11 ms·
The slippery slope is real. The power to veto anyone's speech is toxic. Entrusting it to anyone, particularly those in power, is the implicit agreement to for
by throwaway20875 5y ago
The slippery slope is real.
The power to veto anyone's speech is toxic. Entrusting it to anyone, particularly those in power, is the implicit agreement to forfeit liberty.
- adsharma11 5y agoJournalists are crossing the lines more and more these days, so the number of such requests will continue to increase.
- meh99 5y agoFree speech is not under attack. No one has ever had a “freedom to demand others broadcast my personal speech at great technical and financial cost”. Anyone who thinks “free speech” obliges others to distribute their message is of dubious sanity. It’s authoritarian af to believe everyone else is your tape recorder. Edit: of course those who are all about free speech downvote me, proving my point; you aren’t obliged to import my message personally and chose to censor it publicly. But Twitter… they’re not people. Just big black box. So much for HN being a community of thinkers.
- SllX 5y agoI’ll be the first outside of Twitter to defend Twitter’s free speech and private property interests, but that doesn’t mean free speech isn’t under attack by governments and the politically ambitious. Twitter wants to kick you off because Twitter wants to kick you off? Fine. But Twitter does kick you off because the Government, any government because screw authoritarianism wherever it lives, asked them to? Then there’s a problem.
- ajford 5y agoIt's one thing when it's removed for violating TOS or when masses report it. It's entirely another when a government in power uses their clout to demand that journalists and advocates are silenced. That is the very definition of attacking free speech. The failure to see that is why you're being downvoted.
- meh99 5y agoOr you’re existing under a chemical delusion that two different things are occurring. It’s humans who don’t want to perpetuate other humans speech. I’m not going to live in your unscientific epistemology about nation states being worse than corporations; both enabled by humans. It’s all just humans. I don’t have to important other flimsy humans who aren’t of godly abilities. Tailoring my speech to keep my neighbors happy, seeing the nuance their way, is a direct attack on my speech.
- Nasrudith 5y agoTell me when Twitter throws a flashbang into anybody's home in a no knock raid at 3AM. The monopoly of legitimate violence is a huge difference.
- SllX 5y ago> I’m not going to live in your unscientific epistemology about nation states being worse than corporations; both enabled by humans. It’s all just humans. There is an honest distinction you’re missing with your reductive view of States and corporations: States have the power to detain, arrest, try, judge, imprison and kill you.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- armagon 5y agoFree speech is very much under attack. If the platforms we use to communicate -- and which generally allow any communication, no matter how poignant or inane -- allow some speech, but not others, we have a problem. Twitter is compelled to take down some messages. Facebook temporarily hellbans users for crossing over lines. I saw an article yesterday saying the US wants to filter SMS messages. E-mail seems safe at present, but that could change suddenly. Governments seem to be enacting hate-speech laws disallowing saying certain things, and that's double-plus good only if you agree with the power of the day. How, pray tell, do we have speech of any consequence, if the methods we regularly use to speak are denied to us?
- seriousquestion 5y agoHere's the SMS thing for the curious > Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee, are also planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccina...
- aj3 5y agoThat seems to be about stopping spamming over SMS. AFAIK censoring SMS between unknown individuals isn't even technically possible.
- floren 5y agoSMS is unencrypted and routes through the carrier's hardware. I can't see that much difficulty in, say, implementing a list of phrases or URLs which result in the message being dropped, given carrier cooperation. (The carrier cooperates or else they end up called into Congress over and over to testify about such-and-such)
- aj3 5y agoStandards don't provide such filtering functionality and telcos operate their equipment as a black box, so they don't have ability to implement additional features, especially when there is no business case for that and it could open them to new liability (undermining safe harbor arrangement).
- gotoeleven 5y agosocial media playbook 1) create company based on free exchange of ideas 2) get lots of users, crush all competitors with network effects 3) oh no some ideas are icky! they do harm to my Black body or are transmysoginist or whatever. We must shut these ideas down! 5) restrict controversial opinions to just the left wing ones 6) make asinine point about private platforms
- meh99 5y agoHuman playbook: put social agency into enabling invasive private and public power, complain about lack of free agency, reboot social contract. If you all don’t like it put your agency into dismantling these power structures rather than logging in to the matrix they erect
- BitwiseFool 5y ago>"No one has ever had a “freedom to demand others broadcast my personal speech at great technical and financial cost”." Twitter's business model is to get as many users as they can and to have them tweet prolifically. The financial impact is minimal. Scale matters. We aren't talking about coercing a cakeshop. Twitter is a de-facto public square and looks a lot more like infrastructure than a publisher. >"It’s authoritarian af to believe everyone else is your tape recorder." Why are we so concerned about being 'authoritarian' against a massive corporation when said corporation is making editorial decisions and silencing journalists and citizens? We should not be putting the 'rights' of a corporation above the liberties of human beings. People are down voting you, I suspect, because you appear to be vigorously defending the ability of corporations to infringe on personal liberties while appearing to champion liberty itself.
