3 ms·

The problem with the "private company" line that, yes, they're a private company, but censorship is definitely still bad! Free speech is a fundamentally protec

The problem with the "private company" line that, yes, they're a private company, but censorship is definitely still bad! Free speech is a fundamentally protected right in the US. From the Founder's perspective, the greatest threat to that right was clearly and obviously government, because what other entity could possibly have that much reach into one's life? Up until the internet age, no one could imagine a private company or a private individual having the capacity to infringe upon free speech at scale. So, we have a Constitutional right to free speech, protected against infringement by the government, which is great, but there is another threat to the free flow of information and ideas, and that is private corporations who can now infringe upon this right at scale. And we don't have the tools or framework to defend it, because private companies can do what they want? Thats not good enough for me. The situation is dire when private companies appoint themselves to be the arbiters of truth, because even with the best intentions, there are bound to be mistakes, as we've already seen. And they don't all have the best intentions.

le-mark 5y ago
You post about free speech but appear to be quite ignorant about the topic. Example why is it considered a crime to yell “fire” in a crowded theater? Educate yourself and stop posting annoying banal rhetoric.
- pageandrew 5y ago
  That’s all you have to say? The fire in a theater example (and you call me banal)? You really can’t think of any other form of speech that has been unfairly censored by social media sites? Are you just not paying attention?
  - le-mark 5y ago
    > you call me banal? Your reading comprehension seems a bit lacking, casting doubt on your other statements. To be clear I am asserting that your claim censorship by private companies is unjust; that is banal, annoying, and ignorant.
    - pageandrew 5y ago
      Forget about “just” or not. Do or do you not think it’s a good thing for private individuals to be able to unilaterally censor what can be said in what really is the new public square?
      - le-mark 5y ago
        The fact you perceive any particular message posted to any particular for profit social media site as being a “public square” is more the result of successful marketing and ignorance than reality.
        pageandrew 5y ago
        It clearly and obviously is a public square. So is Hacker News, so is Facebook. So is Twitter. Its where people go to get news and share ideas.
        krapp 5y ago
        The web is a public square. Hacker news, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc. are private properties surrounding the public square. You can do what you like (within the bounds of the law, because even public squares have rules) with your own property on the web, but you also have to follow the rules of any other establishment if you enter.
        le-mark 5y ago
        I’m not sure why this is so hard for pageandrew to grasp. I assume they think since anyone can register and use these sites, they think that makes them “public” when in fact people who register with and use these sites are paying for the privilege; with their personal data, their attention, their clicks, and their manufactured outrage that drive engagement, precisely what pageandrew is trying to do here. User pageandrew can set up their own stall by the web public area and publish whatever they wish, discuss whatever they wish with whomever they wish, also censor whoever they wish. It’s their stall, their property. Just as twitter etc are the property of others. Pageandrew.com will most likely not have the views or clicks though, and that’s what they need to peddle their outrage.
- ShroudedNight 5y ago
  > Example why is it considered a crime to yell “fire” in a crowded theater? Is it? https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Probable summary: Of course it's not, and that was an argument used to jail antiwar socialists handing out pamphlets.

le-mark 5y ago

You post about free speech but appear to be quite ignorant about the topic. Example why is it considered a crime to yell “fire” in a crowded theater? Educate yourself and stop posting annoying banal rhetoric.

pageandrew 5y ago
That’s all you have to say? The fire in a theater example (and you call me banal)? You really can’t think of any other form of speech that has been unfairly censored by social media sites? Are you just not paying attention?
- le-mark 5y ago
  > you call me banal? Your reading comprehension seems a bit lacking, casting doubt on your other statements. To be clear I am asserting that your claim censorship by private companies is unjust; that is banal, annoying, and ignorant.
  - pageandrew 5y ago
    Forget about “just” or not. Do or do you not think it’s a good thing for private individuals to be able to unilaterally censor what can be said in what really is the new public square?
    - le-mark 5y ago
      The fact you perceive any particular message posted to any particular for profit social media site as being a “public square” is more the result of successful marketing and ignorance than reality.
      - pageandrew 5y ago
        It clearly and obviously is a public square. So is Hacker News, so is Facebook. So is Twitter. Its where people go to get news and share ideas.
        krapp 5y ago
        The web is a public square. Hacker news, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc. are private properties surrounding the public square. You can do what you like (within the bounds of the law, because even public squares have rules) with your own property on the web, but you also have to follow the rules of any other establishment if you enter.
        le-mark 5y ago
        I’m not sure why this is so hard for pageandrew to grasp. I assume they think since anyone can register and use these sites, they think that makes them “public” when in fact people who register with and use these sites are paying for the privilege; with their personal data, their attention, their clicks, and their manufactured outrage that drive engagement, precisely what pageandrew is trying to do here. User pageandrew can set up their own stall by the web public area and publish whatever they wish, discuss whatever they wish with whomever they wish, also censor whoever they wish. It’s their stall, their property. Just as twitter etc are the property of others. Pageandrew.com will most likely not have the views or clicks though, and that’s what they need to peddle their outrage.
ShroudedNight 5y ago
> Example why is it considered a crime to yell “fire” in a crowded theater? Is it? https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Probable summary: Of course it's not, and that was an argument used to jail antiwar socialists handing out pamphlets.