3 ms·

I think ISPs are supposedly regulated by net neutrality. But again, are you trying to talk to me about what is legal, or what should be legal, or what should be

I think ISPs are supposedly regulated by net neutrality. But again, are you trying to talk to me about what is legal, or what should be legal, or what should be encouraged? Because those 3 aren't the same, and I'm a little bit annoyed at the fact that you seem to be leading me to your point an inch at a time with the implication that I haven't bothered to think this through.

oneoff786 4y ago
You jumped on a response to a claim that free speech is the easiest concept. Kinda signed up for that one. The person who claimed it seems to have gotten it wrong at step 0 however, which is kind of funny.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  Well, it still is an extremely easy concept. The examples you gave about businesses and magazines is that they can decide to not adhere to freedom of speech and they aren't obliged to do so legally. If they ban content the dislike they are not practicing freedom of speech. Still simple.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    But you’re ignoring their own freedom of speech. If party A wants to voice something through party B, and party B does not want to express it, their freedoms of speech are in conflict. You cannot resolve this without one party not being allowed their freedom of speech. And if the answer is it’s always in party B’s court, then you make the situation very difficult when it comes to social media and even direct messaging platforms between two private entities.
    - raxxorraxor 4y ago
      I have specifically said that they have no obligations. But if they silence an opinion because they don't like it they don't adhere to the principle of freedom of speech. I don't think social media platforms have any legal obligation to allow anyone to state anything. It was a culture that had formed on the net in most places. I has no relation to the law or the US first amendment in any way. It was a foundational rule for the exchange of ideas and that always requires freedom of speech. Also, almost every institution that want intellectual exchange has to adhere to the principle because it is a fundamental part of dialectic. Many educational institutions are falling short here lately, but at least most are improving again. But that is a completely different topic. People that silence others without a justification are rightfully looked down upon in my personal opinion because they are not capable of intellectual exchange. And these ideas are also enshrined in human rights for a reason, although these are sadly also not really legally binding.
      - oneoff786 4y ago
        You cannot require a party to facilitate free speech of another party without creating restrictions on their speech. That is the whole point.
        raxxorraxor 4y ago
        I think that is wrong.

oneoff786 4y ago

You jumped on a response to a claim that free speech is the easiest concept. Kinda signed up for that one. The person who claimed it seems to have gotten it wrong at step 0 however, which is kind of funny.

raxxorraxor 4y ago
Well, it still is an extremely easy concept. The examples you gave about businesses and magazines is that they can decide to not adhere to freedom of speech and they aren't obliged to do so legally. If they ban content the dislike they are not practicing freedom of speech. Still simple.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  But you’re ignoring their own freedom of speech. If party A wants to voice something through party B, and party B does not want to express it, their freedoms of speech are in conflict. You cannot resolve this without one party not being allowed their freedom of speech. And if the answer is it’s always in party B’s court, then you make the situation very difficult when it comes to social media and even direct messaging platforms between two private entities.
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    I have specifically said that they have no obligations. But if they silence an opinion because they don't like it they don't adhere to the principle of freedom of speech. I don't think social media platforms have any legal obligation to allow anyone to state anything. It was a culture that had formed on the net in most places. I has no relation to the law or the US first amendment in any way. It was a foundational rule for the exchange of ideas and that always requires freedom of speech. Also, almost every institution that want intellectual exchange has to adhere to the principle because it is a fundamental part of dialectic. Many educational institutions are falling short here lately, but at least most are improving again. But that is a completely different topic. People that silence others without a justification are rightfully looked down upon in my personal opinion because they are not capable of intellectual exchange. And these ideas are also enshrined in human rights for a reason, although these are sadly also not really legally binding.
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      You cannot require a party to facilitate free speech of another party without creating restrictions on their speech. That is the whole point.
      - raxxorraxor 4y ago
        I think that is wrong.