6 ms·

> In the US, it's the _standard_ definition that was widely accepted citation needed > There are even web hosts that have an explicit policy of letting you ho

> In the US, it's the _standard_ definition that was widely accepted citation needed > There are even web hosts that have an explicit policy of letting you host _any_ content you want as long as it's not against the law in their jurisdiction perhaps, but how much pressure do you think they could take, if pressured to take down your content by other private individuals & corporations? > the right to "get heard" is not a right guaranteed to anyone, at least not in the US. If you are spewing garbage, no one should be forced to hear it. i don't think anyone is claiming that there is or should be a right to be heard. this is an issue of control over who can be heard, and the distinction is important. for example, in a "free" twitter, i could post some racist tirade, and expect it to gain no traction/retweets from my followers & some random others. people might see it, but it is principally no different to making the same speech in the city center: i'm going to be heard, but no one is going to listen. we're all talking in extremes here too, which really isn't helping. yes, moderated platforms can remove racism, abusive content, etc., but they can (and do) also remove regular speech: more realistically, above, i would have been more likely tweeting about the lab-leak hypothesis of covid, back in the time where any proposed cause other than the wet-market exposure hypothesis was being labeled as racist. do you think people that have been deplatformed/decried/cancelled for opinions like that were retroactively recognized as being legitimate? if so, where's the profit motivation in that?

cmatthias 5y ago
> citation needed Uh, the US constitution and a few centuries of case law? > perhaps, but how much pressure do you think they could take, if pressured to take down your content by other private individuals & corporations? The one example host I gave has been around 20 years. I trust that they have a good legal team and have faced mobs of angry people before, and that they'll continue to be around for a while longer. One problem that I didn't bring up in my original post is that as soon as someone can be heard on twitter, their content is subject to algorithmic manipulation. So someone's fringe opinion could be broadcast to thousands or millions of eyeballs and made to seem like much more of a mainstream opinion like than it actually is. In a perfect world, where no manipulation is possible, I do agree with you that making sure people can be heard is the correct solution. But until or unless we get there, my opinion is that letting the platform have leeway to moderate content is the best path forward. If people tweeting about covid lab leaks (which I'm still not sure would be considered a non-fringe opinion in 2022) get caught up in that, then that sucks for them, but the alternative is worse. They are still free to set up their own site to discuss their theories.
- foxhill 5y ago
  > Uh, the US constitution and a few centuries of case law? i'm sorry, i interpreted your point to broadly be "free speech with limits", which i understand to be at-odds with the constitutional definition. > The one example host I gave has been around 20 years. no offense intended to them when i say i don't recall ever hearing about them in any setting, controversial or otherwise, which would lead me to believe they haven't experienced significant pressure to remove anything. > [...] their content is subject to algorithmic manipulation yes, i agree. "the algorithm" makes astroturfing much easier to perform and be effective. > In a perfect world [...] well then there's a bit of a bootstrapping problem here, no? principles like free-speech were idealized and create in order to make the perfect world (for some values of "perfect"). hell, in the "perfect" world, free-speech wouldn't even need protection. i don't think it's sensible to mandate a principle after the fact. > which I'm still not sure would be considered a non-fringe opinion in 2022 there is no scientific consensus yet - surprise surprise - but we are at least now talking about it[1]. > but the alternative is worse i'm not sure i agree with you here. [1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/another-potential-covid-19-lab-leak-clue-china-11644615472 https://www.wsj.com/articles/another-potential-covid-19-lab-...
