8 ms·

>You cannot have true democracy if people cannot disagree with their governments, they must be able to disagree with any truth or opinion such a government migh

>You cannot have true democracy if people cannot disagree with their governments, they must be able to disagree with any truth or opinion such a government might consider self-evident, just on the off chance they're right. Google is not the government. It's a private company owned by private citizens who also have the same constitutional rights. You're not being 'censored'. It's not a violation of your free speech. You're free to petition the government and you're free to just host your files someplace other than Google Drive. Access to Google Drive is not a 'right'. Quit trying to conflate the two. It's a disingenuous argument meant to confuse the issue and push a personal narrative.

mjthompson 5y ago
I'm not even close to convinced by your response. Relying on the public-private divide as the sole basis for your retort is weak. You also assert that the person is pushing a personal narrative, but I suggest you're doing the same. There's an argument that private corporations that are involved in dissemination of information (search engines and social media) should respect principles of freedom of speech as a democratic principle, regardless of constitutional mandate. Suppose the government outsources welfare eligibility decision-making to a private company. Does this mean traditional notions of fairness we would expect from such an decision-maker do not apply, because they are a private company?
- pronlover723 5y ago
  So then, I should be able to paint your house and car with whatever messages "I" want and you should not be allowed to erase them. Is that the argument you're making?
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    If "my" house is actually a meeting place for half the country, or even just half the city, and I've decided almost anyone can paint on the walls, I should not be able to say that one specific person cannot paint on the walls because, for instance, I don't like what party they vote for. Any restriction on wallpainting in that space must be independent of the content of the message. If I wanted to limit that message, I should have to go through the proper democratic circles, ie. pass a city ordnance. This is the same logic that prevents me from saying that in this meeting hall, gay people are not allowed entry.
    - mjthompson 5y ago
      I don't think I need to respond - you've encapsulated what I would have said perfectly.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      You've conflated a few things here. Are we banning people or messages? You've said that bans need to be content neutral, but also that they can't be based on the individual doing the painting. This would mean that, for example porn would need to be acceptable. Or advertisements, but it seems reasonable for the owner to ban both of those things in pursuit of their desired aesthetic. The actual case seems to be that anyone can paint anything except certain banned things. But any person can still paint other unbanned things. That's different than banning particular people. In other words, if the republicans are allowed to discuss everything except vaccine conspiracies, you aren't discriminating against republicans, so this analogy about banning individuals doesn't work. And of course you might ban a particular individual from the premises for repeatedly breaking those rules. All of this seems perfectly reasonable, and indeed I know real-world spaces that operate more or less like this.
      - FeepingCreature 5y ago
        > This would mean that, for example porn would need to be acceptable. Or advertisements, but it seems reasonable for the owner to ban both of those things in pursuit of their desired aesthetic. Yes, I stand by this. If it's legal to have porn on your house wall, it should be legal for people to paint porn on your communal wall. Again, the solution to this should be a city ordnance. The problem to me is not restrictions but accountability. > The actual case seems to be that anyone can paint anything except certain banned things. But any person can still paint other unbanned things. This seems akin to saying that the theocracy does not discriminate against gay men, because they can marry women just like hetero men can.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        > Yes, I stand by this. If it's legal to have porn on your house wall, it should be legal for people to paint porn on your communal wall Why? Why is it that if I allow people to paint things, I lose the right to moderate those things? Like it's still my property, right? What causes me to forfeit my property rights? Or to ask a perhaps different question, could I close the venue entirely? What if I later reopened it with a list of allowed people and you could only enter if you were on the list? Do I still forfeit those rights? How big does the list have to be for it to be suitably public again? > This seems akin to saying that the theocracy does not discriminate against gay men, because they can marry women just like hetero men can. You're going to have to explain this better. Because in practice banning gay men from marrying men prevents them from getting married at all. Preventing anyone from painting porn doesn't prevent an artist from painting not-porn. I might be more willing to agree if, for example, it was the government blanket banning porn. But we're not talking about that, were talking about one dude with one popular artists venue banning pornographic art being painted. It's not different than if I disallowed the sale of pornography in my art gallery. Keep in mind, today, in the united states no priest is compelled to officiate a same sex wedding. The state recognizes them, but you or I don't have to.
- nostoc 5y ago
  That analogy wobbly at best, if not downright dishonest. Google is not hosting your public content on behalf of any government.
  - mjthompson 5y ago
