideration as a modest sized political forum with 5,000 members. YouTube has a monopoly in its consumer-upload streaming video segment. It's drastically larger than its comparable peers. Vimeo (who is #2 or #3 these days? I have no idea) should not get the same treatment as YouTube. Google has a monopoly over search. It should not get the same treatment as DuckDuckGo. Amazon (as with Walmart), should not get the same regulatory treatment as Joe's little corner grocer. Twitter for its part, clearly doesn't have such a monopoly, even though it does have a massive, potent platform. AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile shouldn't be allowed to block your access to a phone account/number, and shouldn't be allowed to censor your calls. For exactly the same reason Facebook shouldn't be allowed to deplatform you. I think it's very clear we're going that direction, there is no scenario where the biggest platforms escape being regulated in terms of their ability to censor and deplatform. If it has to be done at the state level to start, it will be.
stale2002 5y ago
> I don't disagree with their legal right to do so. If the only thing that you care about is the legal requirements, then you are abdicating your ability to criticize these laws in India as well. You need to think beyond what is literally required or not required by law, and think about what the actual effect of a decision or policy is, regardless of who is enforcing it.
msravi 5y ago
> without explicitly calling for violent uprisings, etc So that's the problem in this context. Twitter WAS being used to call for a violent uprising in the name of a blatantly false non-existent "genocide": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27773994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27773994 To repeat, a farmer rammed a tractor into a barricade causing the tractor to overturn and was killed. The whole thing was clearly caught on camera[1][2]. Within minutes there were blatantly false tweets flying around saying that police had fired on the farmers and there was a genocide in progress (with an associated hashtag). Twitter refused to take down such blatantly false and deliberately incendiary tweets. 1. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/farmers-protest-one-dead-as-tractor-overturns-at-ito-area-in-delhi/videoshow/80467597.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-natio... 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgSLaOMEzHY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgSLaOMEzHY
- news_user 5y ago
  Twitter did take down tweets and suspended accounts. They were reinstated.
  - msravi 5y ago
    No, they did not take them down immediately (or even the same day) when it mattered. They took them down some 2 or 3 days or so after the incident, after the government cried foul and there was a big brouhaha about the whole thing. The new IT rules mandate a time-bound takedown for lawful requests. Hence the need for a compliance officer.
- forcry 5y ago
  >Twitter refused to take down such blatantly false and deliberately incendiary tweets. The problem of applying censorship to counter fake news is that the same thing can be applied to counter legit news as well. So such a precedent should never be set.
  - msravi 5y ago
    That's a good philosophical position to take, except when you're in charge of the law and order of a city, and you have messages such as these doing the rounds in the midst of a large scale protest. The messages are used to legitimize people armed with daggers and sickles and machetes belonging to sundry outfits pouring out onto the streets and indulging in arson, rioting, and murder. The situation is not hypothetical. Twitter itself, of course, does not take that philosophical position.

by OzyM 5y ago

jaywalk 5y ago

> What's the major difference between Twitter moderating tweets and a privately-owned forum moderating comments? Reach.

