3 ms·

Because It's not a free speech issue? The problem from my perspective is that people do not fully understand what free speech means. People conflate the issue

Because It's not a free speech issue? The problem from my perspective is that people do not fully understand what free speech means. People conflate the issue by believing platforms like facebook or youtube are "public" spaces and subsequently assume they're entitled to constitutional rights. I can invite you to my house, I can also kick you out. I don't have to give a reason for why I want you to leave. Maybe it's something you said, maybe I'm tired, maybe I want to leave. The reasoning doesn't matter, I have full control over my own private property which is what all these social media sites are. If we take it one step further, you signed a legal binding contract acknowledging you have no rights. Where is the disconnect?

Dylan16807 5y ago
If "your house" covers a quarter of the town then it starts to be a free speech issue. Also there are lots of rights you can't sign away in a normal contract.
- bastardoperator 5y ago
  No it doesn't. You have zero rights to come on my property and even if I let you be there, you still play by my rules or I can remove you from the property at any time for any reason. Your rights stop where mine begin, and your rights will be limited on my property. The size of my property is meaningless to the equation and there is no limitation on my freedoms to own property of various sizes. Social media companies like Facebook and Youtube have every right to remove anyone they want from their property for nearly any reason just like you have the same right to remove people from your property coupled with assistance from the government (e.g. police, court system). The only outlier in my mind for a company is the issue of discrimination. While the people that are currently being removed feel discriminated upon because they're all spewing the same nonsense, it doesn't actually meet the definition of discrimination (race, age, gender, etc...). I think it's pretty clear at this point that these companies don't want people spreading misinformation, hatred, or engaging in other various activities using their platform. If you do those things, you may get the boot which again, you agreed to. It just makes no sense to me that people think that social media is going to become the bastion of free speech. It also makes me sad that people don't really understand what free speech is and what your rights protect you from.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    The size of your property is not meaningless. The more time other people spend inside your property, and the more important that time is, the bigger a problem it becomes if you use that power that gives you in certain ways. Notice how this argument doesn't actually depend on rights, though I do have rights-based things to say. Whatever you think about rights, this kind of thing causes problems and can have negative effects on society. There are lots of bad effects when fake-public spaces replace actually public spaces. And your house is not a fake-public space. The analogy doesn't connect there.
hbn 5y ago
You're just re-describing the issue I was pointing out. Yes, that's the case that monopolistic platforms aren't public spaces. I think they should be treated more like it. Constitutional rights were all drafted up before we knew that anything like YouTube would exist. Private companies control the majority of information and influence elections now. At that point, it's a free speech issue.

Dylan16807 5y ago

If "your house" covers a quarter of the town then it starts to be a free speech issue. Also there are lots of rights you can't sign away in a normal contract.

bastardoperator 5y ago
No it doesn't. You have zero rights to come on my property and even if I let you be there, you still play by my rules or I can remove you from the property at any time for any reason. Your rights stop where mine begin, and your rights will be limited on my property. The size of my property is meaningless to the equation and there is no limitation on my freedoms to own property of various sizes. Social media companies like Facebook and Youtube have every right to remove anyone they want from their property for nearly any reason just like you have the same right to remove people from your property coupled with assistance from the government (e.g. police, court system). The only outlier in my mind for a company is the issue of discrimination. While the people that are currently being removed feel discriminated upon because they're all spewing the same nonsense, it doesn't actually meet the definition of discrimination (race, age, gender, etc...). I think it's pretty clear at this point that these companies don't want people spreading misinformation, hatred, or engaging in other various activities using their platform. If you do those things, you may get the boot which again, you agreed to. It just makes no sense to me that people think that social media is going to become the bastion of free speech. It also makes me sad that people don't really understand what free speech is and what your rights protect you from.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  The size of your property is not meaningless. The more time other people spend inside your property, and the more important that time is, the bigger a problem it becomes if you use that power that gives you in certain ways. Notice how this argument doesn't actually depend on rights, though I do have rights-based things to say. Whatever you think about rights, this kind of thing causes problems and can have negative effects on society. There are lots of bad effects when fake-public spaces replace actually public spaces. And your house is not a fake-public space. The analogy doesn't connect there.

hbn 5y ago

You're just re-describing the issue I was pointing out. Yes, that's the case that monopolistic platforms aren't public spaces. I think they should be treated more like it. Constitutional rights were all drafted up before we knew that anything like YouTube would exist. Private companies control the majority of information and influence elections now. At that point, it's a free speech issue.