    The public/private divide is a well-known conundrum. And the analogy I gave is a practical example of that, one that has actually faced several nations. I note you've offered no basis for it being 'dishonest', either, which is unfair. Be careful before making statements like that. The point is, you look at the substance of what is being done or controlled, not the status of the actor as a private or public entity. That is what the analogy is used to explain. The substance of what is being done, here, is regulation of communication between individuals over a communication platform. Downplaying it as 'not hosting public content' is inaccurate or at least of no moment. What's public content mean anyway? If a significant amount of private communication goes through privately owned channels, it is reasonable that the private companies operating those channels respect democratic norms. It's unreasonable to dismiss any criticism as 'they are a private company', as that's beside the point.
  - oarsinsync 5y ago
    > Google is not hosting your public content on behalf of any government. I think that line becomes a bit more blurry if you're a student using your school-issued Google account.
- rebuilder 5y ago
  I’m definitely on the side of the argument that says power is power, and private companies can do just as much harm as governments can. However, there’s a difference between gov’t censorship and censorship by private companies like we’re talking about here. It’s the difference between not allowing the government to say what you can publish and requiring a company to publish whatever you want.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wisty 5y ago
If something is bad when a government does it, surely it's also bad if a really large company does it. Come to think of it, why would it be bad if a government censors speech?
- psyc 5y ago
  I’ve come to the conclusion that there is probably no universally compelling answer to that. I think you either hold individual liberty sacred as a sort of deontological pillar, or you try to get clever about minmaxing this nebulous “society” thing I’m always hearing about, moving toward a shared utopia one “we should ban…” proposal at a time.
- tomnipotent 5y ago
  > why would it be bad if a government censors speech? Because government has a monopoly on violence.
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    I don't see how that relates at all.
- bolangi 5y ago
  The distinction between government and big business (what an archaic expression!) is artificial, and doesn't exist in practice.
  - Qu3tzal 5y ago
    It does, governments can pass laws, big businesses can't. They may buy politicians to pass the laws for them but in the end they can't pass the laws themselves.
    - FeepingCreature 5y ago
      Big businesses can pass terms of service, which are functionally identical.
m1el 5y ago
Bullshit. This "private company doing whatever they want" argument can rot in hell. All major social media companies (Google, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and possibly mobile carriers) get instructions from- and collaborate with the government on the topic of suppressing information. You literally have Ministry of Truth, implemented as Fact Check inc. The USA is already beyond the pale, and people keep spouting this idiotic "private companies" argument. Edit: to those that downvoted this comment -- please tell me how this is not a violation of the first amendment: https://www.newsweek.com/biden-administrations-admission-theyre-flagging-content-facebook-sparks-furor-1610257 https://www.newsweek.com/biden-administrations-admission-the... the government telling which information to suppress.
- dang 5y ago
  Your comment was correctly downvoted and flagged because of the name-calling. You shouldn't do that, not only because it breaks the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), but because it discredits the view you're arguing for. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
  - m1el 5y ago
    Name calling implies I applied a label to a person, I didn't apply any label to a person.
    - dang 5y ago
      If you read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, you'll see that we use the term for more than just persons. That's because it degrades discussion either way.
freebuju 5y ago
> You're not being 'censored' .. It's not a violation of your free speech... You're free to petition The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. > It's a private company owned by private citizens who also have the same constitutional rights. The scale at which Google operates today, anything short of defining some of its popular products as public utilities would be disingenuous. > Access to Google Drive is not a 'right' Except this is not a Google drive (the product) access issue. It is an access to information issue, if you look at it fundamentally.
- alex_munroe 5y ago
  > The scale at which Google operates today, anything short of defining some of its popular products as public utilities would be disingenuous. Look at that from the perspective of a startup founder. You've made a thing. Spent decades working on it. It became popular because many people found it useful. So useful in fact, that they've decided that it would be nice if you didn't own it anymore, and they owned it instead. Laws should be the same for everyone. If you're not okay with other people deciding that they own your stuff, don't tell others what to do with the things they've created.
dorgo 5y ago
>and you're free to just host your files someplace other than Google Drive And that other place won't censor me?
- weare138 5y ago
  If Gab, 4chan and millions of porn sites can find hosting I'm positive you could too.
  - busymom0 5y ago
    The current stage of political discourse is that porn is allowed on Twitter but lord forbid if you talk about lab leak theory, then that's too much. "There's a whole community on TikTok (you can find them here on Twitter, too) which scorns people as "fatphobic" for encouraging fitness and weight loss. They falsely say obesity isn't unhealthy. Should that be allowed? Are social media companies that allow it "killing people"? Are social media companies also guilty of "killing people" if they allow content encouraging people to be obese, to consume fatty junk food, content which glorifies cigarette smoking and large amounts of alcohol consumption and a sedentary lifestyle?" - GG
ptx 5y ago
By this argument China's censorship of online messaging platforms doesn't exist either, because Weixin and Weibo are operated by private companies, so what they're doing when they block messages with undesirable content isn't censorship.
lenkite 5y ago
Jen Psaki said herself that the government will flag posts for Facebook. So, yes, it's effectively the government.
fsckboy 5y ago
> It's not a violation of your free speech. captain pedantic, you meant to say it's not a violation of the first amendment. censorship is a violation of free speech

