6 ms·

I think you've incorrectly invoked "free speech" here, IMO this isn't a free speech issue. It may be a TOS issue and it does sound like Google are being a bit u

by smcl 5y ago

I think you've incorrectly invoked "free speech" here, IMO this isn't a free speech issue. It may be a TOS issue and it does sound like Google are being a bit unreasonable but "free speech" isn't really something Google ever promised to permit on their platforms

raxxorrax 5y ago
Why is that not a free speech issue? It is not a legal issue of course, but removal of critical opinions very much qualifies to be a violation of the principle.
- smcl 5y ago
  Because it's basically never been a thing there. Facebook, Twitter, Google - all of these platforms can and do remove things from their platforms for whatever reason they feel like. There's nothing we can do about it, there is no free speech there and acting indignant like they're eroding some right that you previously had is just pointless. It'd be like complaining that you can't get sushi at McDonalds anymore. You couldn't ever do that, McDonalds haven't indicated that they would offer this and we all know it's not going to happen.
  - foxfluff 5y ago
    There's no "anymore" in these complaints though. There's just the complaint. It's not "my parents started beating me while they in the past didn't", it's just "parents are beating me." Or "google is suppressing my speech." Past actions of the involved entities do not invalidate the complaint. Likewise, "the grocery store next door doesn't sell sushi" is a legit complaint for the afflicted regardless of whether sushi was sold in the past or not. (Coincidentally, my go-to store just stopped selling sushi a week or two ago)
    - smcl 5y ago
      > But it's unfair to block a guy that talked about a real flaw in Grammarly's plagiarism checker, at least pretend that you allow free speech and take down that video for a random reason specified in your ToS. See italicised section, it suggests there's a promise of free speech on Google that are somehow reneging on. I am just saying that this is a mistake, and now loads of people seem to be mad at the idea that I'm attacking "free speech". One of the reasons I thought it shouldn't be here is that it's fairly complex topic that IMO is orthogonal to the case in question because it raises all sorts of thorny side-issues that distract from the main thing: someone got booted from Google quite unfairly.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - wintermutestwin 5y ago
    Maybe their network effect monopoly means that they are essentially a public service and maybe our basic concepts of free speech should apply to all public services. I am obviously not talking about our current legal framework, but proposing the idea that the concepts and reason for free speech are meaningful enough to transcend that framework.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  The (US) constitutional protections on speech constrain the actions of US governments; those constraints don't extend to private companies and individuals. And "principles" are things you can adopt and agree with as you see fit. They are not law. Not everyone takes an absolutist position that "free speech" is a principle we should all be defending to the last ditch.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    It's still fair to call this a violation of free speech -- even if the company has no legal obligation not to do it -- and therefore give them shit about it. As a customer. Who can take their business elsewhere. And if the customer can't take their business elsewhere, it appears we have arrived at the underlying problem.
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      > It's still fair to call this a violation of free speech You can call it a violation of rock and roll, if you like. Normally, "violate" is something you do the law, or a contract, or an agreement. You can't normally "violate" a principle that you haven't declared your adherence to, just because someone else adheres to it.
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        > Normally, "violate" is something you do the law, or a contract, or an agreement. You can't normally "violate" a principle that you haven't declared your adherence to, just because someone else adheres to it. If you're a vegan libertarian who refuses to patronize agricultural conglomerates engaged in factory farming because it's a violation of the non-aggression principle, your argument for them not being in violation of it is that they never agreed to it? It's not the company's principle, it's the customer's. The company is violating it so the customer is offended and is willing to take their business elsewhere. And to publicly condemn the company over it so others do the same. This is how the free market is supposed to work. If a company is charging 6000% margins, you don't say "well I guess there's no law against it," you stop patronizing that company. And if you can't, the market is broken.
- VLM 5y ago
  Unregulated monopolies do not have to uphold constitutional rights. The phone company used to be regulated so even if you were a hated Republican they still had to provide phone service to you if you lived in their service area. Those days are over and monopolies in practice will never be redefined again as "legal monopolies".
jchw 5y ago
Free speech isn’t just something that can be encoded into law, it’s an ideology. A great ideology, imo. That said, with COVID-19 it really became apparent that these platforms have basically become a new public square, putting everyone in an awkward position. You can basically be ousted from the internet by just a couple entities like Facebook or Twitter and have your entire online presence torpedoed. IRL I can just go to a different bar, gym, whatever. On the internet, everything consolidates rapidly. It’s hard to argue that companies should be forced to allow things they don’t want on their platforms, but it’s clear that something has to be done here if platforms are going to consolidate this badly.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jcranmer 5y ago
