2 ms·

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

by 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.
        ethbr0 5y ago
        > 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? To use this analogy, yes. Or perhaps better, the block party shouldn't automatically have a right to not invite them, because a block party is not a personal party, and the right of the block party to not invite them should be weighed against other rights before being granted. Because, as you noted, equating block party group rights with your personal rights ultimately leads to "just form a group." Which, in US law, also clashes with the fact that some core rights we give legal groups (in corporate form) to allow them to operate efficiently are limited liability (with respect to their members as individuals) and limited transparency (with regards to their internal workings and ownership). So free speech + limited liability + limited transparency = problems.
        throwaway82652 5y ago
        Ok, to me what you've proposed just means that nobody in my neighborhood will throw block parties anymore because they don't want to get stuck with the bill when drunk guy breaks a window and urinates on the upholstery. Edit just to respond to something: >Because, as you noted, equating block party group rights with your personal rights ultimately leads to "just form a group." I don't know how you got that, this seems to be very backwards. The group was formed before the rights were even considered.

by ethbr0 5y ago

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.
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        > 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? To use this analogy, yes. Or perhaps better, the block party shouldn't automatically have a right to not invite them, because a block party is not a personal party, and the right of the block party to not invite them should be weighed against other rights before being granted. Because, as you noted, equating block party group rights with your personal rights ultimately leads to "just form a group." Which, in US law, also clashes with the fact that some core rights we give legal groups (in corporate form) to allow them to operate efficiently are limited liability (with respect to their members as individuals) and limited transparency (with regards to their internal workings and ownership). So free speech + limited liability + limited transparency = problems.
        throwaway82652 5y ago
        Ok, to me what you've proposed just means that nobody in my neighborhood will throw block parties anymore because they don't want to get stuck with the bill when drunk guy breaks a window and urinates on the upholstery. Edit just to respond to something: >Because, as you noted, equating block party group rights with your personal rights ultimately leads to "just form a group." I don't know how you got that, this seems to be very backwards. The group was formed before the rights were even considered.