mjthompson 5y ago

I'm not even close to convinced by your response. Relying on the public-private divide as the sole basis for your retort is weak. You also assert that the person is pushing a personal narrative, but I suggest you're doing the same. There's an argument that private corporations that are involved in dissemination of information (search engines and social media) should respect principles of freedom of speech as a democratic principle, regardless of constitutional mandate. Suppose the government outsources welfare eligibility decision-making to a private company. Does this mean traditional notions of fairness we would expect from such an decision-maker do not apply, because they are a private company?

pronlover723 5y ago
So then, I should be able to paint your house and car with whatever messages "I" want and you should not be allowed to erase them. Is that the argument you're making?
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  If "my" house is actually a meeting place for half the country, or even just half the city, and I've decided almost anyone can paint on the walls, I should not be able to say that one specific person cannot paint on the walls because, for instance, I don't like what party they vote for. Any restriction on wallpainting in that space must be independent of the content of the message. If I wanted to limit that message, I should have to go through the proper democratic circles, ie. pass a city ordnance. This is the same logic that prevents me from saying that in this meeting hall, gay people are not allowed entry.
  - mjthompson 5y ago
    I don't think I need to respond - you've encapsulated what I would have said perfectly.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    You've conflated a few things here. Are we banning people or messages? You've said that bans need to be content neutral, but also that they can't be based on the individual doing the painting. This would mean that, for example porn would need to be acceptable. Or advertisements, but it seems reasonable for the owner to ban both of those things in pursuit of their desired aesthetic. The actual case seems to be that anyone can paint anything except certain banned things. But any person can still paint other unbanned things. That's different than banning particular people. In other words, if the republicans are allowed to discuss everything except vaccine conspiracies, you aren't discriminating against republicans, so this analogy about banning individuals doesn't work. And of course you might ban a particular individual from the premises for repeatedly breaking those rules. All of this seems perfectly reasonable, and indeed I know real-world spaces that operate more or less like this.
    - FeepingCreature 5y ago
      > This would mean that, for example porn would need to be acceptable. Or advertisements, but it seems reasonable for the owner to ban both of those things in pursuit of their desired aesthetic. Yes, I stand by this. If it's legal to have porn on your house wall, it should be legal for people to paint porn on your communal wall. Again, the solution to this should be a city ordnance. The problem to me is not restrictions but accountability. > The actual case seems to be that anyone can paint anything except certain banned things. But any person can still paint other unbanned things. This seems akin to saying that the theocracy does not discriminate against gay men, because they can marry women just like hetero men can.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        > Yes, I stand by this. If it's legal to have porn on your house wall, it should be legal for people to paint porn on your communal wall Why? Why is it that if I allow people to paint things, I lose the right to moderate those things? Like it's still my property, right? What causes me to forfeit my property rights? Or to ask a perhaps different question, could I close the venue entirely? What if I later reopened it with a list of allowed people and you could only enter if you were on the list? Do I still forfeit those rights? How big does the list have to be for it to be suitably public again? > This seems akin to saying that the theocracy does not discriminate against gay men, because they can marry women just like hetero men can. You're going to have to explain this better. Because in practice banning gay men from marrying men prevents them from getting married at all. Preventing anyone from painting porn doesn't prevent an artist from painting not-porn. I might be more willing to agree if, for example, it was the government blanket banning porn. But we're not talking about that, were talking about one dude with one popular artists venue banning pornographic art being painted. It's not different than if I disallowed the sale of pornography in my art gallery. Keep in mind, today, in the united states no priest is compelled to officiate a same sex wedding. The state recognizes them, but you or I don't have to.
nostoc 5y ago
That analogy wobbly at best, if not downright dishonest. Google is not hosting your public content on behalf of any government.
- mjthompson 5y ago
  The public/private divide is a well-known conundrum. And the analogy I gave is a practical example of that, one that has actually faced several nations. I note you've offered no basis for it being 'dishonest', either, which is unfair. Be careful before making statements like that. The point is, you look at the substance of what is being done or controlled, not the status of the actor as a private or public entity. That is what the analogy is used to explain. The substance of what is being done, here, is regulation of communication between individuals over a communication platform. Downplaying it as 'not hosting public content' is inaccurate or at least of no moment. What's public content mean anyway? If a significant amount of private communication goes through privately owned channels, it is reasonable that the private companies operating those channels respect democratic norms. It's unreasonable to dismiss any criticism as 'they are a private company', as that's beside the point.
- oarsinsync 5y ago
  > Google is not hosting your public content on behalf of any government. I think that line becomes a bit more blurry if you're a student using your school-issued Google account.
rebuilder 5y ago
I’m definitely on the side of the argument that says power is power, and private companies can do just as much harm as governments can. However, there’s a difference between gov’t censorship and censorship by private companies like we’re talking about here. It’s the difference between not allowing the government to say what you can publish and requiring a company to publish whatever you want.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