  It is refreshing to see someone who diagnoses the issue here correctly. The root problem people are complaining about is the moderation policies, and the truth is that services like Facebook et al are simply too large to be effectively moderated. Appealing to (US ideas of) free speech would propose that the solution to bad moderation is no moderation whatsoever (speech restrictions must be content-neutral, and moderation by definition is not content-neutral)--and I think most people would rapidly find that no moderation is worse than bad moderation. The most effective solution is to do what ought to have been done a decade ago and prevent further social media consolidation and consider breaking up the current oligopoly of social media.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    I favour no moderation but with spam detection. Less moderation might be a good middle ground
  - brigandish 5y ago
    That's one route - that I also favour - but my favourite idea would be to give everyone access to the tools that FB et al use for moderation. If I don't want to see porn/politics/bots/cussing/sport/K-pop… then I want to be able to choose that, not the platform. They have all this data and the ability to shape the feed, give me that power. No need to stomp on free speech, no need to clumsily moderate. Of course, people with power rarely like to share it, and they certainly don't want a free flow of information that they don't control. There's the rub.
paulcole 5y ago
It is definitely a free speech issue but not in the legal and constitutional sense that you're thinking of. Regardless of the situation you're in, you have the ability to say, "I should have the right to free speech in this situation." Whether this belief will be validated in the reality of the situation is an entirely different matter.
- smcl 5y ago
  On the contrary, that is exactly the sense I was thinking of. My point was that considering this in terms of an erosion of your free speech doesn't make sense because there's no expectation of free speech in places like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc. There is an expectation that as long as you adhere to TOS you'll be allowed to continue to use a platform, however. I just thought it was a mistake in this case to get into a broader debate about free speech online, what should be allowed, how it needs to account for various countries' conflicting laws, etc. Because that's a huge issue, it's probably not what was intended by the original commenter and we have a much more narrow and clearly defined issue we can focus on (being kicked off despite adhering to TOS).
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > I should have the right to free speech That's a legitimate opinion. I am of the view that rights are things that are granted by some authority, not something you acquire by simply existing. I envy the USA their constitutional protections on speech. But unless Google has made a grant of free speech rights on their platform, no such rights exist.
  - paulcole 5y ago
    yes, had you read/quoted my entire comment you'd realize that your point is exactly equivalent to my point
  - MereInterest 5y ago
    > I am of the view that rights are things that are granted by some authority, not something you acquire by simply existing. That's an interesting view, and not one that is supported by the US Constitution. > First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This doesn't state that either Congress or the Constitution is granting the freedom of speech, or the right to assemble peacably, but rather states that Congress may not make a law that abridges those rights. The right > Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Again, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures is something that exists before the Constitution. It isn't something that is granted by the Constitution, but a pre-existing right that may not be violated. > Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This is the most direct counter-argument, that rights exist outside of the enumerated rights. That some rights are explicitly enumerated may not be used to imply that those are the only rights that exist. If the Constitution and authorities derived from the Constitution were the source of rights, then there couldn't be rights that exist outside of them. But instead, the Constitution states that there exist rights outside of those mentioned, so they must have been pre-existing rights.
1ris 5y ago
I absolutely disagree. But we had this debate over and over and over again. It would be great if you could stop rehashing is debate once more. I some twist of irony, this comment is against the HN TOS. So please stop.
- smcl 5y ago
  How is my comment against the HN TOS?
  - VLM 5y ago
    Given the context of the linked article AND the somewhat off topic debate, he was clearly being humorous. Or trying.
contravariant 5y ago
The idea that companies should be allowed to trample all over basic freedoms because they're not the government has to be the most capitalist idea ever.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
- smcl 5y ago
  What basic freedom are these companies trampling? I dislike them as much as the next person, but it's been clear from the start that they operate their little fiefdoms as they see fit and we should be under no illusions that we have no rights there. If we want to fight for a change to the various laws in various countries, then that is a conversation I would be very willing to have. But let's not pretend that any of these companies have ever offered their services as a place where you can exercise whatever version of free-speech laws your country has. Interestingly the places that tout "free speech" as a feature tend to descend into pretty grim places full of racism, anti-semitism, conspiracy theories and more besides (hello, 8chan/kun!).
  - rosmax_1337 5y ago
    Have you considered why those places become grim places? Does free speech lead to those ideas? That would be quite a out-there conclusion. Rather, those people can only express themselves on forums like that, they are banned on all the other mediums. If free speech was set as a standard on all mediums, those people would express themselves evenly on facebook, youtube and the chans, rather than being penned into fringe spaces like the chans. I think that society should be more clear about the stance on this, either their speech is banned throughout society, and free speech isn't quite what it used to be, or their speech is tolerated throughout society, and free speech remains.
    - alisonkisk 5y ago
    - 5y ago
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Well "free speech" is a concept, context can be "${country_constitution_str}" or as in "humanitarian values"

by smcl 5y ago

raxxorrax 5y ago

Why is that not a free speech issue? It is not a legal issue of course, but removal of critical opinions very much qualifies to be a violation of the principle.

