7 ms·

100% agree. Freedom of speech protects you _from_ government. The idea that government should compel commercial or private entities to give all voices a megapho

100% agree. Freedom of speech protects you _from_ government. The idea that government should compel commercial or private entities to give all voices a megaphone is misguided.

bko 4y ago
What about if the government tells private platforms what speech is acceptable, going so far as flagging "problematic" posts?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > What about if the government tells private platforms what speech is acceptable, going so far as flagging "problematic" posts? Then it would be a clearly different situation.
  - bko 4y ago
    > Biden administration ‘flagging problematic posts for Facebook,’ Psaki says If you think that social medias speech policies are developed in a vacuum from influence from politicians, then you're mistaken. How could it be? Imagine being a CEO and getting dragged in front of Congress every 6 months to explain yourself. Or politicians calling your platform a threat to democracy and threatening to break you up. You think that would have no impact on your speech policies? What would government restriction on speech look like if not soft (effective) influence on big media companies? https://news.yahoo.com/biden-administration-flagging-problematic-posts-202600638.html https://news.yahoo.com/biden-administration-flagging-problem...
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > if you think that social medias speech policies are developed in a vacuum from influence from politicians Moving the goalpost. Nobody claimed private companies should ignore government sources. You asked about “the government tell[ing] private platforms what speech is acceptable.” That would be a First Amendment violation. > What would government restriction on speech look like if not soft (effective) influence on big media companies? Flippantly: Russia. Less flippantly: freedoms exist in balance. Taking an absolutist stance on individual speech curtails freedom of association. In practice, I suspect it will make most social media unusable in its current form. (Which may be for the worst.)
      - xienze 4y ago
        > Moving the goalpost. Nobody claimed private companies should ignore government sources. You asked about “the government tell[ing] private platforms what speech is acceptable.” That would be a First Amendment violation. You saw the parent's linked article about the White House flagging posts for Facebook, right? Are you trying to make the argument that it's OK if the government "suggests" what Facebook/Twitter should do with posts on their platform, but they're only crossing the line if they _make_ Facebook/Twitter flag certain posts? I think it's a distinction without difference. The usual scenario I give people in this situation is, how would your view on this change if Trump "suggested" how Facebook could flag certain posts and then Facebook followed through with it. No demands, just "suggestions." Still OK with this relationship between the government and a private company?
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > Are you trying to make the argument that it's OK if the government "suggests" what Facebook/Twitter should do with posts on their platform, but they're only crossing the line if they _make_ Facebook/Twitter flag certain posts? No. Nobody was. That’s why it was moving the goalpost [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
nottorp 4y ago
That was before global social networking. Now if you're not on the big platforms your opinion may as well not exist. "Oligopoly". With the added problem that the big platforms are all subject to US "moral" censorship. Which a takeover by Musk won't fix.
- basisword 4y ago
  >> Now if you're not on the big platforms your opinion may as well not exist. Before global social networks your opinion didn’t matter either. And that was probably a good thing. People are entitled to their opinions but most peoples opinions are idiotic and shouldn’t be broadcast around the world to be picked up and amplified by other idiots.
  - nottorp 4y ago
    >>> Now if you're not on the big platforms your opinion may as well not exist. > Before global social networks your opinion didn’t matter either. And that was probably a good thing. People are entitled to their opinions but most peoples opinions are idiotic and shouldn’t be broadcast around the world to be picked up and amplified by other idiots. Oh but who decides what opinions are idiotic? This is how the idea of free speech emerged :)
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > who decides what opinions are idiotic? This is a valid question. The answer is clearly not a firehose—free speech absolutist forums are selected against by users for the toxic pits they devolve into. Multiple forums and the gating mechanisms of wealth and literacy were the Enlightenment era’s filters. We don’t want nor have those any more.
      - ohwellhere 4y ago
        The question is further interesting because social media already tried to answer it: you do, for yourself! At scale, with naive ML clustering algorithms that also prioritize engagement... that devolves into bubbles. (I think that's still the right answer, but the implementations need work.)
enchiridion 4y ago
That’s what the first amendment does. Free speech is a fundamental human right, outside of any document.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Since that's not part of any document it's your opinion as to what "Free speech" is and if it's a human right
programmarchy 4y ago
The government grants charters to corporations. Corporations are thus franchisees of the state. The idea that corporations are sovereign rule makers for society and not bound to the laws of the land is misguided. If the government charters corporations that suppress free speech, then they are effectively making a law that abridges free speech.
_bfhp 4y ago
Which user in the chain of comments above is arguing that "government should compel commercial or private entities to give all voices a megaphone"?
dmix 4y ago
Free speech is a cultural phenomenon in addition to a constitutional policy. Everyone wants to reduce everything to laws for some reason when the whole reason they are laws is because we value them culturally. The law is a last resort. We shouldn't be setting societal boundaries merely on extreme limits of law. Trying to fix these cultural issues at gunpoint via courts is no better than trying to fix culture via censorship and social isolation.
- vsareto 4y ago
  There is this constant borrowing of justification from the constitutional/legal side to argue that companies should moderate their platforms in a particular way. Then there is just a marketing angle of saying you're free speech to pull users from the platform that you think is against free speech. The whole thing feels really shaky as a genuine movement and feels more like regulating companies they don't like.
P_I_Staker 4y ago
I don't. I agree approximately 60-85%. The reality is that big media companies can shape information. This has been going on for years and arguably had a role in getting us into the war in Iraq. Either way, we are shaping the landscape of free speech, when that's how the vast majority of communication, discussion and organizing happens. That said, I don't know how someone looks at the history of reddit and still wants uncheck free speech.
photochemsyn 4y ago
The complete merger of the 'private economy' and the 'state government' is a defining feature of both fascism and communism across the 20th century. Such relationships already exist to a large extent across the USA and Europe, notably defense contractors and their government partners, but also increasingly you see corporate media intertwined with state power as well.
alecbz 4y ago
This (the Musk thing) isn't about that though, right? It's just him wanting the platform to be more open, not wanting the government to require that any particular platform be open.
- adamsmith143 4y ago
  >This (the Musk thing) isn't about that though, right? It's just him wanting the platform to be more open, not wanting the government to require that any particular platform be open. What is Musk's definition of open? How is that any better than the status quo? Because your bias happens to overlap with Musk's? Given his treatment of whistleblowers and employees at his current companies it's not at all clear that he actually values openness and free speech.