penultimatename 5y ago
Compelling counter argument. Why would the First Amendment's freedom of association change because a group is too large or loud in the public sphere?
- peytn 5y ago
  Where does the First Amendment mention freedom of association?
  - suzumer 5y ago
    Freedom of speech implies freedom of association: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association#United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association#United_...
  - dec0dedab0de 5y ago
    While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) that freedom of association is an essential part of freedom of speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others. from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
  - bilbo0s 5y ago
    The fact that Freedom of Association is implicit in the First is not in question. All that's well litigated, and well understood. Which is why one can have country clubs with, for example, racial exclusivity clauses. I'm not saying a like the idea of racial exclusivity policies. I'm only saying the First clearly grants private organizations a right to practice racial exclusivity.
- mindslight 5y ago
  The First Amendment explicitly differentiates on scale, as in "the people" versus "the government". When companies get large enough to wield power as de facto government, then it makes sense to demand that they too respect our natural rights.
  - mahogany 5y ago
    > When companies get large enough to wield power as de facto government, then it makes sense to demand that they too respect our natural rights. How do you encode "large enough" in the law? And are you suggesting Twitter is wielding power equivalent to that of a government?
    - mindslight 5y ago
      I didn't propose any specific legal encoding of "large enough", because yes, such a thing is hard to nail down and fraught with arguments. I am pointing out that if we view freedom of speech/association as a natural/human right, it is possible for entiti(es) that are not the bona fide "government" to be oppressing that right. This is trivially demonstrable by interpreting any existing society as an anarcho-capitalist paradise where there is no government, just one large company you're forced to contract with to obtain vital necessities. For a real world example within our society, take a look at the list of songs censored by Clear Channel in the wake of September 11, 2001. There was no bona fide government edict declaring this, just opaque corporate power ultimately wielded by the same people marching us to war in most other forums.
      - mahogany 5y ago
        I think most people view freedom of speech as a right in a broad sense, particularly with respect to the government, but are also okay with a violation of it in certain contexts, like in a private domain. It seems to me that a bar owner kicking out a loud or inflammatory patron is an example of "oppressing that right", but most people understand this and have no problem with it because the alternative -- a world where the bar owner is forced to let the patron say anything they want on the bar owner's property -- is worse. There's a significant difference between private enterprise and government. For example, no matter how much a business doesn't like you, they can't jail you based on their own set of rules (laws).
OzyM 5y ago
So there's some popularity point where after people use a platform to talk enough times, the platform is no longer allowed to moderate the speech on it? Why? If I operate the world's biggest single-political-party discussion forum, is there a point where the forum is now legally compelled to host the other political party's opinions? (To be clear: I'm not saying that example is exactly analogous to Twitter, but I don't understand why one would be legally different)
- adventured 5y ago
  > So there's some popularity point where after people use a platform to talk enough times, the platform is no longer allowed to moderate the speech on it? Why? Yes, such a point exists. If you have a monopoly, for instance, then you should be subject to very different considerations. If you possess a monopoly on a discussion/communication platform so massive that it has become very important to societal communication and reach, then your ability to do what you want in terms of censoring content, should be curtailed in the favor of promoting free speech rather than the opposite. Meaning even if the monopolist wants to pursue their own political agenda and censor speech, they are barred from doing so. That is the price a corporation should pay for owning such an important platform, their responsibility should be greater, their freedom of action should be restricted more. You may be allowed to sell ads in that important quasi-public square, however you should not be allowed to restrict human rights in the square. It is said, frequently and incorrectly, that only the government has the ability to censor. That's not correct. A monopoly, well positioned, can accomplish an identical outcome: it can restrict your voice in very comprehensive ways, including up to the point of literally denying you access to the Internet. And a group of monopolies that conspire together in pursuit of a political agenda, well it's just that much worse. Facebook (taking into account Facebook core + Instagram + WhatsApp) has a social media monopoly position, or something very close to it. They shouldn't get the same regulatory consideration as a modest sized political forum with 5,000 members. YouTube has a monopoly in its consumer-upload streaming video segment. It's drastically larger than its comparable peers. Vimeo (who is #2 or #3 these days? I have no idea) should not get the same treatment as YouTube. Google has a monopoly over search. It should not get the same treatment as DuckDuckGo. Amazon (as with Walmart), should not get the same regulatory treatment as Joe's little corner grocer. Twitter for its part, clearly doesn't have such a monopoly, even though it does have a massive, potent platform. AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile shouldn't be allowed to block your access to a phone account/number, and shouldn't be allowed to censor your calls. For exactly the same reason Facebook shouldn't be allowed to deplatform you. I think it's very clear we're going that direction, there is no scenario where the biggest platforms escape being regulated in terms of their ability to censor and deplatform. If it has to be done at the state level to start, it will be.

stale2002 5y ago

> I don't disagree with their legal right to do so. If the only thing that you care about is the legal requirements, then you are abdicating your ability to criticize these laws in India as well. You need to think beyond what is literally required or not required by law, and think about what the actual effect of a decision or policy is, regardless of who is enforcing it.

msravi 5y ago

> without explicitly calling for violent uprisings, etc So that's the problem in this context. Twitter WAS being used to call for a violent uprising in the name of a blatantly false non-existent "genocide": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27773994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27773994 To repeat, a farmer rammed a tractor into a barricade causing the tractor to overturn and was killed. The whole thing was clearly caught on camera[1][2]. Within minutes there were blatantly false tweets flying around saying that police had fired on the farmers and there was a genocide in progress (with an associated hashtag). Twitter refused to take down such blatantly false and deliberately incendiary tweets. 1. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/farmers-protest-one-dead-as-tractor-overturns-at-ito-area-in-delhi/videoshow/80467597.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-natio... 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgSLaOMEzHY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgSLaOMEzHY

news_user 5y ago
Twitter did take down tweets and suspended accounts. They were reinstated.
- msravi 5y ago
  No, they did not take them down immediately (or even the same day) when it mattered. They took them down some 2 or 3 days or so after the incident, after the government cried foul and there was a big brouhaha about the whole thing. The new IT rules mandate a time-bound takedown for lawful requests. Hence the need for a compliance officer.
forcry 5y ago
>Twitter refused to take down such blatantly false and deliberately incendiary tweets. The problem of applying censorship to counter fake news is that the same thing can be applied to counter legit news as well. So such a precedent should never be set.
- msravi 5y ago
  That's a good philosophical position to take, except when you're in charge of the law and order of a city, and you have messages such as these doing the rounds in the midst of a large scale protest. The messages are used to legitimize people armed with daggers and sickles and machetes belonging to sundry outfits pouring out onto the streets and indulging in arson, rioting, and murder. The situation is not hypothetical. Twitter itself, of course, does not take that philosophical position.