5 ms·

Every single day on HN, people mix up giving someone a platform to censoring someone. Social platforms are megaphones. Up until a decade ago, it was impossible

Every single day on HN, people mix up giving someone a platform to censoring someone. Social platforms are megaphones. Up until a decade ago, it was impossible for nearly everyone to reach out a large audience, especially worldwide. Nowadays, anyone can make a video accessible by billions of people with a single click. If people banned from that is "censorship", then by that definition the whole world was censored 2 decades ago.

ekianjo 5y ago
> then by that definition the whole world was censored 2 decades ago. Nope, you are misunderstanding something here. Removing what was considered "given" is what becomes perceived as censorship.
- ehsankia 5y ago
  > perceived as censorship keyword here being _perceived_
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    Everything is a matter of perception at the end of the day.
d0gsg0w00f 5y ago
But is taking away the megaphone the same as silencing them? When everyone has a megaphone, those who don't are not heard.
- dgellow 5y ago
  And that’s fine. Not everybody can or has to be heard by everybody else. There no such as a thing as an expectation to be heard by others. That becomes more problematic and debatable once infrastructure companies such as a DNS provider or a hosting company refuses to deal with some content given that you remove the ability to create your own soapbox.
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    Just to note, the US legal definition of free speech, at least according to the courts, includes the expectation to be heard by others. There is actually such a thing as a right to an audience; free speech is not fulfilled if someone is excluded from any space where someone may hear them.
    - magicalist 5y ago
      > There is actually such a thing as a right to an audience A right to access to an audience, not a right to an audience.
    - bena 5y ago
      I'm going to need a source on that one. I don't know of any decision where the definition of free speech includes a right to an audience. The owner of an auditorium or hall is allowed to not give platform to anyone. They get to decide who gets heard.
      - FeepingCreature 5y ago
        Well, the public forum doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal) holds that the point of free speech is communication among citizens. I don't have a cite for the direct quote I wanted (it's lost in my browser history), but the idea was that free speech is not satisfied by just making available a space in which one is not going to be heard by anyone. This doesn't imply a positive right to a particular audience, of course.
        bena 5y ago
        You said, specifically, that "US legal definition of free speech, at least according to the courts", included the expectation to be heard. That it implied an audience be made available to you. You need to be able to cite a source, ideally a case or specific law, on such a claim because no one else I know holds to that definition. A link to a Wikipedia article about a different concept does not satisfy, because it does not cite a legal definition of free speech by US courts.
gnicholas 5y ago
If you’re in a park where everyone else is shouting through a megaphone, and you don’t have a megaphone, your voice will not be heard.
jakebasile 5y ago
Before the printing press most people couldn't mass produce their written word. The printing press was a megaphone and a platform. Is taking away someone's access to a printing press censorship? Not too many years ago no one had the ability to call anyone with a telephone. That service is provided by private companies in many countries. Is denying someone the ability to call their associates censorship? Times change.
roenxi 5y ago
It doesn't really matter that much if you want to use the word "banned" in preference to "censored"; the facts of the matter is that the entire right wing's viewpoint is under threat on these channels to the point where people have been decamping and moving on to other platforms in large numbers. There have been quite a few notable social media plays (thinking Gab, Parler & Truth Social) that may as well have started in response to the 2016 election. So we don't have to use the word censorship but there is a lot of voting with feet going on that suggests some sort of speech suppression. The persistent banning of private opinions by American big tech is probably the major cause of that.
- ehsankia 5y ago
  And that's perfectly fine. If anything, that's proof that there is no censorship, the fact that they can go and make their own platform. Also, the fact that you're not allowed to say anything bad about Trump on those platforms without getting banned.

ekianjo 5y ago

> then by that definition the whole world was censored 2 decades ago. Nope, you are misunderstanding something here. Removing what was considered "given" is what becomes perceived as censorship.

ehsankia 5y ago
> perceived as censorship keyword here being _perceived_
- ekianjo 5y ago
  Everything is a matter of perception at the end of the day.

d0gsg0w00f 5y ago

But is taking away the megaphone the same as silencing them? When everyone has a megaphone, those who don't are not heard.

dgellow 5y ago
And that’s fine. Not everybody can or has to be heard by everybody else. There no such as a thing as an expectation to be heard by others. That becomes more problematic and debatable once infrastructure companies such as a DNS provider or a hosting company refuses to deal with some content given that you remove the ability to create your own soapbox.
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  Just to note, the US legal definition of free speech, at least according to the courts, includes the expectation to be heard by others. There is actually such a thing as a right to an audience; free speech is not fulfilled if someone is excluded from any space where someone may hear them.
  - magicalist 5y ago
    > There is actually such a thing as a right to an audience A right to access to an audience, not a right to an audience.
  - bena 5y ago
    I'm going to need a source on that one. I don't know of any decision where the definition of free speech includes a right to an audience. The owner of an auditorium or hall is allowed to not give platform to anyone. They get to decide who gets heard.
    - FeepingCreature 5y ago
      Well, the public forum doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal) holds that the point of free speech is communication among citizens. I don't have a cite for the direct quote I wanted (it's lost in my browser history), but the idea was that free speech is not satisfied by just making available a space in which one is not going to be heard by anyone. This doesn't imply a positive right to a particular audience, of course.
      - bena 5y ago
        You said, specifically, that "US legal definition of free speech, at least according to the courts", included the expectation to be heard. That it implied an audience be made available to you. You need to be able to cite a source, ideally a case or specific law, on such a claim because no one else I know holds to that definition. A link to a Wikipedia article about a different concept does not satisfy, because it does not cite a legal definition of free speech by US courts.

gnicholas 5y ago

If you’re in a park where everyone else is shouting through a megaphone, and you don’t have a megaphone, your voice will not be heard.

jakebasile 5y ago

Before the printing press most people couldn't mass produce their written word. The printing press was a megaphone and a platform. Is taking away someone's access to a printing press censorship? Not too many years ago no one had the ability to call anyone with a telephone. That service is provided by private companies in many countries. Is denying someone the ability to call their associates censorship? Times change.

roenxi 5y ago

It doesn't really matter that much if you want to use the word "banned" in preference to "censored"; the facts of the matter is that the entire right wing's viewpoint is under threat on these channels to the point where people have been decamping and moving on to other platforms in large numbers. There have been quite a few notable social media plays (thinking Gab, Parler & Truth Social) that may as well have started in response to the 2016 election. So we don't have to use the word censorship but there is a lot of voting with feet going on that suggests some sort of speech suppression. The persistent banning of private opinions by American big tech is probably the major cause of that.

ehsankia 5y ago
And that's perfectly fine. If anything, that's proof that there is no censorship, the fact that they can go and make their own platform. Also, the fact that you're not allowed to say anything bad about Trump on those platforms without getting banned.