100% agree. Freedom of speech protects you _from_ government. The idea that government should compel commercial or private entities to give all voices a megaphone is misguided.

bko 4y ago

What about if the government tells private platforms what speech is acceptable, going so far as flagging "problematic" posts?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> What about if the government tells private platforms what speech is acceptable, going so far as flagging "problematic" posts? Then it would be a clearly different situation.
- bko 4y ago
  > Biden administration ‘flagging problematic posts for Facebook,’ Psaki says If you think that social medias speech policies are developed in a vacuum from influence from politicians, then you're mistaken. How could it be? Imagine being a CEO and getting dragged in front of Congress every 6 months to explain yourself. Or politicians calling your platform a threat to democracy and threatening to break you up. You think that would have no impact on your speech policies? What would government restriction on speech look like if not soft (effective) influence on big media companies? https://news.yahoo.com/biden-administration-flagging-problematic-posts-202600638.html https://news.yahoo.com/biden-administration-flagging-problem...
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > if you think that social medias speech policies are developed in a vacuum from influence from politicians Moving the goalpost. Nobody claimed private companies should ignore government sources. You asked about “the government tell[ing] private platforms what speech is acceptable.” That would be a First Amendment violation. > What would government restriction on speech look like if not soft (effective) influence on big media companies? Flippantly: Russia. Less flippantly: freedoms exist in balance. Taking an absolutist stance on individual speech curtails freedom of association. In practice, I suspect it will make most social media unusable in its current form. (Which may be for the worst.)
    - xienze 4y ago
      > Moving the goalpost. Nobody claimed private companies should ignore government sources. You asked about “the government tell[ing] private platforms what speech is acceptable.” That would be a First Amendment violation. You saw the parent's linked article about the White House flagging posts for Facebook, right? Are you trying to make the argument that it's OK if the government "suggests" what Facebook/Twitter should do with posts on their platform, but they're only crossing the line if they _make_ Facebook/Twitter flag certain posts? I think it's a distinction without difference. The usual scenario I give people in this situation is, how would your view on this change if Trump "suggested" how Facebook could flag certain posts and then Facebook followed through with it. No demands, just "suggestions." Still OK with this relationship between the government and a private company?
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > Are you trying to make the argument that it's OK if the government "suggests" what Facebook/Twitter should do with posts on their platform, but they're only crossing the line if they _make_ Facebook/Twitter flag certain posts? No. Nobody was. That’s why it was moving the goalpost [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

nottorp 4y ago

That was before global social networking. Now if you're not on the big platforms your opinion may as well not exist. "Oligopoly". With the added problem that the big platforms are all subject to US "moral" censorship. Which a takeover by Musk won't fix.

