5 ms·

Because one party is human (the individual) and the other party is corporate (the platform). Individuals are inherently endowed with inalienable rights to life

by ethbr0 5y ago

Because one party is human (the individual) and the other party is corporate (the platform). Individuals are inherently endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Corporations are explicitly allowed whatever rights we choose to afford them, in pursuit of profit and maximizing their ability to put capital to productive ends. Saying "an individual speaks" is very different than saying "Facebook speaks." What opinions would Facebook have? And what fundamental desires would Facebook's opinions stem from?

etchalon 5y ago
All of the parties in your equation are human. Facebook is run by a collection of humans. Those humans make choices, as humans, that collectively we think of as "Facebook".
sangnoir 5y ago
...and yet the Citizens United and Hobby Lobby rulings are a thing. There is no basis (or case law) to say biological people's free speech rights overrides legal people's freedom of association right everytime - but I've seen the "free speech absolutists" take this as a given.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  They are absolutely a thing, and are the current law, but I can and do disagree with them from first principles. A group of individual persons, associated for a specific purpose, are not equivalent to an individual person in matters of fundamentally-owed rights.
  - throwaway82652 5y ago
    So in your ideal world, all you have to do to avoid "deplatforming" is to find one other person who shares your viewpoint and form a group? Isn't that literally how it already is regardless of your "first principles"? Or am I misunderstanding?
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      I'm arguing that platforms (aka groups aka corporations) deserve fewer free speech rights than human individuals.
      - throwaway82652 5y ago
        So if I talk to my neighbor and we agree on something and form a group of two, suddenly we deserve less free speech rights because technically that is a platform somehow? I can't understand what you mean here, please clarify. If you're trying to say businesses should be required to file with the government and get subject to business regulation, they already are?
        ethbr0 5y ago
        If you and one neighbor form a group, why should your group-of-two be entitled to any more free speech rights than those the two of you possessed before forming a group, and still individually possess after forming the group? Groups are entitled to greater-than-zero rights, in order to support their accomplishing their purpose in an efficient manner, but I'm curious why they should be owed person-equivalent rights?
        throwaway82652 5y ago
        >why should your group-of-two be entitled to any more free speech rights than those the two of you possessed before forming a group, and still individually possess after forming the group? It's not? If I throw my own party I can decide to uninvite the other bad neighbor down the block who always gets drunk and trashes everything. If I form up with my other neighbor and throw a block party, we can also decide to uninvite that same drunk neighbor. Are you saying that because it's a block party and not my personal birthday party, we should be forced to invite this person and have the party trashed, because uninviting them is a person-equivalent right? Or maybe I'm not allowed to do this at a personal birthday party either, because my wife and brother and I all formed a group to plan it? Please help me understand here, maybe this is a bad analogy.
- raxxorraxor 5y ago
  I am a free speech absolutist. I believe anything else would be decadence living in a first world nation. My country still does restrict speech and did so for centuries now, has spawned multiple dictatorships and still believes it to be a working concept. But that is another topic. Platforms that promote certain content are absolutely free to do so and should not be forced to do anything else. But it should be understood that this is their motivation and their choice. They do not practice freedom of speech or freedom of opinion. They advertise for something and it is not about any intellectual discourse and probably more about advertising.
hotpotamus 5y ago
"Corporations are people, my friend" - Mitt Romney
cortesoft 5y ago
Ok, so what if a platform was owned by just one person... it would be totally fine for that one person to refuse to allow certain people to post their thoughts on it? If you accept that, then what about a company that is owned by two people? Or three? Ten? 100? How many people have to own a company before the owners are no longer allowed to decide who they allow to use their platform to espouse their views?

by ethbr0 5y ago

etchalon 5y ago

All of the parties in your equation are human. Facebook is run by a collection of humans. Those humans make choices, as humans, that collectively we think of as "Facebook".

sangnoir 5y ago

...and yet the Citizens United and Hobby Lobby rulings are a thing. There is no basis (or case law) to say biological people's free speech rights overrides legal people's freedom of association right everytime - but I've seen the "free speech absolutists" take this as a given.

ethbr0 5y ago
They are absolutely a thing, and are the current law, but I can and do disagree with them from first principles. A group of individual persons, associated for a specific purpose, are not equivalent to an individual person in matters of fundamentally-owed rights.
- throwaway82652 5y ago
  So in your ideal world, all you have to do to avoid "deplatforming" is to find one other person who shares your viewpoint and form a group? Isn't that literally how it already is regardless of your "first principles"? Or am I misunderstanding?
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    I'm arguing that platforms (aka groups aka corporations) deserve fewer free speech rights than human individuals.
    - throwaway82652 5y ago
      So if I talk to my neighbor and we agree on something and form a group of two, suddenly we deserve less free speech rights because technically that is a platform somehow? I can't understand what you mean here, please clarify. If you're trying to say businesses should be required to file with the government and get subject to business regulation, they already are?
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        If you and one neighbor form a group, why should your group-of-two be entitled to any more free speech rights than those the two of you possessed before forming a group, and still individually possess after forming the group? Groups are entitled to greater-than-zero rights, in order to support their accomplishing their purpose in an efficient manner, but I'm curious why they should be owed person-equivalent rights?
        throwaway82652 5y ago
        >why should your group-of-two be entitled to any more free speech rights than those the two of you possessed before forming a group, and still individually possess after forming the group? It's not? If I throw my own party I can decide to uninvite the other bad neighbor down the block who always gets drunk and trashes everything. If I form up with my other neighbor and throw a block party, we can also decide to uninvite that same drunk neighbor. Are you saying that because it's a block party and not my personal birthday party, we should be forced to invite this person and have the party trashed, because uninviting them is a person-equivalent right? Or maybe I'm not allowed to do this at a personal birthday party either, because my wife and brother and I all formed a group to plan it? Please help me understand here, maybe this is a bad analogy.
raxxorraxor 5y ago
I am a free speech absolutist. I believe anything else would be decadence living in a first world nation. My country still does restrict speech and did so for centuries now, has spawned multiple dictatorships and still believes it to be a working concept. But that is another topic. Platforms that promote certain content are absolutely free to do so and should not be forced to do anything else. But it should be understood that this is their motivation and their choice. They do not practice freedom of speech or freedom of opinion. They advertise for something and it is not about any intellectual discourse and probably more about advertising.

hotpotamus 5y ago

"Corporations are people, my friend" - Mitt Romney

cortesoft 5y ago

Ok, so what if a platform was owned by just one person... it would be totally fine for that one person to refuse to allow certain people to post their thoughts on it? If you accept that, then what about a company that is owned by two people? Or three? Ten? 100? How many people have to own a company before the owners are no longer allowed to decide who they allow to use their platform to espouse their views?