- meh99 5y agoTwitter is a private organization that owns the physical infrastructure it’s managing. When did we switch from capitalism to socialism? You own their infra and agency now? The slippery slope is every pleb thinking they’re David going against Goliath. Really you’re all just berating and competing with your neighbors. Turning them into ephemeral ideas all living behind a blue bird logo. The masses cheered this all on ignoring the political reality they exist in. The chemical bath washing through your brain isn’t the same as others.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago>"When did we switch from capitalism to socialism? You own their infra and agency now?" This is a non-sequitur. Organizations censoring speech can happen under any kind of economic system. As a thought experiment, how would you react if Amazon, Google, and Microsoft, collectively decided that Libertarians were a problematic and dangerous threat? And, these companies decided to de-platform every libertarian account they detected in the name of public safety. Would you champion such behavior? Would principles dictate that you defend their right to suppress you? I know this seems like a bizarre thought experiment, but I genuinely think the Libertarian crowd gladly defends their own censorship. Ultimately, which do you value more, Capitalism or Liberty?
- travoc 5y agoTake a look at Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center for an interesting case that set precedent in California. The CA courts have determined that certain areas of shopping malls are designed and used for public congregation – the modern equivalent of the town square – and should thus be treated as public for a for purposes of First Amendment analysis, which means that a much higher standard applies to speech restrictions in these areas. This standard could be applied to privately-owned online "town squares" in future decisions.
- forz877 5y agoThis would only apply to local town squares. You can not reasonably argue that a worldwide forum is a US town square.
- fallingknife 5y agoUh, have you heard of the phone company?
- naasking 5y ago> No one has ever had a “freedom to demand others broadcast my personal speech at great technical and financial cost”. Common carriers cannot moderate message contents or discriminate based on senders/receivers. Social media now does both, but they could arguably be regulated under common carrier laws. They are of course not obligated to do this for free, but that's their business model. We had a recent discussion on this from a paper written by a legal scholar, so I suggest you check it out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27762145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27762145
- BitwiseFool 5y agoAnd it's absolutely maddening to watch people defend this behavior under the guise of "they are a private company" and "you agreed to the ToS".
- nine_k 5y agoThey are a private company, etc. But here it's not what they choose to remove, not "moderation.. It's what those in power press them to remove, aka "censorship".
- antonzabirko 5y agoExcellent point, but it's important to note that currently the systems private companies use are little better than censorship. We need a non-affiliated govt agency to handle censorship/moderation requests.
- pyronik19 5y agoAs someone who leans right wing.... I have 0 trust in these types of institutions. They overwhelmingly have views that are aligned directly with the far left and they seem to exercise their authority when given it to further their own political objectives. Take the SPLC which is used by some tech platforms to decide who to censor. They wield their power to label people as white supremacist to get them banned not because they are in any reasonable persons view based on evidence have said or done things that are clearly racist.... but its just the labeling of an enemy to fit narrative. We don't need censorship with extra steps... we need free speech.
- HideousKojima 5y agoSee also the SPLC labeling people like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali "anti-Muslim extremists."
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- drieddust 5y agoYes and Twitter, FB, YT etc. pushed us on it by firing the first shots. When they decided to impose censorship and de platform as per their whim, they should have understood the consequences.
- csunbird 5y agoQuestion to people from U.S. or familiar with U.S. law: Isn't the government pressuring a private company to remove/censor a content violation of "Freedom of speech"? As a private company, Twitter can do whatever they want, but if Twitter is forced to remove and censor, wouldn't that be a violation?
- NotEvil 5y agoIf US govt does that. Sure other countries govt just write the laws so it's legal to do taht
- Hamuko 5y agoThe government of India probably doesn't give a shit about Twitter's First Amendment rights.
- Wohlf 5y agoThe US Constitution doesn't apply to Twitter operations in India.
- matt_s 5y agoUS First Amendment: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It prohibits Congress from restricting the press or individuals to speak freely via laws that Congress writes. The 1st amendment has nothing to do with Corporations restricting things in their purview. The 1st amendment doesn't apply to any social media or online commentary by people. It might apply to the "press" since online news is more pervasive than physical newspapers. What would be interesting is a clearer definition of press as it relates to social media accounts.
- reedjosh 5y agoThe title is: Twitter sees jump in govt demands to remove content of journalists > The 1st amendment has nothing to do with Corporations restricting things Sure, but it has everything to do with a corporation taking instruction from the government to restrict free speech.
