7 ms·

I wonder if a day will ever come when a "X major site banned in the USA" headline crosses HN for speech reasons. We've been surprisingly tolerant of a lot of no

by madrox 5y ago

I wonder if a day will ever come when a "X major site banned in the USA" headline crosses HN for speech reasons. We've been surprisingly tolerant of a lot of nonsense from a top-down perspective. The closest we get is a grassroots campaign to get Joe Rogan off Spotify.

kibwen 5y ago
Rather, I think the closest was when Trump threatened to ban TikTok.
- madrox 5y ago
  But that was because security and not speech. Close but a different issue. We've shut down a lot of stuff for that reason.
  - eunos 5y ago
    You can always formulate speech issue as security issue. Cite ideological security/resilience for example.
    - lukifer 5y ago
      The classic example is "shouting fire in a crowded theater"; a phrase we still hear today, despite its origin being the prosecution of anti-war activists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
  - ChrisLomont 5y ago
    It was because Trump wanted to poke China and because a TikTok campaign embarrassed Trump by buying up all the tickets to a Trump crusade rally. If it were security, then it still would be, and we'd still be having the discussion. It was about Trump, so when Trump lost interest or the ability to cause hassle, the problem also went away.
  - plugger 5y ago
    I'd say more security theatre than security
droopyEyelids 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump–TikTok_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump–TikTok_controvers...
staindk 5y ago
Trump's social media site/thing won't be able to take off properly because if they allow the level of 'freedom of speech' on there that they say they want to allow, neither Apple's nor Google's app stores will host the Truth Social app. At least that's what I've seen people say, and it sounds quite plausible. So in that regard there is some way that the web gets policed in the US.
- freedomben 5y ago
  sounds quite plausible to me. USA as a whole is definitely a lot more tolerant of speech than many other countries, but we're definitely moving in a direction where only speech that is within the accepted norms of society is permitted. (At least in virtual space. You can still spout off stupid opinions in person)
  - cguess 5y ago
    Private companies are making that decision, not the government. That's a big difference.
    - freedomben 5y ago
      of course, I never said otherwise. But even still, in the US the federal government is keeping lists of people who they feel should be banned across all social media, and sending them to Facebook (and surely others). When private sector and government work that closely, the line blurs quite a bit as to whether it's government or private sector, and whether that's become a distinction rather than a difference.
    - skissane 5y ago
      > Private companies are making that decision, not the government. That's a big difference. There is an ideological dispute about how big a difference that is. Many years ago, I identified as an anarchist (not anymore). While I was an anarchist, I followed intently the debates between anarcho-socialists (left anarchists) and anarcho-capitalists (right anarchists). A major part of the debate was whether it made a difference whether someone doing something was the government or a private entity. From the anarcho-capitalist viewpoint, the public-private distinction has a fundamental philosophical, ideological, political and moral significance – governments and private corporations are radically different kinds of entities, whose actions ought to be judged by very different standards. From the anarcho-socialist viewpoint, the public-private distinction is largely artificial, arbitrary, irrelevant – governments and private corporations are just two slightly different flavours of the same soup. Although few people involved in these debates over the possibility of "censorship by private corporations" would identify as anarchists (of either variety), I think the same distinction is at play here; but, unlike those anarchist debates, the parties in the "censorship by private corporations" debate seem less aware of the role that fundamental difference may have in motivating their respective positions.
asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