wisty 5y ago

If something is bad when a government does it, surely it's also bad if a really large company does it. Come to think of it, why would it be bad if a government censors speech?

psyc 5y ago
I’ve come to the conclusion that there is probably no universally compelling answer to that. I think you either hold individual liberty sacred as a sort of deontological pillar, or you try to get clever about minmaxing this nebulous “society” thing I’m always hearing about, moving toward a shared utopia one “we should ban…” proposal at a time.
tomnipotent 5y ago
> why would it be bad if a government censors speech? Because government has a monopoly on violence.
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  I don't see how that relates at all.
bolangi 5y ago
The distinction between government and big business (what an archaic expression!) is artificial, and doesn't exist in practice.
- Qu3tzal 5y ago
  It does, governments can pass laws, big businesses can't. They may buy politicians to pass the laws for them but in the end they can't pass the laws themselves.
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    Big businesses can pass terms of service, which are functionally identical.

m1el 5y ago

Bullshit. This "private company doing whatever they want" argument can rot in hell. All major social media companies (Google, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and possibly mobile carriers) get instructions from- and collaborate with the government on the topic of suppressing information. You literally have Ministry of Truth, implemented as Fact Check inc. The USA is already beyond the pale, and people keep spouting this idiotic "private companies" argument. Edit: to those that downvoted this comment -- please tell me how this is not a violation of the first amendment: https://www.newsweek.com/biden-administrations-admission-theyre-flagging-content-facebook-sparks-furor-1610257 https://www.newsweek.com/biden-administrations-admission-the... the government telling which information to suppress.

dang 5y ago
Your comment was correctly downvoted and flagged because of the name-calling. You shouldn't do that, not only because it breaks the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), but because it discredits the view you're arguing for. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
- m1el 5y ago
  Name calling implies I applied a label to a person, I didn't apply any label to a person.
  - dang 5y ago
    If you read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, you'll see that we use the term for more than just persons. That's because it degrades discussion either way.

freebuju 5y ago

> You're not being 'censored' .. It's not a violation of your free speech... You're free to petition The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. > It's a private company owned by private citizens who also have the same constitutional rights. The scale at which Google operates today, anything short of defining some of its popular products as public utilities would be disingenuous. > Access to Google Drive is not a 'right' Except this is not a Google drive (the product) access issue. It is an access to information issue, if you look at it fundamentally.

alex_munroe 5y ago
> The scale at which Google operates today, anything short of defining some of its popular products as public utilities would be disingenuous. Look at that from the perspective of a startup founder. You've made a thing. Spent decades working on it. It became popular because many people found it useful. So useful in fact, that they've decided that it would be nice if you didn't own it anymore, and they owned it instead. Laws should be the same for everyone. If you're not okay with other people deciding that they own your stuff, don't tell others what to do with the things they've created.

dorgo 5y ago

>and you're free to just host your files someplace other than Google Drive And that other place won't censor me?

weare138 5y ago
If Gab, 4chan and millions of porn sites can find hosting I'm positive you could too.
- busymom0 5y ago
  The current stage of political discourse is that porn is allowed on Twitter but lord forbid if you talk about lab leak theory, then that's too much. "There's a whole community on TikTok (you can find them here on Twitter, too) which scorns people as "fatphobic" for encouraging fitness and weight loss. They falsely say obesity isn't unhealthy. Should that be allowed? Are social media companies that allow it "killing people"? Are social media companies also guilty of "killing people" if they allow content encouraging people to be obese, to consume fatty junk food, content which glorifies cigarette smoking and large amounts of alcohol consumption and a sedentary lifestyle?" - GG

ptx 5y ago

By this argument China's censorship of online messaging platforms doesn't exist either, because Weixin and Weibo are operated by private companies, so what they're doing when they block messages with undesirable content isn't censorship.

lenkite 5y ago

Jen Psaki said herself that the government will flag posts for Facebook. So, yes, it's effectively the government.

fsckboy 5y ago

> It's not a violation of your free speech. captain pedantic, you meant to say it's not a violation of the first amendment. censorship is a violation of free speech