6 ms·

Musk does not hold any position in the government. My understanding is that the fight for free speech is about the government censoring individuals. The first a

Musk does not hold any position in the government. My understanding is that the fight for free speech is about the government censoring individuals. The first amendment of the US already protects people from that. Any private platform can do whatever they want though.

tinybrotosaurus 5y ago
What is worse, government censorship or digital censorship through big tech? Remember when all these corporations banned Trump at the same time? Imagine not being able to buy from Amazon when there is no retailer left. Imagine not being able to listen to music or watch movies when all of it is only available through streaming. What about having all your email deleted because a Google bot flagged your account. Or being shadow banned in social media, having no impact on any discussion.
- pacerwpg 5y ago
  As somebody who is banned on Twitter for unclear reasons, I can unequivocally say that this is preferable to being thrown in jail or fined by the government
- themitigating 5y ago
  but there isn't one retailer or one social media service so why should I imagine fictional scenarios when considering your question?
- CrazyStat 5y ago
  > What is worse, government censorship or digital censorship through big tech? Government, no question about it. Twitter doesn't throw you in jail.
dpbriggs 5y ago
There's the ideal and ethic of free speech which isn't "provided" by the government. It's ok to be annoyed or disagree with private censorship. Good or bad Musk wants to open the platform up. Whether that will just change the speech to what he likes or actually broaden it we'll see.
blendergeek 5y ago
While freedom from goverent censorship of speech is one battle that has been (mostly) won in the USA, some want to take the concept of free speech even further. Some want to see corporations choose to uphold the value of "free speech". This is seperate from any goveremt regulation of speech.
SllX 5y ago
You’re half correct. A culture of free speech is just as important as a law prohibiting Congress from abridging it. It is true that private companies have their own free speech and private property interests they should safeguard, but that does not mean they cannot do more to raise a culture of free speech on their platforms, and they should!
throwawayboise 5y ago
One could argue that Twitter is a de-facto public place. The Supreme Court opined: “the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” (Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 506 (1946) They have since narrowed their interpretation somewhat, but some states (including California) have ruled that de-facto public gathering places such as shopping malls are areas where free speech is protected, even though they are privately owned. So generally, yes a private platform can do what they want, but if their primary focus is to be open to the public, they may be more bound to providing first amendment protections. AFAIK no court has specifically ruled on whether online public spaces should be treated the same as physical public spaces.
- travisathougies 5y ago
  It doesn't really matter though, because in California, the state constitution explicitly states that privately owned spaces open to the public (so twitter) must guarantee freedom of expression. The case law is pretty absolute and settled in this regard. Most famously... shopping malls in California have to allow union protests within the malls (with only mild regulation, mainly around safety / opening hours). Thus, by the Supreme Law of the state of California, as a private company, Twitter is legally obligated to -- at least for California residents -- not restrict their legally protected speech. Twitter frequently does this to california residents, thus violating California law. If the law was applied equally, they would be fined and censured as the malls were who tried to union bust.
commandlinefan 5y ago
> the fight for free speech is about the government censoring individuals It is not. The first amendment of the constitution of the United States is, but freedom of speech is just freedom of speech.

tinybrotosaurus 5y ago

What is worse, government censorship or digital censorship through big tech? Remember when all these corporations banned Trump at the same time? Imagine not being able to buy from Amazon when there is no retailer left. Imagine not being able to listen to music or watch movies when all of it is only available through streaming. What about having all your email deleted because a Google bot flagged your account. Or being shadow banned in social media, having no impact on any discussion.

pacerwpg 5y ago
As somebody who is banned on Twitter for unclear reasons, I can unequivocally say that this is preferable to being thrown in jail or fined by the government
themitigating 5y ago
but there isn't one retailer or one social media service so why should I imagine fictional scenarios when considering your question?
CrazyStat 5y ago
> What is worse, government censorship or digital censorship through big tech? Government, no question about it. Twitter doesn't throw you in jail.

dpbriggs 5y ago

There's the ideal and ethic of free speech which isn't "provided" by the government. It's ok to be annoyed or disagree with private censorship. Good or bad Musk wants to open the platform up. Whether that will just change the speech to what he likes or actually broaden it we'll see.

blendergeek 5y ago

While freedom from goverent censorship of speech is one battle that has been (mostly) won in the USA, some want to take the concept of free speech even further. Some want to see corporations choose to uphold the value of "free speech". This is seperate from any goveremt regulation of speech.

SllX 5y ago

You’re half correct. A culture of free speech is just as important as a law prohibiting Congress from abridging it. It is true that private companies have their own free speech and private property interests they should safeguard, but that does not mean they cannot do more to raise a culture of free speech on their platforms, and they should!

throwawayboise 5y ago

One could argue that Twitter is a de-facto public place. The Supreme Court opined: “the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” (Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 506 (1946) They have since narrowed their interpretation somewhat, but some states (including California) have ruled that de-facto public gathering places such as shopping malls are areas where free speech is protected, even though they are privately owned. So generally, yes a private platform can do what they want, but if their primary focus is to be open to the public, they may be more bound to providing first amendment protections. AFAIK no court has specifically ruled on whether online public spaces should be treated the same as physical public spaces.

travisathougies 5y ago
It doesn't really matter though, because in California, the state constitution explicitly states that privately owned spaces open to the public (so twitter) must guarantee freedom of expression. The case law is pretty absolute and settled in this regard. Most famously... shopping malls in California have to allow union protests within the malls (with only mild regulation, mainly around safety / opening hours). Thus, by the Supreme Law of the state of California, as a private company, Twitter is legally obligated to -- at least for California residents -- not restrict their legally protected speech. Twitter frequently does this to california residents, thus violating California law. If the law was applied equally, they would be fined and censured as the malls were who tried to union bust.

commandlinefan 5y ago

> the fight for free speech is about the government censoring individuals It is not. The first amendment of the constitution of the United States is, but freedom of speech is just freedom of speech.