5 ms·

I think we are actually saying the same thing, and my language was imprecise, so I apologize. My point is that in the US, the narrower legal/constitutional con

I think we are actually saying the same thing, and my language was imprecise, so I apologize. My point is that in the US, the narrower legal/constitutional concept of free speech is often implied, inadvertently or deliberately, when people are actually only referring to it in the broader sense that you describe. For example, a banned Twitter user might say things like "Twitter is a disgrace to democracy"[0] which confuses others into thinking there is some constitutional or legal harm being done when in fact there is none. I have no problem with having a debate about whether the core concept of free speech is a universal right that should be guaranteed everywhere (surprise: I don't think it should be a universal right and I think it's downright dangerous to society to force all private entities to respect it). But I see the two meanings get confused so much that I felt a need to call it out. [0] https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-news-twitter-marjorie-taylor-greene-ban-disgrace-democracy-statement-1665235 https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-news-twitter-marjorie-...

shkkmo 4y ago
> and I think it's downright dangerous to society to force all private entities to respect it. I would whole heartdly agree with that, but only because you added "all". I think just as there is a balance in placing limitations of corporate freedom of association just like placing limits on free speech. I do think that free speech is valuable enough that we should carefully consider placing restrictions on how and why large, oligopolistic corporations can exercise their right to freedom of association. I think a lot of this can be solved with a "user's bill of rights" that protects users from arbitrary and capricious enforcement of nebulous terms by service providers. I think most of the rest of this would be ideally solved by narrowing or eliminating the types of moderation a corporation can engage in while maintaining liability protection under section 230. Possibly with language giving special exemptions to community run moderation.

shkkmo 4y ago

> and I think it's downright dangerous to society to force all private entities to respect it. I would whole heartdly agree with that, but only because you added "all". I think just as there is a balance in placing limitations of corporate freedom of association just like placing limits on free speech. I do think that free speech is valuable enough that we should carefully consider placing restrictions on how and why large, oligopolistic corporations can exercise their right to freedom of association. I think a lot of this can be solved with a "user's bill of rights" that protects users from arbitrary and capricious enforcement of nebulous terms by service providers. I think most of the rest of this would be ideally solved by narrowing or eliminating the types of moderation a corporation can engage in while maintaining liability protection under section 230. Possibly with language giving special exemptions to community run moderation.