3 ms·

It is though. Being removed from twitter isn't being censored. Twitter is a megaphone, not a public square. If I take my megaphone away from someone in the publ

It is though. Being removed from twitter isn't being censored. Twitter is a megaphone, not a public square. If I take my megaphone away from someone in the public square I'm not censoring them. They just need to find another, or get their own, or stand on a box and shout. They are still in the public square. If I hand my megaphone to someone I am explicitly endorsing them.

brigandish 5y ago
> Twitter is a megaphone, not a public square. I agree but the analogy is still a bad fit. A better one would be a phone company back in the days of of AT&T's monopoly. If they kicked you off of their service then you'd lose access, in practical terms, to all those people. This was considered enough of a problem in the past that you weren't allowed to lose your phone service for the content of your speech, on or off of the phone. I think the analogy extends quite well when we consider the lengths other concerns have gone to in crushing competition, the Parler debacle being the most obvious.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Phone networks don’t really have any sort of fan-out speech amplification though (unless you’re talking about things like robocalling, which generally are regulated and aren’t considered protected the same as individuals).
  - brigandish 5y ago
    That amplification is the choice of the users (or should be, obviously Twitter likes to try and shape this). It's like me calling you and you liking what I have to say and then calling all your friends to tell them, modern tech makes that easier. Robocalling is more akin to running a script to spam users via a bot, wouldn't you say? The part of the analogy that holds, in my opinion, is the part where a monopoly concern can kick people off for the content of their speech. It wasn't right with telephone and it doesn't seem right with this but they are being treated differently. I'd say that's because speech is powerful so the logic goes that it must be curtailed, if you're against certain views. I'm someone who's confident that truth will win the day given a fair hearing, hence, I want freedom of speech.
    - jacobsenscott 5y ago
      > I'm someone who's confident that truth will win the day given a fair hearing, hence, I want freedom of speech. I think this is a 19th/20th century idea that generally held because of, and not in spite of, the natural barriers to mass communication. Those barriers were the "fair hearing" (an author needed to spend weeks/months/years on their work. They probably spent several years before that studying their topic, or journalism, or whatever. It needed to pass through editors, maybe peer review, etc. It had to compete with others working just as hard, etc.) For the first time in human history it is easier to broadcast disinformation, lies, and propaganda than it is to broadcast accurate information. This form of truly unrestricted access to mass communications has nearly put a stake in the heart of western democracy in less than 20 years. I am not at all confident truth will win the day.
      - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
        To preface this, I am not a free speech absolutist. > I think this is a 19th/20th century idea that generally held because of, and not in spite of, the natural barriers to mass communication I've heard this take a lot and I'm not sure I agree. The invention of the printing press by Gutenberg offered the same relative change in communication reach. Previously, only wealthy entities (nobles, ecclesiastical authorities, etc) could have the money to create actual written books to disseminate ideas. Literate non-wealthy people could only hope to make a sign and hope for the best. The monopoly on distributing ideas lay with the wealthy and the state. > For the first time in human history it is easier to broadcast disinformation, lies, and propaganda than it is to broadcast accurate information. The printing press led to centuries of chaos in the form of the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther used the printing press to print several copies of his "99 Theses" and plastered them on the walls of churches, widely disseminating his ideas. Now, after a renaissance, an enlightenment, and an Industrial Revolution in the West, we have built the cultural norms in place to deal with the negatives of Print. We have social norms separating tabloids from newspapers. We understand that different newspapers have different biases. Governments have tried to restrict what can and cannot be printed. Many Enlightenment-era empires (Empire of Russia, Austro-Hungarian empire, etc) restricted what can be printed by whom. The Soviets famously only allowed government-approved publications until Glasnost under Gorbachev. In the end, despite the dangers we've found in unfettered public speech, the benefits have proved more salient. I think it's a lack of norms. A lot of folks don't know how to treat the Web. They see a hot-take/dunk on Twitter and because they agree with the aesthetics of a person's post and some of their other content, they think of the poster as "correct" and retweet/share their content. That's how online tribes form. I'm confident that in a few generations, we'll all "know" much better how to navigate the online world. Until then, much like the aftermath of the printing press, there will be instability.
Banana699 5y ago
Where does this end ? If twitter is not a public square but a megaphone, then a public square is also not a public square but a megaphone, technically speaking I (possibly with the support of a mob) can ban you from entering the public square and you can still stand on the roof of a nearby house and shout your ideas. Your internet connection is also not a public square but a megaphone, your electricity is not a public square but a megaphone, and your mobile connection is not a public square but a megaphone. I can lobby gas station companies to never service you and that wouldn't be harrasment, you just need to find another gas station not controlled by all the ones I lobbied, or possibly start one of your own :). Anything that is afforded to the public (for whatever price) is a public square, any ban or deprivation from it amounts to censorship and exclusion. This is unremarkable on the micro scale (e.g. a golf club or a coffeshop) because alternatives are plenty and easy to find, but when a huge corporation with effectively monopolistic control of a huge slice of some market does it it's worrying. And it should worry you even if you happen to like the effects of one particular incident, because the same machinery that allows such incidents to happen is bound to impact you someday.

