5 ms·

I remain confused as to why anyone thinks they have unlimited first amendment rights on social media. It sounds a lot like thinking one has first amendment righ

I remain confused as to why anyone thinks they have unlimited first amendment rights on social media. It sounds a lot like thinking one has first amendment rights at a private employer. Let's clear this up right now. TLDR: you don't unless you explicitly do. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/setting-the-record-straight-on-free-4092972/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/setting-the-record-straigh... Edit: keep bringing those freethinker(tm) downvotes. It won't change the law one bit, but I guess it gives good feels. I mean you could also try starting your own social media network that absolutely guarantees first amendment rights, but so far only hilarity has ensued from that premise along the lines of tragedy plus time equals comedy. You could be the first one to prove them all wrong. What's stopping you? Or if that's too hard, why don't you all apply to work at Facebook and Twitter? Then you can work your way up the ladder until you can depose Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg. And on the first day of your reign of your new empire you can proclaim to all shareholders and employees that your social media site is entirely unregulated. Otherwise WTH should these companies care about you? You won't build anything and you won't do the work to change the path of something already built.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Turing_Machine 5y ago
> Edit: keep bringing those freethinker(tm) downvotes Sauce. Goose. Edit: Maybe you should start your own tech news site. Or if that's too hard, why don't you apply to work at YC and work your way up to a position where you control the moderation for this site? Once again: Sauce. Goose.
- varelse 5y ago
  You're assuming I'm not okay with the content moderation of Hacker News. You should never assume. If anything you should jump with joy at the rights of people who disagree with this article to flag it and at your right to register discontent without any substantive argument as to why you are registering your discontent with but a simple down vote. That's freedom of speech in action! And while my tone here is sarcastic, I believe sincerely that this moderation system is currently superior to any of the ham fisted bad AI deployed on either of the two leading social media sites.
  - Turing_Machine 5y ago
    I'm not assuming anything. You were complaining about being modded down, so you quite clearly had a problem with it.
mancerayder 5y ago
> Edit: keep bringing those freethinker(tm) downvotes. It won't change the law one bit, but I guess it gives good feels. Freedom to comment is not freedom to not be downvoted into oblivion. You can complain but we'll grey that one, as well. There's lesson in the irony.
- varelse 5y ago
  And yet still not a single counter argument explaining why you guys don't build your own social media site instead of whining about the old and stupid leading brands. There's lesson in the irony.
  - tstrimple 5y ago
    They keep trying to build their own social media sites and are confused as to why they all degenerate into cesspools.
    - myrryr 5y ago
      Yeah, there is no limit to new social sites, there is a limit to ones which work.
  - mancerayder 5y ago
    Us guys? You're making a lot of assumptions. One of the saddest and most frustrating aspects of big tech's narrowing of permissible discourse is the association of defenders of discourse with red ties, right wing ideas and all of that. An Intro to Constitutional Law course or book would demonstrate how false that is, that up until only a decade or less ago, conservatives were the ones assaulting free speech. And Progressives were vigorously defending freedom of speech. This includes hate speech. They were preventing 'consequences' as people like yourself like to remind us we have no protection from. I can suggest materials to read, but what has degenerated is this thread, so it's pointless effort unless someone wants it. The philosophical arguments made by the Progressives in those days in defense of speech resonate timelessly, from the 1600s to the 2020s. The arguments resonate also beyond narrow ideas of what constitutes government restrictions. Today the question is around whether the FB's and Twitter's and YouTube's should be regulated as utilities and in the public interest, rather than an outmoded ideal around private ownership rights and the 1st Amendment not applying. From misinformation to viewpoint discrimination, it's the real question of our present time.
fighterpilot 5y ago
I have no problem with social media companies kicking off anyone they please. I do have a problem when the lines between government and private get blurred, and a government can indirectly or directly influence the censorship decisions of private companies through threat of regulation, a revolving door, or by explicitly flagging certain posts. That's a grey area 1A violation in my mind.
- varelse 5y ago
  When has any of this not been blurry? Tech gets all sorts of tax breaks to innovate. That's okay, but if they proactively kick people off the platform so as to head off government regulation, that's not okay? Or wait, let me guess, all tax breaks are good! How'd I do?
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    No, it's definitely not okay for a government to threaten a private company (through which most public discourse flows) into censoring its political opponents. It is no different in practice to a 1A violation. The extent to which this happens at all can be debated. But the principle of the matter should be clear, if it is shown to be happening, it is certainly morally wrong, it's anti-democracy and (although it's difficult to prove in court) perhaps unconstitutional. Here's an example of the grey area I'm taking about in my previous post. The executive branch is flagging posts for "COVID misinformation" to Facebook. We don't know who is doing the flagging or what criteria they're employing, and Facebook has an incentive to comply with the take-down requests so as to avoid potential costly regulation. The sum total of this is the government censoring speech (well, there's one layer of indirection, which is a compliant and scared Facebook) in a way that's completely unaccountable and not auditable.
    - varelse 5y ago
      That's funny, I didn't hear any of this righteous self indignation during the last administration over its bogus antitrust threats. Were those okay with you or did it take you this long to work up a really good lather? https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/05/trump-looking-into-antitrust-violations-against-amazon-other-tech-giants.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/05/trump-looking-into-antitrust...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Turing_Machine 5y ago