smcl 5y ago
Because it's basically never been a thing there. Facebook, Twitter, Google - all of these platforms can and do remove things from their platforms for whatever reason they feel like. There's nothing we can do about it, there is no free speech there and acting indignant like they're eroding some right that you previously had is just pointless. It'd be like complaining that you can't get sushi at McDonalds anymore. You couldn't ever do that, McDonalds haven't indicated that they would offer this and we all know it's not going to happen.
- foxfluff 5y ago
  There's no "anymore" in these complaints though. There's just the complaint. It's not "my parents started beating me while they in the past didn't", it's just "parents are beating me." Or "google is suppressing my speech." Past actions of the involved entities do not invalidate the complaint. Likewise, "the grocery store next door doesn't sell sushi" is a legit complaint for the afflicted regardless of whether sushi was sold in the past or not. (Coincidentally, my go-to store just stopped selling sushi a week or two ago)
  - smcl 5y ago
    > But it's unfair to block a guy that talked about a real flaw in Grammarly's plagiarism checker, at least pretend that you allow free speech and take down that video for a random reason specified in your ToS. See italicised section, it suggests there's a promise of free speech on Google that are somehow reneging on. I am just saying that this is a mistake, and now loads of people seem to be mad at the idea that I'm attacking "free speech". One of the reasons I thought it shouldn't be here is that it's fairly complex topic that IMO is orthogonal to the case in question because it raises all sorts of thorny side-issues that distract from the main thing: someone got booted from Google quite unfairly.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- wintermutestwin 5y ago
  Maybe their network effect monopoly means that they are essentially a public service and maybe our basic concepts of free speech should apply to all public services. I am obviously not talking about our current legal framework, but proposing the idea that the concepts and reason for free speech are meaningful enough to transcend that framework.
denton-scratch 5y ago
The (US) constitutional protections on speech constrain the actions of US governments; those constraints don't extend to private companies and individuals. And "principles" are things you can adopt and agree with as you see fit. They are not law. Not everyone takes an absolutist position that "free speech" is a principle we should all be defending to the last ditch.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  It's still fair to call this a violation of free speech -- even if the company has no legal obligation not to do it -- and therefore give them shit about it. As a customer. Who can take their business elsewhere. And if the customer can't take their business elsewhere, it appears we have arrived at the underlying problem.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    > It's still fair to call this a violation of free speech You can call it a violation of rock and roll, if you like. Normally, "violate" is something you do the law, or a contract, or an agreement. You can't normally "violate" a principle that you haven't declared your adherence to, just because someone else adheres to it.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      > Normally, "violate" is something you do the law, or a contract, or an agreement. You can't normally "violate" a principle that you haven't declared your adherence to, just because someone else adheres to it. If you're a vegan libertarian who refuses to patronize agricultural conglomerates engaged in factory farming because it's a violation of the non-aggression principle, your argument for them not being in violation of it is that they never agreed to it? It's not the company's principle, it's the customer's. The company is violating it so the customer is offended and is willing to take their business elsewhere. And to publicly condemn the company over it so others do the same. This is how the free market is supposed to work. If a company is charging 6000% margins, you don't say "well I guess there's no law against it," you stop patronizing that company. And if you can't, the market is broken.
VLM 5y ago
Unregulated monopolies do not have to uphold constitutional rights. The phone company used to be regulated so even if you were a hated Republican they still had to provide phone service to you if you lived in their service area. Those days are over and monopolies in practice will never be redefined again as "legal monopolies".

jchw 5y ago

Free speech isn’t just something that can be encoded into law, it’s an ideology. A great ideology, imo. That said, with COVID-19 it really became apparent that these platforms have basically become a new public square, putting everyone in an awkward position. You can basically be ousted from the internet by just a couple entities like Facebook or Twitter and have your entire online presence torpedoed. IRL I can just go to a different bar, gym, whatever. On the internet, everything consolidates rapidly. It’s hard to argue that companies should be forced to allow things they don’t want on their platforms, but it’s clear that something has to be done here if platforms are going to consolidate this badly.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jcranmer 5y ago
It is refreshing to see someone who diagnoses the issue here correctly. The root problem people are complaining about is the moderation policies, and the truth is that services like Facebook et al are simply too large to be effectively moderated. Appealing to (US ideas of) free speech would propose that the solution to bad moderation is no moderation whatsoever (speech restrictions must be content-neutral, and moderation by definition is not content-neutral)--and I think most people would rapidly find that no moderation is worse than bad moderation. The most effective solution is to do what ought to have been done a decade ago and prevent further social media consolidation and consider breaking up the current oligopoly of social media.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  I favour no moderation but with spam detection. Less moderation might be a good middle ground
- brigandish 5y ago
  That's one route - that I also favour - but my favourite idea would be to give everyone access to the tools that FB et al use for moderation. If I don't want to see porn/politics/bots/cussing/sport/K-pop… then I want to be able to choose that, not the platform. They have all this data and the ability to shape the feed, give me that power. No need to stomp on free speech, no need to clumsily moderate. Of course, people with power rarely like to share it, and they certainly don't want a free flow of information that they don't control. There's the rub.