brigandish 5y ago

> Twitter is a megaphone, not a public square. I agree but the analogy is still a bad fit. A better one would be a phone company back in the days of of AT&T's monopoly. If they kicked you off of their service then you'd lose access, in practical terms, to all those people. This was considered enough of a problem in the past that you weren't allowed to lose your phone service for the content of your speech, on or off of the phone. I think the analogy extends quite well when we consider the lengths other concerns have gone to in crushing competition, the Parler debacle being the most obvious.

tshaddox 5y ago
Phone networks don’t really have any sort of fan-out speech amplification though (unless you’re talking about things like robocalling, which generally are regulated and aren’t considered protected the same as individuals).
- brigandish 5y ago
  That amplification is the choice of the users (or should be, obviously Twitter likes to try and shape this). It's like me calling you and you liking what I have to say and then calling all your friends to tell them, modern tech makes that easier. Robocalling is more akin to running a script to spam users via a bot, wouldn't you say? The part of the analogy that holds, in my opinion, is the part where a monopoly concern can kick people off for the content of their speech. It wasn't right with telephone and it doesn't seem right with this but they are being treated differently. I'd say that's because speech is powerful so the logic goes that it must be curtailed, if you're against certain views. I'm someone who's confident that truth will win the day given a fair hearing, hence, I want freedom of speech.
  - jacobsenscott 5y ago
    > I'm someone who's confident that truth will win the day given a fair hearing, hence, I want freedom of speech. I think this is a 19th/20th century idea that generally held because of, and not in spite of, the natural barriers to mass communication. Those barriers were the "fair hearing" (an author needed to spend weeks/months/years on their work. They probably spent several years before that studying their topic, or journalism, or whatever. It needed to pass through editors, maybe peer review, etc. It had to compete with others working just as hard, etc.) For the first time in human history it is easier to broadcast disinformation, lies, and propaganda than it is to broadcast accurate information. This form of truly unrestricted access to mass communications has nearly put a stake in the heart of western democracy in less than 20 years. I am not at all confident truth will win the day.
    - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
      To preface this, I am not a free speech absolutist. > I think this is a 19th/20th century idea that generally held because of, and not in spite of, the natural barriers to mass communication I've heard this take a lot and I'm not sure I agree. The invention of the printing press by Gutenberg offered the same relative change in communication reach. Previously, only wealthy entities (nobles, ecclesiastical authorities, etc) could have the money to create actual written books to disseminate ideas. Literate non-wealthy people could only hope to make a sign and hope for the best. The monopoly on distributing ideas lay with the wealthy and the state. > For the first time in human history it is easier to broadcast disinformation, lies, and propaganda than it is to broadcast accurate information. The printing press led to centuries of chaos in the form of the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther used the printing press to print several copies of his "99 Theses" and plastered them on the walls of churches, widely disseminating his ideas. Now, after a renaissance, an enlightenment, and an Industrial Revolution in the West, we have built the cultural norms in place to deal with the negatives of Print. We have social norms separating tabloids from newspapers. We understand that different newspapers have different biases. Governments have tried to restrict what can and cannot be printed. Many Enlightenment-era empires (Empire of Russia, Austro-Hungarian empire, etc) restricted what can be printed by whom. The Soviets famously only allowed government-approved publications until Glasnost under Gorbachev. In the end, despite the dangers we've found in unfettered public speech, the benefits have proved more salient. I think it's a lack of norms. A lot of folks don't know how to treat the Web. They see a hot-take/dunk on Twitter and because they agree with the aesthetics of a person's post and some of their other content, they think of the poster as "correct" and retweet/share their content. That's how online tribes form. I'm confident that in a few generations, we'll all "know" much better how to navigate the online world. Until then, much like the aftermath of the printing press, there will be instability.

Banana699 5y ago

Where does this end ? If twitter is not a public square but a megaphone, then a public square is also not a public square but a megaphone, technically speaking I (possibly with the support of a mob) can ban you from entering the public square and you can still stand on the roof of a nearby house and shout your ideas. Your internet connection is also not a public square but a megaphone, your electricity is not a public square but a megaphone, and your mobile connection is not a public square but a megaphone. I can lobby gas station companies to never service you and that wouldn't be harrasment, you just need to find another gas station not controlled by all the ones I lobbied, or possibly start one of your own :). Anything that is afforded to the public (for whatever price) is a public square, any ban or deprivation from it amounts to censorship and exclusion. This is unremarkable on the micro scale (e.g. a golf club or a coffeshop) because alternatives are plenty and easy to find, but when a huge corporation with effectively monopolistic control of a huge slice of some market does it it's worrying. And it should worry you even if you happen to like the effects of one particular incident, because the same machinery that allows such incidents to happen is bound to impact you someday.