4 ms·

Nah, the people who advocate that private platforms reserve the right to censor themselves tend to know what the 1st amendment means regarding government censor

Nah, the people who advocate that private platforms reserve the right to censor themselves tend to know what the 1st amendment means regarding government censorship.

mardifoufs 4y ago
I think they were referring to the fact that "it's a private company" is usually used in response to any moderation complaints or accusation of censorship. Yes, everyone know the first amendment only applies government to the government but it does not mean a private corporation cannot censor or is immune from complaints on it's moderation policy. But now that it's been used as a way to deflect criticism or excuse any excess on what's deemed acceptable by one side, it will be funny to figuratively see the leopoards eating their faces. At least I think that's what the parent comment meant.
- bduerst 4y ago
  - xanaxagoras 4y ago
    The main gripe isn't that hate speech is being censored, although personally I don't think it should be. We complain about Twitter because anything to the right of Stalin is a potential censorship target, depending on Twitter's editorial marching orders for the day. edit: I'm a little disappointed in myself for thoughtlessly going along with your framing. There's no such thing as "hate speech".
  - max599 4y ago
    >Not really. There's a certain political party who seems to want to redefine private companies as public commons, all because they don't like their hate speech being censored. no, it's because it actually became the new public commons. That's where most gets their news, meet people, organise events, find jobs, etc. Politicians and organisations are now using it as their main mean of communication. How do you think the 2020 election would have gone if twitter + facebook + reddit decided after 2016 that most anti-trump posts should be removed from the platforms for misinformation and instead they promoted anti-Biden content? I think they could easily have made him won by a landslide
    - sanderjd 4y ago
      This is extremely unlikely. Those platforms are incredibly far from having a monopoly on information in the west. People looking for the other side would have just gotten it from one of the many many other places it could be found.
max599 4y ago
> 1st amendment means regarding government censorship that's just a loophole from people who have no argument so they go with the [legal in the US = Moral]. Just because the modern "public space" is now private, it doesn't make it any less bad when the group in charge arbitrairely ban groups of people based on politics, opinion, etc. whether you like it or not (I hate it personally), the vast majority of the news and opinions that people consume today comes directly or indirectly (eg. linking an NYT article on facebook) from a handful of social media companies. It's getting even worse now that organisations and politicians are using social media platforms as their official channel of communications I think we have a similar problem with email accounts. Getting your gmail account banned can really fuck your life and sooner or later something will have to be donne to protect people (eg. force them to a have a proper appel system or to hand over all your data +forward your emails for a while after they kick you out).

Nah, the people who advocate that private platforms reserve the right to censor themselves tend to know what the 1st amendment means regarding government censorship.

mardifoufs 4y ago

I think they were referring to the fact that "it's a private company" is usually used in response to any moderation complaints or accusation of censorship. Yes, everyone know the first amendment only applies government to the government but it does not mean a private corporation cannot censor or is immune from complaints on it's moderation policy. But now that it's been used as a way to deflect criticism or excuse any excess on what's deemed acceptable by one side, it will be funny to figuratively see the leopoards eating their faces. At least I think that's what the parent comment meant.

bduerst 4y ago
- xanaxagoras 4y ago
  The main gripe isn't that hate speech is being censored, although personally I don't think it should be. We complain about Twitter because anything to the right of Stalin is a potential censorship target, depending on Twitter's editorial marching orders for the day. edit: I'm a little disappointed in myself for thoughtlessly going along with your framing. There's no such thing as "hate speech".
- max599 4y ago
  >Not really. There's a certain political party who seems to want to redefine private companies as public commons, all because they don't like their hate speech being censored. no, it's because it actually became the new public commons. That's where most gets their news, meet people, organise events, find jobs, etc. Politicians and organisations are now using it as their main mean of communication. How do you think the 2020 election would have gone if twitter + facebook + reddit decided after 2016 that most anti-trump posts should be removed from the platforms for misinformation and instead they promoted anti-Biden content? I think they could easily have made him won by a landslide
  - sanderjd 4y ago
    This is extremely unlikely. Those platforms are incredibly far from having a monopoly on information in the west. People looking for the other side would have just gotten it from one of the many many other places it could be found.

max599 4y ago

> 1st amendment means regarding government censorship that's just a loophole from people who have no argument so they go with the [legal in the US = Moral]. Just because the modern "public space" is now private, it doesn't make it any less bad when the group in charge arbitrairely ban groups of people based on politics, opinion, etc. whether you like it or not (I hate it personally), the vast majority of the news and opinions that people consume today comes directly or indirectly (eg. linking an NYT article on facebook) from a handful of social media companies. It's getting even worse now that organisations and politicians are using social media platforms as their official channel of communications I think we have a similar problem with email accounts. Getting your gmail account banned can really fuck your life and sooner or later something will have to be donne to protect people (eg. force them to a have a proper appel system or to hand over all your data +forward your emails for a while after they kick you out).