5 ms·

One who passed 6th grade civics might also understand that the concept of “censorship” does not exclusively refer to US Government violations of the 1st Amendme

One who passed 6th grade civics might also understand that the concept of “censorship” does not exclusively refer to US Government violations of the 1st Amendment, or even necessarily to government actions at all. Nor does the concept of “freedom of speech” begin and end with the US 1st Amendment. Then again, this tweet from Jack has nothing whatsoever to do with any of that.

tablespoon 4y ago
>> Is it just me, or does anyone else in the entire tech world actually know what "censorship" means? Is anyone else really deeply fucking tired of hearing it mis-defined, and hearing content moderation described as "censorship", as if it's some kind of obvious First Amendment violation, when anyone who got a C- in sixth-grade civics knows that it is not? > One who passed 6th grade civics might also understand that the concept of “censorship” does not exclusively refer to US Government violations of the 1st Amendment, or even necessarily government actions at all. Nor does the concept of “freedom of speech” begin and end with the US 1st Amendment. That's true, but it doesn't actually address the GP. Even a sixth grader knows it's not censorship to choose to not hand your megaphone to an asshole or troll (or to take it away from someone who, in your opinion, is using it for ill). A vital element of free speech is the ability to select which speech you choose to transmit or amplify. Otherwise the "marketplace of ideas" can no longer sort the good ideas from the bad, and it becomes a cacophony of assholes and idiots.
- dhzhzjsbevs 4y ago
  You can choose not to retweet assholes. But that doesn't mean I can't. If corporations have more reach than governments when it comes to open exchange of ideas, restriction on censorship needs to extend to them too.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > You can choose not to retweet assholes. But that doesn't mean I can't. No. If twitter says you can't, you can't. Maybe you can repost elsewhere, but not on twitter. Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to hijack others' resources to your own ends, even in the most expansive interpretations.
    - dhzhzjsbevs 4y ago
      > Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to hijack others' resources to your own ends, even in the most expansive interpretations. That's what this argument is about... Currently, the laws don't require companies or individuals to uphold free speech when they are providing a public square venue. If people want to create private subreddits or private Facebook groups, go ahead and moderate. But twitter isn't doing that, they're providing a quasi public space but then dictating what can be said. The argument were making is that is dangerous to democracy and the same free speech rights should translate here. Arguing from the point of view of what current laws say when we are arguing that laws need changing is just tiresome, please either argue why your current laws are actually worth keeping using first principles or just stop.
      - dhzhzjsbevs 4y ago
        > Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to hijack others' resources to your own ends, even in the most expansive interpretations. Upon more thinking, I feel like maybe this was close enough to a first principles argument. The reason I think in this case we have a right to some of these resources is due to the fact they are in essence exploiting the people's resource. We have to speak somewhere online, if you want us to congregate in your public square, we should be entitled to some regulations, in return, you get to advertise to us, charge fees for upgrades or boosting or whatever else you want to do. Ideally in a free market we would be able to find a competitor and congregate there instead but since this isn't a free market and tragedy of the commons is a thing were stuck with twitter being a monopoly on public political discourse.
        tablespoon 4y ago
        > Ideally in a free market we would be able to find a competitor and congregate there instead but since this isn't a free market and tragedy of the commons is a thing were stuck with twitter being a monopoly on public political discourse. Twitter isn't a monopoly, though: there's all kinds of other social media services available, as well as other places where "public political discourse" occur. Free speech doesn't mean you're entitled to your preferred choice of venue. I recall when I was a kid, the local Nazi didn't get a prime time spot on local TV, though I'm sure he would have wanted one. He had to make due with a public access slot that very few (if any) people would watch. That same Nazi is also the reason passwords were implemented on the university computer clusters, because he was caught using them without permission (as a non-student) to print neonazi flyers.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- nickysielicki 4y ago
  > Even a sixth grader knows it's not censorship to choose to not hand your megaphone to an asshole or troll If you give your megaphone to everyone by default (ie: anyone can sign up for Twitter), but then take it away from certain people you don’t like, it’s censorship. Even if you tell people ahead of time, “hey, you can’t use this megaphone to say X”, and then take it away when they say X, it’s still censorship. It might be justifiable, it might not be, but it’s definitely within the definition of censorship and if you can’t start there, you’re arguing in bad faith to avoid uncomfortable connotations.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    People sign up for twitter by choice
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > If you give your megaphone to everyone by default (ie: anyone can sign up for Twitter), but then take it away from certain people you don’t like, it’s censorship. Even if you tell people ahead of time, “hey, you can’t use this megaphone to say X”, and then take it away when they say X, it’s still censorship. No it isn't. Those conditions are made up, and seem retroactively concocted to label getting banned from twitter as "censorship." And if it is, all you've done is make "censorship" look appealing and reasonable, which I doubt is what you were going for.
    - nickysielicki 4y ago
      I am merely here to advocate for the position that words have meaning and that (in this case) they have well-defined meaning. I could not care less whether what I’m saying makes censorship look appealing and reasonable to you, I am perfectly fine with leaving room for you to advocate for censorship, even if I wouldn’t do the same. But it is censorship. Moderation is not censorship. A moderator in a debate does not censor, he directs conversation. The fact that we’ve appropriated the term to mean censorship doesn’t mean that the definitions actually change. Censorship is simply preventing people from saying what they would like to say.