There's no prospect of anything like that happening to a mainstream site in the US, at least not over political speech. For sex, drugs, and violence-related sites it can and has happened but that is a qualitatively different case.
tablespoon 5y ago
> I wonder if a day will ever come when a "X major site banned in the USA" headline crosses HN for speech reasons. We've been surprisingly tolerant of a lot of nonsense from a top-down perspective. The closest we get is a grassroots campaign to get Joe Rogan off Spotify. [Russia does a thing] Lets talk about the US.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Nearly every damn thread.
- demadog 5y ago
  I might get downvoted for restating this, but for all its faults and headlines in recent years, America truly is built on laissez-faire principles so it’s unlikely to happen. Proof is the extent to which Alex Jones types of figures have yet to be totally banned by the government, just deplatformed by private social networks. That being said the conversation about Tik Tok and Chinese ownerships and servers did seem to get close to this.
- q1w2 5y ago
  ...and to bring this back to Russia - what other social media platforms remain in Russia to get the word out on what's going on in Ukraine. I truly believe that if most Russians could SEE the death and destruction Putin is causing, he might actually get deposed.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > I truly believe that if most Russians could SEE the death and destruction Putin is causing, he might actually get deposed. I truly believe that's wishful thinking. Even if most Russians hated Putin, as long as he's got control over a strong domestic security apparatus and continued support from his cronies, he's not going to get deposed.
amscanne 5y ago
Wasn't this [1] such an event in practice? It's not government action, but it's certainly co-ordinated and one step up from a "grassroots" campaign. (I personally don't have much of an opinion on the event, I'm just noting that it seems to match what you were wondering about.) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993
- zamadatix 5y ago
  Similar but also very different. Refusal to host is not the same thing as a ban, Parler continues to work just fine in the US and is accessible from PC, Android, and iOS devices. To make it really the same thing you'd need to have these companies blocking access not just refusing to host or provide access as part of their business.
- Mezzie 5y ago
  The main difference to me is that 'banned in X country' implies availability outside of that country. The Parler situation was about the viability of the site as a whole. 'Weibo banned in the USA' is very different.
- antifa 5y ago
  Categorically it's far less of a problem, but it does bring to light that we do need some kind of digital bill of rights. I believe Twitter and AWS should have seperately defined rights as to who they can kick off and why. My domain provider or webhost should have very limited and specific scenarios/structured protocols in regards to people asking for my contact information, how they can treat me when receiving any random unverified DMCA requests, etc. There should be no part of the protocol where they hand out my information without my knowledge, and without my consent, and without verifying the requestor, without fully informing me of every step they take before they do it, and without my right to object.
Meekro 5y ago
RT America (Russian TV station) just filed for bankruptcy after being dropped by DirecTV and Roku at the same time. [1] Does that count, or does it have to be the government doing it? [1] https://deadline.com/2022/03/rt-america-to-halt-production-and-lay-off-most-staff-after-being-dropped-by-major-u-s-distributors-1234970503/ https://deadline.com/2022/03/rt-america-to-halt-production-a...
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  RT America wasn't self-sufficient, itwas the local operation of Russian state media in the US, who, as well as losing key distribution channels and contracted-out production for some content due to private partners abandoning doing business with them, also suffered from the financial difficulty it's Russian immediate parent and the Russian state are experiencing in operating overseas due to sanctions.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Specifically it will no longer be possible for RT headquarters to transfer funds to their American subsidiary in order to pay employees and vendors. If they had a sufficient local revenue source then they could continue operating. They haven't been directly banned.