  - cmatthias 5y ago
    > i'm sorry, i interpreted your point to broadly be "free speech with limits", which i understand to be at-odds with the constitutional definition. Ugh, my main point is that the concept of "free speech" in the US is not relevant at all to the question of whether a private entity can remove you from their platform for saying something they don't like. You can claim that in the colloquial sense, the phrase is used more liberally to mean any censorship whatsoever, and that may be true. But in my opinion that is conflating two concepts, and those doing so are either 1) confused or 2) being deliberately dishonest by trying to smuggle some sense of constitutional/government mandate into the conversation.
    - foxhill 5y ago
      > Ugh, my main point is that the concept of "free speech" in the US is not relevant at all to the question of whether a private entity can remove you from their platform for saying something they don't like. and i'm saying that you appear to treat social media and digital identity as some superfluous luxury that can be revoked without consequence from an individual as punishment (or for more dubious reasons), much like how republicans view health care and social welfare: with the notable exception of the US and one or two others, every country recognizes that private corporations must provide health care (or the means to it - i'm talking about the equipment, education, etc. being provided largely by non-governmental institutions), and citizens must be allowed to access to it regardless of who they are and what they've said, or even done. yes, you are correct that the constitution does not prevent private corporations from removing content that they do not like, that is the point here. there is no question over the legality of such removals, and i don't think anyone here has tried to raise one. i'm not trying to smuggle constitutional/government mandate, i'm explicitly trying to discuss the notion of whether or not it should exist.
themitigating 5y ago
What would be worse for someone with a large number of followers, like the president, to tweet? Calling a black person the N word or accusing that person of rape without evidence? If removing racism is acceptable why not the latter?
Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
> for example, in a "free" twitter, i could post some racist tirade, and expect it to gain no traction/retweets from my followers & some random others. Nah, you'd get a whole bunch of followers who are happy to see someone say the quiet parts out loud and would retweet. Without social media, overt racists have to meet in private and the effects are local. With social media, they get a microphone that reaches the world and it spreads worldwide.
- Raptor22 5y ago
  Isn't it interesting that many otherwise intelligent people don't seem to understand this? I don't know _how_ we solve this problem, but the sheer amount of people who refuse to see this as _a_ problem (and who should know better) is frankly astonishing and scary.
  - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
    Just as there are people that think that everything is racist, there are people that think that nothing is racist. I saw an interview where even infamous neo-Nazi Richard Spencer claimed to not be a racist, he just doesn't think races should intermingle, and that white neighborhoods should stay white.
Raptor22 5y ago
> for example, in a "free" twitter, i could post some racist tirade, and expect it to gain no traction/retweets from my followers & some random others. people might see it, but it is principally no different to making the same speech in the city center: i'm going to be heard, but no one is going to listen. This is the biggest misconception many proponents of absolute free speech have. Many movements, both good and bad, have begun in social media (Twitter / Facebook, etc.). Everything from the Arab Spring, to BLM, to Unite the Right in Charlottesville and January 6th, were at least in part organized on social media. Just because _you_ don't think an idea is worth listening to, does NOT mean that there aren't hundreds or thousands of people who disagree and will listen. I don't know what the solution to this problem is, but to assume it's not real is just plain wrong.