tablespoon 4y ago

>> Is it just me, or does anyone else in the entire tech world actually know what "censorship" means? Is anyone else really deeply fucking tired of hearing it mis-defined, and hearing content moderation described as "censorship", as if it's some kind of obvious First Amendment violation, when anyone who got a C- in sixth-grade civics knows that it is not? > One who passed 6th grade civics might also understand that the concept of “censorship” does not exclusively refer to US Government violations of the 1st Amendment, or even necessarily government actions at all. Nor does the concept of “freedom of speech” begin and end with the US 1st Amendment. That's true, but it doesn't actually address the GP. Even a sixth grader knows it's not censorship to choose to not hand your megaphone to an asshole or troll (or to take it away from someone who, in your opinion, is using it for ill). A vital element of free speech is the ability to select which speech you choose to transmit or amplify. Otherwise the "marketplace of ideas" can no longer sort the good ideas from the bad, and it becomes a cacophony of assholes and idiots.

dhzhzjsbevs 4y ago
You can choose not to retweet assholes. But that doesn't mean I can't. If corporations have more reach than governments when it comes to open exchange of ideas, restriction on censorship needs to extend to them too.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > You can choose not to retweet assholes. But that doesn't mean I can't. No. If twitter says you can't, you can't. Maybe you can repost elsewhere, but not on twitter. Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to hijack others' resources to your own ends, even in the most expansive interpretations.
  - dhzhzjsbevs 4y ago
    > Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to hijack others' resources to your own ends, even in the most expansive interpretations. That's what this argument is about... Currently, the laws don't require companies or individuals to uphold free speech when they are providing a public square venue. If people want to create private subreddits or private Facebook groups, go ahead and moderate. But twitter isn't doing that, they're providing a quasi public space but then dictating what can be said. The argument were making is that is dangerous to democracy and the same free speech rights should translate here. Arguing from the point of view of what current laws say when we are arguing that laws need changing is just tiresome, please either argue why your current laws are actually worth keeping using first principles or just stop.
    - dhzhzjsbevs 4y ago
      > Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to hijack others' resources to your own ends, even in the most expansive interpretations. Upon more thinking, I feel like maybe this was close enough to a first principles argument. The reason I think in this case we have a right to some of these resources is due to the fact they are in essence exploiting the people's resource. We have to speak somewhere online, if you want us to congregate in your public square, we should be entitled to some regulations, in return, you get to advertise to us, charge fees for upgrades or boosting or whatever else you want to do. Ideally in a free market we would be able to find a competitor and congregate there instead but since this isn't a free market and tragedy of the commons is a thing were stuck with twitter being a monopoly on public political discourse.
      - tablespoon 4y ago
        > Ideally in a free market we would be able to find a competitor and congregate there instead but since this isn't a free market and tragedy of the commons is a thing were stuck with twitter being a monopoly on public political discourse. Twitter isn't a monopoly, though: there's all kinds of other social media services available, as well as other places where "public political discourse" occur. Free speech doesn't mean you're entitled to your preferred choice of venue. I recall when I was a kid, the local Nazi didn't get a prime time spot on local TV, though I'm sure he would have wanted one. He had to make due with a public access slot that very few (if any) people would watch. That same Nazi is also the reason passwords were implemented on the university computer clusters, because he was caught using them without permission (as a non-student) to print neonazi flyers.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
nickysielicki 4y ago
> Even a sixth grader knows it's not censorship to choose to not hand your megaphone to an asshole or troll If you give your megaphone to everyone by default (ie: anyone can sign up for Twitter), but then take it away from certain people you don’t like, it’s censorship. Even if you tell people ahead of time, “hey, you can’t use this megaphone to say X”, and then take it away when they say X, it’s still censorship. It might be justifiable, it might not be, but it’s definitely within the definition of censorship and if you can’t start there, you’re arguing in bad faith to avoid uncomfortable connotations.
- themitigating 4y ago
  People sign up for twitter by choice
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > If you give your megaphone to everyone by default (ie: anyone can sign up for Twitter), but then take it away from certain people you don’t like, it’s censorship. Even if you tell people ahead of time, “hey, you can’t use this megaphone to say X”, and then take it away when they say X, it’s still censorship. No it isn't. Those conditions are made up, and seem retroactively concocted to label getting banned from twitter as "censorship." And if it is, all you've done is make "censorship" look appealing and reasonable, which I doubt is what you were going for.
  - nickysielicki 4y ago
    I am merely here to advocate for the position that words have meaning and that (in this case) they have well-defined meaning. I could not care less whether what I’m saying makes censorship look appealing and reasonable to you, I am perfectly fine with leaving room for you to advocate for censorship, even if I wouldn’t do the same. But it is censorship. Moderation is not censorship. A moderator in a debate does not censor, he directs conversation. The fact that we’ve appropriated the term to mean censorship doesn’t mean that the definitions actually change. Censorship is simply preventing people from saying what they would like to say.