by madrox 5y ago

kibwen 5y ago

Rather, I think the closest was when Trump threatened to ban TikTok.

madrox 5y ago
But that was because security and not speech. Close but a different issue. We've shut down a lot of stuff for that reason.
- eunos 5y ago
  You can always formulate speech issue as security issue. Cite ideological security/resilience for example.
  - lukifer 5y ago
    The classic example is "shouting fire in a crowded theater"; a phrase we still hear today, despite its origin being the prosecution of anti-war activists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  It was because Trump wanted to poke China and because a TikTok campaign embarrassed Trump by buying up all the tickets to a Trump crusade rally. If it were security, then it still would be, and we'd still be having the discussion. It was about Trump, so when Trump lost interest or the ability to cause hassle, the problem also went away.
- plugger 5y ago
  I'd say more security theatre than security

droopyEyelids 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump–TikTok_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump–TikTok_controvers...

staindk 5y ago

Trump's social media site/thing won't be able to take off properly because if they allow the level of 'freedom of speech' on there that they say they want to allow, neither Apple's nor Google's app stores will host the Truth Social app. At least that's what I've seen people say, and it sounds quite plausible. So in that regard there is some way that the web gets policed in the US.

freedomben 5y ago
sounds quite plausible to me. USA as a whole is definitely a lot more tolerant of speech than many other countries, but we're definitely moving in a direction where only speech that is within the accepted norms of society is permitted. (At least in virtual space. You can still spout off stupid opinions in person)
- cguess 5y ago
  Private companies are making that decision, not the government. That's a big difference.
  - freedomben 5y ago
    of course, I never said otherwise. But even still, in the US the federal government is keeping lists of people who they feel should be banned across all social media, and sending them to Facebook (and surely others). When private sector and government work that closely, the line blurs quite a bit as to whether it's government or private sector, and whether that's become a distinction rather than a difference.
  - skissane 5y ago
    > Private companies are making that decision, not the government. That's a big difference. There is an ideological dispute about how big a difference that is. Many years ago, I identified as an anarchist (not anymore). While I was an anarchist, I followed intently the debates between anarcho-socialists (left anarchists) and anarcho-capitalists (right anarchists). A major part of the debate was whether it made a difference whether someone doing something was the government or a private entity. From the anarcho-capitalist viewpoint, the public-private distinction has a fundamental philosophical, ideological, political and moral significance – governments and private corporations are radically different kinds of entities, whose actions ought to be judged by very different standards. From the anarcho-socialist viewpoint, the public-private distinction is largely artificial, arbitrary, irrelevant – governments and private corporations are just two slightly different flavours of the same soup. Although few people involved in these debates over the possibility of "censorship by private corporations" would identify as anarchists (of either variety), I think the same distinction is at play here; but, unlike those anarchist debates, the parties in the "censorship by private corporations" debate seem less aware of the role that fundamental difference may have in motivating their respective positions.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

There's no prospect of anything like that happening to a mainstream site in the US, at least not over political speech. For sex, drugs, and violence-related sites it can and has happened but that is a qualitatively different case.

tablespoon 5y ago

> I wonder if a day will ever come when a "X major site banned in the USA" headline crosses HN for speech reasons. We've been surprisingly tolerant of a lot of nonsense from a top-down perspective. The closest we get is a grassroots campaign to get Joe Rogan off Spotify. [Russia does a thing] Lets talk about the US.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
Nearly every damn thread.
demadog 5y ago
I might get downvoted for restating this, but for all its faults and headlines in recent years, America truly is built on laissez-faire principles so it’s unlikely to happen. Proof is the extent to which Alex Jones types of figures have yet to be totally banned by the government, just deplatformed by private social networks. That being said the conversation about Tik Tok and Chinese ownerships and servers did seem to get close to this.
q1w2 5y ago
...and to bring this back to Russia - what other social media platforms remain in Russia to get the word out on what's going on in Ukraine. I truly believe that if most Russians could SEE the death and destruction Putin is causing, he might actually get deposed.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > I truly believe that if most Russians could SEE the death and destruction Putin is causing, he might actually get deposed. I truly believe that's wishful thinking. Even if most Russians hated Putin, as long as he's got control over a strong domestic security apparatus and continued support from his cronies, he's not going to get deposed.

amscanne 5y ago

Wasn't this [1] such an event in practice? It's not government action, but it's certainly co-ordinated and one step up from a "grassroots" campaign. (I personally don't have much of an opinion on the event, I'm just noting that it seems to match what you were wondering about.) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993

zamadatix 5y ago
Similar but also very different. Refusal to host is not the same thing as a ban, Parler continues to work just fine in the US and is accessible from PC, Android, and iOS devices. To make it really the same thing you'd need to have these companies blocking access not just refusing to host or provide access as part of their business.
Mezzie 5y ago
The main difference to me is that 'banned in X country' implies availability outside of that country. The Parler situation was about the viability of the site as a whole. 'Weibo banned in the USA' is very different.
antifa 5y ago
Categorically it's far less of a problem, but it does bring to light that we do need some kind of digital bill of rights. I believe Twitter and AWS should have seperately defined rights as to who they can kick off and why. My domain provider or webhost should have very limited and specific scenarios/structured protocols in regards to people asking for my contact information, how they can treat me when receiving any random unverified DMCA requests, etc. There should be no part of the protocol where they hand out my information without my knowledge, and without my consent, and without verifying the requestor, without fully informing me of every step they take before they do it, and without my right to object.

Meekro 5y ago

RT America (Russian TV station) just filed for bankruptcy after being dropped by DirecTV and Roku at the same time. [1] Does that count, or does it have to be the government doing it? [1] https://deadline.com/2022/03/rt-america-to-halt-production-and-lay-off-most-staff-after-being-dropped-by-major-u-s-distributors-1234970503/ https://deadline.com/2022/03/rt-america-to-halt-production-a...

dragonwriter 5y ago
RT America wasn't self-sufficient, itwas the local operation of Russian state media in the US, who, as well as losing key distribution channels and contracted-out production for some content due to private partners abandoning doing business with them, also suffered from the financial difficulty it's Russian immediate parent and the Russian state are experiencing in operating overseas due to sanctions.
- nradov 5y ago
  Specifically it will no longer be possible for RT headquarters to transfer funds to their American subsidiary in order to pay employees and vendors. If they had a sufficient local revenue source then they could continue operating. They haven't been directly banned.