5 ms·

The legislatures are already the "censors" and the executive the once enforcing "censorship". And there is an "appeal" process to some degree in the judiciary b

The legislatures are already the "censors" and the executive the once enforcing "censorship". And there is an "appeal" process to some degree in the judiciary branch. The legislatures already write the "moderation rules" for entire societies. Unlike the big companies who are only beholden to their share holders - and sometimes only really that one shareholder called Mark - the legislatures are beholden at least in theory to the citizens (who vote) in our democracies and at least in theory are curtailed by things like the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and equivalent constitutional documents and human rights legislation in other places. Is leaving it to legislatures to make the rules a perfect solution? Certainly far from perfect, in my humble opinion, at least in practice with all the lobbying, corruption and self-interest going on. But it still beats leaving such extremely significant decisions of what can and cannot be said to the rulers of some big corporations. Facebook, instagram, twitter, youtube, etc will also never get tired to tell everybody that they are not publishers and do not "edit" or "curate" information on their "open" platforms and thus fall under 230 and are not liable. All the while they constantly curate and edit and purge.

clucas 5y ago
Having the government writing censorship rules sounds absolutely dystopian to me. There are plenty of ways to get information on the internet - just because Facebook says "no porn" doesn't mean you can't get porn on the internet, you know? But there's only one government (per country, of course). If your government says no porn... What then?
- stale2002 5y ago
  > Having the government writing censorship rules sounds absolutely dystopian to me. No, because our court system could prevent any censorship that infringed on our rights. It is better to have our court system stop people from censoring too much, than it is for there to be zero rules at all, as to what could or could not be censored.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    > No, because our court system could prevent any censorship that infringed on our rights No they can't. The legislature would. Do you trust Nancy pelosi and Ted Cruz to write censorship rules you agree with?
    - stale2002 5y ago
      > No they can't. The legislature would Yes the courts would. Lol. Any laws that infringe on our rights, can be struct down by the court system. Thats literally the point of the court system. To strike down laws that infringe on our rights. > Do you trust Nancy pelosi and Ted Cruz to write censorship rules you agree with? Hey, at least if they write them, the courts can strike them down, if they infringe on our rights. At least there is some check and balance there, where our court system, will strike down laws that infringe on our rights. I'd rather have that then no court system being able to strike any of it down. If you want to suggest that the court system should be able to strike down FB censorship rules, that would work as well though!
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        You're simultaneously advocating for a sweeping change in how the courts interpret our rights, while proclaiming that they will continue to protect them. Currently, the courts have an opinion on censorship that is extreme enough that it protects what Facebook is doing. Today, the government cannot write censorship rules. They all, to use your words, "infringe on our rights". So if you want the government to be able to do that, and the courts to allow some censorship, you have to amend the constitution, and change the recognized legal framework of what our rights even are. That (broadly) falls to lawmakers, not the courts. Do you trust Pelosi and Cruz (and other lawmakers) to change the very framework of what our right to free speech is, while simultaneously allowing the courts to protect it?
        stale2002 5y ago
        > while proclaiming that they will continue to protect them. Well, are rights aren't particularly protected, from the censorship that happens right now. There are zero checks on balances on the censorship that already happens. At the very least it would be better if we had more courts involved, so as to make sure that those courts have some say over what censorship can happen or not. > Today, the government cannot write censorship rules Sure they can. They are already doing so. Go look at the laws that cover phone companies. The government already has laws, that prevents phone companies from engaging in certain acts of censorship, or whatever we want to call that, on the telephone network. Those laws don't apply to other things at the moment. But they could, if we changed them, and it would be no bigger of an issue than how those existing laws, already apply to phone companies. > you have to amend the constitution No we won't. All we have to do is take our existing common carrier laws, and expand them. Common carrier laws, as they apply to phone companies, are already constitutional. > to change the very framework There is no massive change to the framework of free speech, when we already have similar laws, that already apply to a similar thing, which is the phone network. Just whatever is happening there, already, and which already does not infringe upon our rights, could be expanded to apply to other things, and no massive constitutional change would be needed to apply these existing laws to new things.

clucas 5y ago

Having the government writing censorship rules sounds absolutely dystopian to me. There are plenty of ways to get information on the internet - just because Facebook says "no porn" doesn't mean you can't get porn on the internet, you know? But there's only one government (per country, of course). If your government says no porn... What then?

stale2002 5y ago
> Having the government writing censorship rules sounds absolutely dystopian to me. No, because our court system could prevent any censorship that infringed on our rights. It is better to have our court system stop people from censoring too much, than it is for there to be zero rules at all, as to what could or could not be censored.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > No, because our court system could prevent any censorship that infringed on our rights No they can't. The legislature would. Do you trust Nancy pelosi and Ted Cruz to write censorship rules you agree with?
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > No they can't. The legislature would Yes the courts would. Lol. Any laws that infringe on our rights, can be struct down by the court system. Thats literally the point of the court system. To strike down laws that infringe on our rights. > Do you trust Nancy pelosi and Ted Cruz to write censorship rules you agree with? Hey, at least if they write them, the courts can strike them down, if they infringe on our rights. At least there is some check and balance there, where our court system, will strike down laws that infringe on our rights. I'd rather have that then no court system being able to strike any of it down. If you want to suggest that the court system should be able to strike down FB censorship rules, that would work as well though!
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      You're simultaneously advocating for a sweeping change in how the courts interpret our rights, while proclaiming that they will continue to protect them. Currently, the courts have an opinion on censorship that is extreme enough that it protects what Facebook is doing. Today, the government cannot write censorship rules. They all, to use your words, "infringe on our rights". So if you want the government to be able to do that, and the courts to allow some censorship, you have to amend the constitution, and change the recognized legal framework of what our rights even are. That (broadly) falls to lawmakers, not the courts. Do you trust Pelosi and Cruz (and other lawmakers) to change the very framework of what our right to free speech is, while simultaneously allowing the courts to protect it?
      - stale2002 5y ago
        > while proclaiming that they will continue to protect them. Well, are rights aren't particularly protected, from the censorship that happens right now. There are zero checks on balances on the censorship that already happens. At the very least it would be better if we had more courts involved, so as to make sure that those courts have some say over what censorship can happen or not. > Today, the government cannot write censorship rules Sure they can. They are already doing so. Go look at the laws that cover phone companies. The government already has laws, that prevents phone companies from engaging in certain acts of censorship, or whatever we want to call that, on the telephone network. Those laws don't apply to other things at the moment. But they could, if we changed them, and it would be no bigger of an issue than how those existing laws, already apply to phone companies. > you have to amend the constitution No we won't. All we have to do is take our existing common carrier laws, and expand them. Common carrier laws, as they apply to phone companies, are already constitutional. > to change the very framework There is no massive change to the framework of free speech, when we already have similar laws, that already apply to a similar thing, which is the phone network. Just whatever is happening there, already, and which already does not infringe upon our rights, could be expanded to apply to other things, and no massive constitutional change would be needed to apply these existing laws to new things.