- safog 5y agoAnd yet entrusting it to the platforms themselves seems equally bad given the Trump v Platforms saga. Either let the government make the rules on what speech is okay in their countries or let the platforms decide what's okay. You can't have both.
- packet_nerd 5y agoLet companies decide what is ok on their own platforms, but don't let them get so big, and break them up now that they have become so big.
- throw_m239339 5y agoTwitter literally censored presidents and ex-presidents. We're already way down the slope. Twitter can't act like they are victim of government pressure when they act like an extension of a certain political party in power and literally does their bidding...
- fullstop 5y agoThat was their decision, and it's absolutely different than the government demanding that content is removed. The First Amendment applies to the government demands and not Twitter operating as a private entity.
- BitwiseFool 5y agoIt seems to me that if you really want to be a despot, you should own the companies that control the flow of information. The beauty of it is that the Bill of Rights don't apply to you and you're not obligated to respect the rights it gives citizens because you aren't the government.
- fullstop 5y ago1. The government demanding that messages of private citizens be removed is a violation of their First Amendment Rights. 2. Twitter deleting content, banning users, etc, is entirely within their rights and is in no way a violation of anyone's First Amendment Rights. Twitter is not a government entity. Full stop. I'm currently sitting on some downvotes, which I find kind of unusual for a topic like this. Here's the text of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Which part, specifically, has Twitter violated?
- BitwiseFool 5y ago>"Twitter is not a government entity. Full stop." That's exactly my point. You can violate the principles of liberty freely as long as you aren't "the government". And the beauty of it is that people will defend you while you do it.
- MrBuddyCasino 5y agoUK seems especially ignorant about this. This just came out, Mike Graham wants those considered "racist" to be stripped of their human rights. "No bank account, no ability to travel, no passport no benefits nothing." https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1414888566941958144 https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1414888566941958144
- partiallypro 5y agoI saw they just arrested a man for saying racist things online after the Italy v England game. That's totally bonkers to me. We all agree racism is wrong but should speech backed by no actions be criminalized? I personally don't think so. Just ban the person from the platform and have private individuals handle it. The government has no place policing speech, it's a slippery slope to saying anything falls under x. I remember people complaining the governments were sweeping everything into the category of "terrorism" in order to stifle speech...that has disappeared. People seemed less inclined to support free speech now. Something I don't understand.
- hanniabu 5y agoSo verbal assault, harassment, and threats shouldn't be an issue?
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoNo, verbal assault, harassment, and threats are issues. They should be dealt with as those issues, whether or not there is a racist component. I'm not condoning racism here. Racism is morally and ethically bankrupt. But I think that your objection to partiallypro's comment doesn't hold water.
- partiallypro 5y agoOf course its an issue, but arresting someone for saying it and not acting it out seems ridiculous. Words are not actions, even if they are hurtful. Shun the person, ban them from games and platforms, educate them, etc...but arresting them?
- sandworm101 5y ago>> The power to veto anyone's speech is toxic. This isn't a veto on speech. It is a veto on a particular means of speech, a particular avenue of expression. The fact that we now equate that with actual censorship shows how disconnected we are from true oppression. Being blocked from twitter is an inconvenience, a non-event. Real censorship comes from government, covers ideas rather than means, and normally ends with people in jail/dead. A loss of one's tweet privileges pales in comparison.
- reedjosh 5y agoAnd if a person was prevented from printing an article in a newspaper, wouldn't that just be a veto on a particular means of speech? Our government isn't supposed to do this stuff. It's evil even if the initial intentions aren't.
- sandworm101 5y ago>> Our government isn't supposed to do this stuff. Except that "our government" regularly does this. There are all sorts of speech that we censor (copyright violations, violence, porn, hate etc). We don't think of it as wrong that our laws restrict such speech. Other countries have different laws restricting different speech. Certainly some countries have greater restrictions than others, but absolute freedom of speech is not a practical reality anywhere. Real anger should pointed not at twitter but at the countries who implement restrictions with which we disagree.
- reedjosh 5y ago> We don't think of it as wrong that our laws restrict such speech. I actually do think it's wrong. Culture and more speech is the solution to those issues.
- sreque 5y agoMichael Knowle's book: Speechless, controlling words, controlling minds, covers this topic extremely well. Unbridled free speech has never existed and never will. There will always be standards of speech. The question is always: what are those standards and who is in control of them? For this particular comment thread, the issue people are discussing is a relatively recent and very dramatic shift in power over speech. Today, a handful of high-tech oligarchs are controlling and enforcing standards of speech with far more efficacy than governments. It gets even scarier when you realize that governments know this and are now pressuring these tech companies to do their bidding.