cmatthias 5y ago

> citation needed Uh, the US constitution and a few centuries of case law? > perhaps, but how much pressure do you think they could take, if pressured to take down your content by other private individuals & corporations? The one example host I gave has been around 20 years. I trust that they have a good legal team and have faced mobs of angry people before, and that they'll continue to be around for a while longer. One problem that I didn't bring up in my original post is that as soon as someone can be heard on twitter, their content is subject to algorithmic manipulation. So someone's fringe opinion could be broadcast to thousands or millions of eyeballs and made to seem like much more of a mainstream opinion like than it actually is. In a perfect world, where no manipulation is possible, I do agree with you that making sure people can be heard is the correct solution. But until or unless we get there, my opinion is that letting the platform have leeway to moderate content is the best path forward. If people tweeting about covid lab leaks (which I'm still not sure would be considered a non-fringe opinion in 2022) get caught up in that, then that sucks for them, but the alternative is worse. They are still free to set up their own site to discuss their theories.

foxhill 5y ago
> Uh, the US constitution and a few centuries of case law? i'm sorry, i interpreted your point to broadly be "free speech with limits", which i understand to be at-odds with the constitutional definition. > The one example host I gave has been around 20 years. no offense intended to them when i say i don't recall ever hearing about them in any setting, controversial or otherwise, which would lead me to believe they haven't experienced significant pressure to remove anything. > [...] their content is subject to algorithmic manipulation yes, i agree. "the algorithm" makes astroturfing much easier to perform and be effective. > In a perfect world [...] well then there's a bit of a bootstrapping problem here, no? principles like free-speech were idealized and create in order to make the perfect world (for some values of "perfect"). hell, in the "perfect" world, free-speech wouldn't even need protection. i don't think it's sensible to mandate a principle after the fact. > which I'm still not sure would be considered a non-fringe opinion in 2022 there is no scientific consensus yet - surprise surprise - but we are at least now talking about it[1]. > but the alternative is worse i'm not sure i agree with you here. [1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/another-potential-covid-19-lab-leak-clue-china-11644615472 https://www.wsj.com/articles/another-potential-covid-19-lab-...
- cmatthias 5y ago
  > i'm sorry, i interpreted your point to broadly be "free speech with limits", which i understand to be at-odds with the constitutional definition. Ugh, my main point is that the concept of "free speech" in the US is not relevant at all to the question of whether a private entity can remove you from their platform for saying something they don't like. You can claim that in the colloquial sense, the phrase is used more liberally to mean any censorship whatsoever, and that may be true. But in my opinion that is conflating two concepts, and those doing so are either 1) confused or 2) being deliberately dishonest by trying to smuggle some sense of constitutional/government mandate into the conversation.
  - foxhill 5y ago
    > Ugh, my main point is that the concept of "free speech" in the US is not relevant at all to the question of whether a private entity can remove you from their platform for saying something they don't like. and i'm saying that you appear to treat social media and digital identity as some superfluous luxury that can be revoked without consequence from an individual as punishment (or for more dubious reasons), much like how republicans view health care and social welfare: with the notable exception of the US and one or two others, every country recognizes that private corporations must provide health care (or the means to it - i'm talking about the equipment, education, etc. being provided largely by non-governmental institutions), and citizens must be allowed to access to it regardless of who they are and what they've said, or even done. yes, you are correct that the constitution does not prevent private corporations from removing content that they do not like, that is the point here. there is no question over the legality of such removals, and i don't think anyone here has tried to raise one. i'm not trying to smuggle constitutional/government mandate, i'm explicitly trying to discuss the notion of whether or not it should exist.

themitigating 5y ago

What would be worse for someone with a large number of followers, like the president, to tweet? Calling a black person the N word or accusing that person of rape without evidence? If removing racism is acceptable why not the latter?

Sohcahtoa82 5y ago

> for example, in a "free" twitter, i could post some racist tirade, and expect it to gain no traction/retweets from my followers & some random others. Nah, you'd get a whole bunch of followers who are happy to see someone say the quiet parts out loud and would retweet. Without social media, overt racists have to meet in private and the effects are local. With social media, they get a microphone that reaches the world and it spreads worldwide.

Raptor22 5y ago
Isn't it interesting that many otherwise intelligent people don't seem to understand this? I don't know _how_ we solve this problem, but the sheer amount of people who refuse to see this as _a_ problem (and who should know better) is frankly astonishing and scary.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  Just as there are people that think that everything is racist, there are people that think that nothing is racist. I saw an interview where even infamous neo-Nazi Richard Spencer claimed to not be a racist, he just doesn't think races should intermingle, and that white neighborhoods should stay white.

Raptor22 5y ago

> for example, in a "free" twitter, i could post some racist tirade, and expect it to gain no traction/retweets from my followers & some random others. people might see it, but it is principally no different to making the same speech in the city center: i'm going to be heard, but no one is going to listen. This is the biggest misconception many proponents of absolute free speech have. Many movements, both good and bad, have begun in social media (Twitter / Facebook, etc.). Everything from the Arab Spring, to BLM, to Unite the Right in Charlottesville and January 6th, were at least in part organized on social media. Just because _you_ don't think an idea is worth listening to, does NOT mean that there aren't hundreds or thousands of people who disagree and will listen. I don't know what the solution to this problem is, but to assume it's not real is just plain wrong.