paulcole 5y ago

It is definitely a free speech issue but not in the legal and constitutional sense that you're thinking of. Regardless of the situation you're in, you have the ability to say, "I should have the right to free speech in this situation." Whether this belief will be validated in the reality of the situation is an entirely different matter.

smcl 5y ago
On the contrary, that is exactly the sense I was thinking of. My point was that considering this in terms of an erosion of your free speech doesn't make sense because there's no expectation of free speech in places like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc. There is an expectation that as long as you adhere to TOS you'll be allowed to continue to use a platform, however. I just thought it was a mistake in this case to get into a broader debate about free speech online, what should be allowed, how it needs to account for various countries' conflicting laws, etc. Because that's a huge issue, it's probably not what was intended by the original commenter and we have a much more narrow and clearly defined issue we can focus on (being kicked off despite adhering to TOS).
denton-scratch 5y ago
> I should have the right to free speech That's a legitimate opinion. I am of the view that rights are things that are granted by some authority, not something you acquire by simply existing. I envy the USA their constitutional protections on speech. But unless Google has made a grant of free speech rights on their platform, no such rights exist.
- paulcole 5y ago
  yes, had you read/quoted my entire comment you'd realize that your point is exactly equivalent to my point
- MereInterest 5y ago
  > I am of the view that rights are things that are granted by some authority, not something you acquire by simply existing. That's an interesting view, and not one that is supported by the US Constitution. > First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This doesn't state that either Congress or the Constitution is granting the freedom of speech, or the right to assemble peacably, but rather states that Congress may not make a law that abridges those rights. The right > Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Again, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures is something that exists before the Constitution. It isn't something that is granted by the Constitution, but a pre-existing right that may not be violated. > Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This is the most direct counter-argument, that rights exist outside of the enumerated rights. That some rights are explicitly enumerated may not be used to imply that those are the only rights that exist. If the Constitution and authorities derived from the Constitution were the source of rights, then there couldn't be rights that exist outside of them. But instead, the Constitution states that there exist rights outside of those mentioned, so they must have been pre-existing rights.

1ris 5y ago

I absolutely disagree. But we had this debate over and over and over again. It would be great if you could stop rehashing is debate once more. I some twist of irony, this comment is against the HN TOS. So please stop.

smcl 5y ago
How is my comment against the HN TOS?
- VLM 5y ago
  Given the context of the linked article AND the somewhat off topic debate, he was clearly being humorous. Or trying.

contravariant 5y ago

The idea that companies should be allowed to trample all over basic freedoms because they're not the government has to be the most capitalist idea ever.

alisonkisk 5y ago
smcl 5y ago
What basic freedom are these companies trampling? I dislike them as much as the next person, but it's been clear from the start that they operate their little fiefdoms as they see fit and we should be under no illusions that we have no rights there. If we want to fight for a change to the various laws in various countries, then that is a conversation I would be very willing to have. But let's not pretend that any of these companies have ever offered their services as a place where you can exercise whatever version of free-speech laws your country has. Interestingly the places that tout "free speech" as a feature tend to descend into pretty grim places full of racism, anti-semitism, conspiracy theories and more besides (hello, 8chan/kun!).
- rosmax_1337 5y ago
  Have you considered why those places become grim places? Does free speech lead to those ideas? That would be quite a out-there conclusion. Rather, those people can only express themselves on forums like that, they are banned on all the other mediums. If free speech was set as a standard on all mediums, those people would express themselves evenly on facebook, youtube and the chans, rather than being penned into fringe spaces like the chans. I think that society should be more clear about the stance on this, either their speech is banned throughout society, and free speech isn't quite what it used to be, or their speech is tolerated throughout society, and free speech remains.
  - alisonkisk 5y ago
  - 5y ago

stjohnswarts 5y ago

Well "free speech" is a concept, context can be "${country_constitution_str}" or as in "humanitarian values"