basisword 4y ago
>> Now if you're not on the big platforms your opinion may as well not exist. Before global social networks your opinion didn’t matter either. And that was probably a good thing. People are entitled to their opinions but most peoples opinions are idiotic and shouldn’t be broadcast around the world to be picked up and amplified by other idiots.
- nottorp 4y ago
  >>> Now if you're not on the big platforms your opinion may as well not exist. > Before global social networks your opinion didn’t matter either. And that was probably a good thing. People are entitled to their opinions but most peoples opinions are idiotic and shouldn’t be broadcast around the world to be picked up and amplified by other idiots. Oh but who decides what opinions are idiotic? This is how the idea of free speech emerged :)
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > who decides what opinions are idiotic? This is a valid question. The answer is clearly not a firehose—free speech absolutist forums are selected against by users for the toxic pits they devolve into. Multiple forums and the gating mechanisms of wealth and literacy were the Enlightenment era’s filters. We don’t want nor have those any more.
    - ohwellhere 4y ago
      The question is further interesting because social media already tried to answer it: you do, for yourself! At scale, with naive ML clustering algorithms that also prioritize engagement... that devolves into bubbles. (I think that's still the right answer, but the implementations need work.)

enchiridion 4y ago

That’s what the first amendment does. Free speech is a fundamental human right, outside of any document.

themitigating 4y ago
Since that's not part of any document it's your opinion as to what "Free speech" is and if it's a human right

programmarchy 4y ago

The government grants charters to corporations. Corporations are thus franchisees of the state. The idea that corporations are sovereign rule makers for society and not bound to the laws of the land is misguided. If the government charters corporations that suppress free speech, then they are effectively making a law that abridges free speech.

_bfhp 4y ago

Which user in the chain of comments above is arguing that "government should compel commercial or private entities to give all voices a megaphone"?

dmix 4y ago

Free speech is a cultural phenomenon in addition to a constitutional policy. Everyone wants to reduce everything to laws for some reason when the whole reason they are laws is because we value them culturally. The law is a last resort. We shouldn't be setting societal boundaries merely on extreme limits of law. Trying to fix these cultural issues at gunpoint via courts is no better than trying to fix culture via censorship and social isolation.

vsareto 4y ago
There is this constant borrowing of justification from the constitutional/legal side to argue that companies should moderate their platforms in a particular way. Then there is just a marketing angle of saying you're free speech to pull users from the platform that you think is against free speech. The whole thing feels really shaky as a genuine movement and feels more like regulating companies they don't like.

P_I_Staker 4y ago

I don't. I agree approximately 60-85%. The reality is that big media companies can shape information. This has been going on for years and arguably had a role in getting us into the war in Iraq. Either way, we are shaping the landscape of free speech, when that's how the vast majority of communication, discussion and organizing happens. That said, I don't know how someone looks at the history of reddit and still wants uncheck free speech.

photochemsyn 4y ago

The complete merger of the 'private economy' and the 'state government' is a defining feature of both fascism and communism across the 20th century. Such relationships already exist to a large extent across the USA and Europe, notably defense contractors and their government partners, but also increasingly you see corporate media intertwined with state power as well.

alecbz 4y ago

This (the Musk thing) isn't about that though, right? It's just him wanting the platform to be more open, not wanting the government to require that any particular platform be open.

adamsmith143 4y ago
>This (the Musk thing) isn't about that though, right? It's just him wanting the platform to be more open, not wanting the government to require that any particular platform be open. What is Musk's definition of open? How is that any better than the status quo? Because your bias happens to overlap with Musk's? Given his treatment of whistleblowers and employees at his current companies it's not at all clear that he actually values openness and free speech.