4 ms·

> 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

> 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    > 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 seem to be confusing "free speech", the concept, with "free speech", the legal right. Most codifications of the legal right limit themselves to protecting against certain types of government interference. However, the concept itself is absolutely not limited to contexts where censorship is imposed by a government. To try to impose this limitation is 1984-style thought policing that tries to remove existing language to control what can be said. I'm not talking about some colloquial meaning, but the core meaning of the concept of "freedom of speech".

foxhill 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  > 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 seem to be confusing "free speech", the concept, with "free speech", the legal right. Most codifications of the legal right limit themselves to protecting against certain types of government interference. However, the concept itself is absolutely not limited to contexts where censorship is imposed by a government. To try to impose this limitation is 1984-style thought policing that tries to remove existing language to control what can be said. I'm not talking about some colloquial meaning, but the core meaning of the concept of "freedom of speech".