7 ms·

Have you considered that you have some autocratic tendencies yourself? > I'm a free speech absolutist - i.e. I believe in the first amendment, including the id

Have you considered that you have some autocratic tendencies yourself? > I'm a free speech absolutist - i.e. I believe in the first amendment, including the idea it should protect you from corporations. The Supreme Court has repeated ruled that the First Amendment extends towards editorial decisions in the sense that editors can choose what they publish and what they don't. Do you really believe people should be forced to distribute whatever you want them to? > To those that say “it’s enemy propaganda” who’s the enemy? The Russian government who would strip me and my fellow man of the right to free speech just like their stripped their own citizens.

lettergram 5y ago
> Do you really believe people should be forced to distribute whatever you want them to? I think there’s a difference between “publisher” and “distributor”. Distributor can make decisions, to a degree, but we have “common carrier” status for a reason. If you’re given a defacto monopoly or monopolize a distribution channel, then no, I don’t think you have any right to block distribution. Again, they’ve taken the public square. It would be like saying “Well, we sold all the parking meters in Chicago to foreigners (really, they did [1])”. Then that company decides to ban anyone who’s black from parking downtown. That would 100% be considered illegal. If we did it for a religious group, say Catholics - also 100% illegal. Now let’s say libertarians - guess that would be okay? No also illegal. You can’t take the public square from the people. The Supreme Court has ruled as such —- that said, I do think it needs to eventually clarify this; or more precisely legislation should be passed. https://lastdropmugs.com/who-owns-chicago-parking-meters-llc/ https://lastdropmugs.com/who-owns-chicago-parking-meters-llc... > The Russian government who would strip me and my fellow man of the right to free speech just like their stripped their own citizens. I agree Putin is a tyrant, but two tyrants don't make a democracy. I’d argue the US is no better at this point. Try questioning vaccines, 2020 election, Hunter Bidens laptop, protest at a school board, etc. Again I’m an absolutist though... I think censorship is a tool of weak authoritarians.
- shagie 5y ago
  > Try questioning vaccines, 2020 election, Hunter Bidens laptop, etc. Why should a private company be compelled to carry and distribute any of this material at a cost to themselves?
  - drewcoo 5y ago
    Because they've been allowed to privatize what is effectively the commons. In the US we had the Fairness Doctrine until Reagan. That was to try to make publishers show balanced views. Removing it led to Fox and MSNBC today.
    - shagie 5y ago
      Individuals are still quite capable of publishing material in the ole Web 1.0 way. Get a server, get some storage, and serve the data. The commons of "being able to publish your own content" is still as available as it ever was. YouTube (and others) monetized a single spot to host and discover content - but the commons still exists for anyone who wants to serve it. YouTube itself isn't a publisher - they are a distributor. Publishers publish to YouTube for it to be distributed and monetized. The Fairness Doctrine applies to YouTube no more than it does to AT&T to insist that the phone calls that it carriers are balanced. Fox and MSNBC are publishers. Charter, Comcast, AT&T, and Dish are distributors.
      - lettergram 5y ago
        > but the commons still exists for anyone who wants to serve it. How do you go to the public square and take a speaker phone and start talking in the internet? Google: blocks content Twitter: blocks content Facebook blocks content DuckDuckGo: Deranks (possibly blocks) content Reddit: Blocks content ... do you see the problem? Company towns still had to allow free speech, Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc are the defacto town squares and if I can't pick up a microphone and speak my mind; then it is not as it once was. Claiming I can "start my own town" doesn't work in this context. Worse, if I do how do people find my town? Can I advertise on these locations (nope, probably not). What if I use AWS? Well probably like parlor infrastructure would be pulled, if it becomes popular.
- starwind 5y ago
  > It would be like saying “Well, we sold all the parking meters in Chicago to foreigners (really, they did [1])”. Then that company decides to ban anyone who’s black from parking downtown. Stopping black people from parking would basically eliminate access to downtown. A publisher/distributor (I think that line's a lot finer than you make it out to be, but whatever) refusing to publish content just means a writer has to find a different outlet for their media. They could, for instance, start their own website. Part of free speech is the right to keep your mouth shut, so publishers have the right to not distribute material they don't agree with
- rhcom2 5y ago
  > I agree Putin is a tyrant, but two tyrants don't make a democracy. I’d argue the US is no better at this point. Try questioning vaccines, 2020 election, Hunter Bidens laptop, protest at a school board, etc. The absurdity of this when people are being arrested in Russia for protesting with blank signs. Go down to your local town hall with a sign about Hunter Biden's laptop giving you a vaccine to change your vote in the 2020 election, no goons will show up.
  - hnov 5y ago
    Is being better than Russia the gold standard for free speech?
drewcoo 5y ago
Ah, the ad hominem. The best defense against intolerance is to directly attack others! /s