> Edit: keep bringing those freethinker(tm) downvotes Sauce. Goose. Edit: Maybe you should start your own tech news site. Or if that's too hard, why don't you apply to work at YC and work your way up to a position where you control the moderation for this site? Once again: Sauce. Goose.

varelse 5y ago
You're assuming I'm not okay with the content moderation of Hacker News. You should never assume. If anything you should jump with joy at the rights of people who disagree with this article to flag it and at your right to register discontent without any substantive argument as to why you are registering your discontent with but a simple down vote. That's freedom of speech in action! And while my tone here is sarcastic, I believe sincerely that this moderation system is currently superior to any of the ham fisted bad AI deployed on either of the two leading social media sites.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  I'm not assuming anything. You were complaining about being modded down, so you quite clearly had a problem with it.

mancerayder 5y ago

> Edit: keep bringing those freethinker(tm) downvotes. It won't change the law one bit, but I guess it gives good feels. Freedom to comment is not freedom to not be downvoted into oblivion. You can complain but we'll grey that one, as well. There's lesson in the irony.

varelse 5y ago
And yet still not a single counter argument explaining why you guys don't build your own social media site instead of whining about the old and stupid leading brands. There's lesson in the irony.
- tstrimple 5y ago
  They keep trying to build their own social media sites and are confused as to why they all degenerate into cesspools.
  - myrryr 5y ago
    Yeah, there is no limit to new social sites, there is a limit to ones which work.
- mancerayder 5y ago
  Us guys? You're making a lot of assumptions. One of the saddest and most frustrating aspects of big tech's narrowing of permissible discourse is the association of defenders of discourse with red ties, right wing ideas and all of that. An Intro to Constitutional Law course or book would demonstrate how false that is, that up until only a decade or less ago, conservatives were the ones assaulting free speech. And Progressives were vigorously defending freedom of speech. This includes hate speech. They were preventing 'consequences' as people like yourself like to remind us we have no protection from. I can suggest materials to read, but what has degenerated is this thread, so it's pointless effort unless someone wants it. The philosophical arguments made by the Progressives in those days in defense of speech resonate timelessly, from the 1600s to the 2020s. The arguments resonate also beyond narrow ideas of what constitutes government restrictions. Today the question is around whether the FB's and Twitter's and YouTube's should be regulated as utilities and in the public interest, rather than an outmoded ideal around private ownership rights and the 1st Amendment not applying. From misinformation to viewpoint discrimination, it's the real question of our present time.

fighterpilot 5y ago

I have no problem with social media companies kicking off anyone they please. I do have a problem when the lines between government and private get blurred, and a government can indirectly or directly influence the censorship decisions of private companies through threat of regulation, a revolving door, or by explicitly flagging certain posts. That's a grey area 1A violation in my mind.

varelse 5y ago
When has any of this not been blurry? Tech gets all sorts of tax breaks to innovate. That's okay, but if they proactively kick people off the platform so as to head off government regulation, that's not okay? Or wait, let me guess, all tax breaks are good! How'd I do?
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  No, it's definitely not okay for a government to threaten a private company (through which most public discourse flows) into censoring its political opponents. It is no different in practice to a 1A violation. The extent to which this happens at all can be debated. But the principle of the matter should be clear, if it is shown to be happening, it is certainly morally wrong, it's anti-democracy and (although it's difficult to prove in court) perhaps unconstitutional. Here's an example of the grey area I'm taking about in my previous post. The executive branch is flagging posts for "COVID misinformation" to Facebook. We don't know who is doing the flagging or what criteria they're employing, and Facebook has an incentive to comply with the take-down requests so as to avoid potential costly regulation. The sum total of this is the government censoring speech (well, there's one layer of indirection, which is a compliant and scared Facebook) in a way that's completely unaccountable and not auditable.
  - varelse 5y ago
    That's funny, I didn't hear any of this righteous self indignation during the last administration over its bogus antitrust threats. Were those okay with you or did it take you this long to work up a really good lather? https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/05/trump-looking-into-antitrust-violations-against-amazon-other-tech-giants.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/05/trump-looking-into-antitrust...