5 ms·

freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. google is a private company and can show whatever they want.

Maarten88 5y ago
They are a monopoly in search, right? Doesn't that place extra obligations on them, such as to not abuse their power against competitors or the public?
- anamax 5y ago
  It doesn't seem to.
- fault1 5y ago
  In what way are they monopoly on search? There are perfectly viable alternatives, some even from other trillion dollar companies (i.e bing).
  - Rastonbury 5y ago
    This is the unintentionally funniest comment I've seen all week (sorry googlers)
  - kataklasm 5y ago
    Google Search has a market share of over 85% [0], if that's not a monopolistic market share I don't know what is. 0: https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-...
NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
>freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Freedom of speech is literally freedom from consequences: >Freedom of speech[2] is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. Note the "without fear of retaliation" part. Retaliation for words is the litmus test for a lack of freedom of speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
- slenk 5y ago
  That only applies to the government, not to individual companies. Freedom of Speech does nothing for you outside of the government...
  - NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
    You're conflating the 2400 year old concept of freedom of speech with the American first amendment. Where did you learn this horrifying misconception?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - slenk 5y ago
      I am saying there is only one legal precedent for Freedom of Speech, at least where I live. I don't think these platforms ever mention they are trying to protect freedom of speech, so why would you expect them to?
      - _yoqn 5y ago
        They are acting as the digital public square and free speech is protected in the public square. But don't take my word for it. Please, let hipster Rasputin Jack[off] Dorsey explain: https://twitter.com/jack/status/1037399105306324993 https://twitter.com/jack/status/1037399105306324993
        slenk 5y ago
        But then he immediately essentially says its unsustainable? https://twitter.com/jack/status/1037399132116340736 https://twitter.com/jack/status/1037399132116340736
      - NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
        >I am saying there is only one legal precedent for Freedom of Speech, at least where I live. That's not what you said though. This is: >Freedom of Speech does nothing for you outside of the government... Again, where did you learn this? I've asked everyone who says it and they never answer. I'd love to learn the source of this horrible misconception so I can do something about it. >I don't think these platforms ever mention they are trying to protect freedom of speech, so why would you expect them to? Reddit did, repeatedly. Then pulled a bait & switch: >We want to democratize the traditional model by giving editorial control to the people who use the site, not those who run it. — Reddit FAQ 2005 >We've always benefited from a policy of not censoring content — u/kn0thing 2008 >A bastion of free speech on the World Wide Web? I bet they would like it," he replies. [reddit]'s the digital form of political pamplets. — u/kn0thing 2012 >We will tirelessly defend the right to freely share information on reddit in any way we can, even if it is offensive or discusses something that may be illegal. — u/reddit 2012 >We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits. We will not ban legal content even if we find it odious or if we personally condemn it. Not because that's the law in the United States - because as many people have pointed out, privately-owned forums are under no obligation to uphold it - but because we believe in that ideal independently, and that's what we want to promote on our platform. We are clarifying that now because in the past it wasn't clear, and (to be honest) in the past we were not completely independent and there were other pressures acting on reddit. Now it's just reddit, and we serve the community, we serve the ideals of free speech, and we hope to ultimately be a universal platform for human discourse (cat pictures are a form of discourse). — u/yishan 2012 >Neither Alexis [u/kn0thing] nor I created Reddit to be a bastion of free speech — u/spez 2015
pessimizer 5y ago
I'm curious about what kind of consequences you think that investigative journalism deserves.
justanotherjoe 5y ago
This from the same company who disables youtube dislikes? Talk about excuses.

They are a monopoly in search, right? Doesn't that place extra obligations on them, such as to not abuse their power against competitors or the public?

anamax 5y ago
It doesn't seem to.
fault1 5y ago
In what way are they monopoly on search? There are perfectly viable alternatives, some even from other trillion dollar companies (i.e bing).
- Rastonbury 5y ago
  This is the unintentionally funniest comment I've seen all week (sorry googlers)
- kataklasm 5y ago
  Google Search has a market share of over 85% [0], if that's not a monopolistic market share I don't know what is. 0: https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-...

NaturalPhallacy 5y ago

>freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Freedom of speech is literally freedom from consequences: >Freedom of speech[2] is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. Note the "without fear of retaliation" part. Retaliation for words is the litmus test for a lack of freedom of speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

slenk 5y ago
That only applies to the government, not to individual companies. Freedom of Speech does nothing for you outside of the government...
- NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
  You're conflating the 2400 year old concept of freedom of speech with the American first amendment. Where did you learn this horrifying misconception?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - slenk 5y ago
    I am saying there is only one legal precedent for Freedom of Speech, at least where I live. I don't think these platforms ever mention they are trying to protect freedom of speech, so why would you expect them to?
    - _yoqn 5y ago
      They are acting as the digital public square and free speech is protected in the public square. But don't take my word for it. Please, let hipster Rasputin Jack[off] Dorsey explain: https://twitter.com/jack/status/1037399105306324993 https://twitter.com/jack/status/1037399105306324993
      - slenk 5y ago
        But then he immediately essentially says its unsustainable? https://twitter.com/jack/status/1037399132116340736 https://twitter.com/jack/status/1037399132116340736
    - NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
      >I am saying there is only one legal precedent for Freedom of Speech, at least where I live. That's not what you said though. This is: >Freedom of Speech does nothing for you outside of the government... Again, where did you learn this? I've asked everyone who says it and they never answer. I'd love to learn the source of this horrible misconception so I can do something about it. >I don't think these platforms ever mention they are trying to protect freedom of speech, so why would you expect them to? Reddit did, repeatedly. Then pulled a bait & switch: >We want to democratize the traditional model by giving editorial control to the people who use the site, not those who run it. — Reddit FAQ 2005 >We've always benefited from a policy of not censoring content — u/kn0thing 2008 >A bastion of free speech on the World Wide Web? I bet they would like it," he replies. [reddit]'s the digital form of political pamplets. — u/kn0thing 2012 >We will tirelessly defend the right to freely share information on reddit in any way we can, even if it is offensive or discusses something that may be illegal. — u/reddit 2012 >We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits. We will not ban legal content even if we find it odious or if we personally condemn it. Not because that's the law in the United States - because as many people have pointed out, privately-owned forums are under no obligation to uphold it - but because we believe in that ideal independently, and that's what we want to promote on our platform. We are clarifying that now because in the past it wasn't clear, and (to be honest) in the past we were not completely independent and there were other pressures acting on reddit. Now it's just reddit, and we serve the community, we serve the ideals of free speech, and we hope to ultimately be a universal platform for human discourse (cat pictures are a form of discourse). — u/yishan 2012 >Neither Alexis [u/kn0thing] nor I created Reddit to be a bastion of free speech — u/spez 2015

pessimizer 5y ago

I'm curious about what kind of consequences you think that investigative journalism deserves.

justanotherjoe 5y ago

This from the same company who disables youtube dislikes? Talk about excuses.