lettergram 5y ago

> Do you really believe people should be forced to distribute whatever you want them to? I think there’s a difference between “publisher” and “distributor”. Distributor can make decisions, to a degree, but we have “common carrier” status for a reason. If you’re given a defacto monopoly or monopolize a distribution channel, then no, I don’t think you have any right to block distribution. Again, they’ve taken the public square. It would be like saying “Well, we sold all the parking meters in Chicago to foreigners (really, they did [1])”. Then that company decides to ban anyone who’s black from parking downtown. That would 100% be considered illegal. If we did it for a religious group, say Catholics - also 100% illegal. Now let’s say libertarians - guess that would be okay? No also illegal. You can’t take the public square from the people. The Supreme Court has ruled as such —- that said, I do think it needs to eventually clarify this; or more precisely legislation should be passed. https://lastdropmugs.com/who-owns-chicago-parking-meters-llc/ https://lastdropmugs.com/who-owns-chicago-parking-meters-llc... > The Russian government who would strip me and my fellow man of the right to free speech just like their stripped their own citizens. I agree Putin is a tyrant, but two tyrants don't make a democracy. I’d argue the US is no better at this point. Try questioning vaccines, 2020 election, Hunter Bidens laptop, protest at a school board, etc. Again I’m an absolutist though... I think censorship is a tool of weak authoritarians.

shagie 5y ago
> Try questioning vaccines, 2020 election, Hunter Bidens laptop, etc. Why should a private company be compelled to carry and distribute any of this material at a cost to themselves?
- drewcoo 5y ago
  Because they've been allowed to privatize what is effectively the commons. In the US we had the Fairness Doctrine until Reagan. That was to try to make publishers show balanced views. Removing it led to Fox and MSNBC today.
  - shagie 5y ago
    Individuals are still quite capable of publishing material in the ole Web 1.0 way. Get a server, get some storage, and serve the data. The commons of "being able to publish your own content" is still as available as it ever was. YouTube (and others) monetized a single spot to host and discover content - but the commons still exists for anyone who wants to serve it. YouTube itself isn't a publisher - they are a distributor. Publishers publish to YouTube for it to be distributed and monetized. The Fairness Doctrine applies to YouTube no more than it does to AT&T to insist that the phone calls that it carriers are balanced. Fox and MSNBC are publishers. Charter, Comcast, AT&T, and Dish are distributors.
    - lettergram 5y ago
      > but the commons still exists for anyone who wants to serve it. How do you go to the public square and take a speaker phone and start talking in the internet? Google: blocks content Twitter: blocks content Facebook blocks content DuckDuckGo: Deranks (possibly blocks) content Reddit: Blocks content ... do you see the problem? Company towns still had to allow free speech, Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc are the defacto town squares and if I can't pick up a microphone and speak my mind; then it is not as it once was. Claiming I can "start my own town" doesn't work in this context. Worse, if I do how do people find my town? Can I advertise on these locations (nope, probably not). What if I use AWS? Well probably like parlor infrastructure would be pulled, if it becomes popular.
starwind 5y ago
> It would be like saying “Well, we sold all the parking meters in Chicago to foreigners (really, they did [1])”. Then that company decides to ban anyone who’s black from parking downtown. Stopping black people from parking would basically eliminate access to downtown. A publisher/distributor (I think that line's a lot finer than you make it out to be, but whatever) refusing to publish content just means a writer has to find a different outlet for their media. They could, for instance, start their own website. Part of free speech is the right to keep your mouth shut, so publishers have the right to not distribute material they don't agree with
rhcom2 5y ago
> I agree Putin is a tyrant, but two tyrants don't make a democracy. I’d argue the US is no better at this point. Try questioning vaccines, 2020 election, Hunter Bidens laptop, protest at a school board, etc. The absurdity of this when people are being arrested in Russia for protesting with blank signs. Go down to your local town hall with a sign about Hunter Biden's laptop giving you a vaccine to change your vote in the 2020 election, no goons will show up.
- hnov 5y ago
  Is being better than Russia the gold standard for free speech?

drewcoo 5y ago

Ah, the ad hominem. The best defense against intolerance is to directly attack others! /s