3 ms·

The first amendment protects speech. It doesn't protect other people's right to censorship.

rektide 4y ago
Compelling platforms to host vulgar trash they disagree with & want nothing to do with is compelled speech. I dont see how this ruling affords sites that ability any more. There's something extremely blind cruel & foul about these ongoing attempts to see only the sovereign individuals rights as having any stake, as not regarding other entities rights to make their own choices as also part of the balance. We have to allow a diversity of sites. We cant compel every site to host everything, to let the shouting class run amock & swamp everywhere. Different sites need to have different things they allow or disallow. This is fair. This is part of modern culture. Different characters of different sites is a diversity that lets change & evolution & progress happen, otherwise we are struck forever, trapped in an all spanning singular bedlam, unable to advance or change. If you dont want to face your unpalatability in some scenes, exploiting the law to jam the door open for your objectionable, disfavored speech is a cruel cruel vicious trick to play against a society trying to find a blanace forward in times of hard strife. This is playing grossly unfair. These voices need to work on the free market, need to establish their own social platforms that serve this unwanted & perhaps underserved market. This is a market problem, being exploited & converted into a legal attack, by a segment the small, loud, shouting class. We havent mandates all-speech on magazines, newspapers, tv, books, or any other medium. Sharing your views has always been a privilege, has always been moderated by those holding the means of production. We still do not block anyone from developing their own means of production: anyone can buy printing presses, anyone can set up their own social network. Itcs never been easier to set up large social systems online. The cry of censorship is ridiculous.
- tomohawk 4y ago
  A platform is a public accomodation. We compell public accomodations all the time. Your argument is reminiscent of the racists saying they had "freedom of association" to keep people they didn't like out of their restaurants. And there is no diversity of sites. We have some monopolies. These monopolies are not creating speech. They are hosting a public accomodation, and then turning around and violating people's rights when they try to use the accomodation.
  - rektide 4y ago
    Trump went & created a social network. Nothing stopped him. Plenty of others have done so. Plenty are just as good products. That they arent popular isnt a monopoly. It just reflects that people dont like being forced to live with the shouting class in their midst. These laws are in effect to legislate that no one is allowed protection from the shouting class, that the right to shout outweighs everyone elses desire to go to places where we arent being shouted at & have what seems to us civil fellow networkees. If we do want to make an adjustment, I'd suggest adversarial interoperability. Combatting monopoly by allowing competition seems a hundred times more favorable, as a general principle, than accepting monopoly & forever working to insure the monopoly serves each of us adequately to our desires.
- api 4y ago
  They only want to compel platforms to host racist and crude conspiritainment trash because it tends right. If it were trash that tended to lean or assist the left they would support deplatforming. There is no principle here.
- salawat 4y ago
  Stop. >Compelling platforms to host vulgar trash they disagree with & want nothing to do with is compelled speech. No. It's compelling them to be a platform. Discretion is tge realm of publishers. If you want to be a publisher, that's cool. You can do that. No safe harbor though. >There's something extremely blind cruel & foul about these ongoing attempts to see only the sovereign individuals rights as having any stake, as not regarding other entities rights to make their own choices as also part of the balance. The Constitution was written for the People, not the legal fictions. Also, if all are equal before the law, we have a problem, because it is clear the judiciary and legislature have lost their way in that regard, because clearly legal fictions tend to enjoy an exaggerated influence in the legislative landscape. >We have to allow a diversity of sites... Again, publishing, three houses --> way >This is a market problem, being exploited & converted into a legal attack, by a segment the small, loud, shouting class. Sounds like the law is doing it's job, providing a stopgap against popular organized behavior that unduly effects a minority! It just doesn't happen to be a minority you're a particular fan of. >Sharing your views has always been a privilege, Stop. No, it has been a right, enshrined in both freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. It's just that by technical accident, the ability of people to access printing presses has been more easily achieved. I'm not about to tgrow out the baby with the bathwater though. The same arguments about "privileges" are the same ones law enforcement made about driving and travel that created the surveillance nightmare that is our Driver's licensure framework. I will not see the same treatment applied to speech.
  - rektide 4y ago
    You stop. What is the definition of platform? What makes it the public's? Why does the government have any right to regulate & control this market force? This is all such a ridiculous self-favoring privileged view. The invention of 'publisher' as a hinge upon which any right to self-regulate pivots is pure fantasy. A warped & deranged mania that oh poor us are all being so poorly poorly unfairly treated. And there's a completely fabricated totally fictional line of thinking that your poor poor ooppression gives you some right to control & mandate terms, to make your own rules that you can say whatever you want wherever you go & no one can stop you. You stop. Come back to reality. Stop bullying sites & telling the world it has no right to discern & pick for itself. Accept & move on.

Compelling platforms to host vulgar trash they disagree with & want nothing to do with is compelled speech. I dont see how this ruling affords sites that ability any more. There's something extremely blind cruel & foul about these ongoing attempts to see only the sovereign individuals rights as having any stake, as not regarding other entities rights to make their own choices as also part of the balance. We have to allow a diversity of sites. We cant compel every site to host everything, to let the shouting class run amock & swamp everywhere. Different sites need to have different things they allow or disallow. This is fair. This is part of modern culture. Different characters of different sites is a diversity that lets change & evolution & progress happen, otherwise we are struck forever, trapped in an all spanning singular bedlam, unable to advance or change. If you dont want to face your unpalatability in some scenes, exploiting the law to jam the door open for your objectionable, disfavored speech is a cruel cruel vicious trick to play against a society trying to find a blanace forward in times of hard strife. This is playing grossly unfair. These voices need to work on the free market, need to establish their own social platforms that serve this unwanted & perhaps underserved market. This is a market problem, being exploited & converted into a legal attack, by a segment the small, loud, shouting class. We havent mandates all-speech on magazines, newspapers, tv, books, or any other medium. Sharing your views has always been a privilege, has always been moderated by those holding the means of production. We still do not block anyone from developing their own means of production: anyone can buy printing presses, anyone can set up their own social network. Itcs never been easier to set up large social systems online. The cry of censorship is ridiculous.

tomohawk 4y ago
A platform is a public accomodation. We compell public accomodations all the time. Your argument is reminiscent of the racists saying they had "freedom of association" to keep people they didn't like out of their restaurants. And there is no diversity of sites. We have some monopolies. These monopolies are not creating speech. They are hosting a public accomodation, and then turning around and violating people's rights when they try to use the accomodation.
- rektide 4y ago
  Trump went & created a social network. Nothing stopped him. Plenty of others have done so. Plenty are just as good products. That they arent popular isnt a monopoly. It just reflects that people dont like being forced to live with the shouting class in their midst. These laws are in effect to legislate that no one is allowed protection from the shouting class, that the right to shout outweighs everyone elses desire to go to places where we arent being shouted at & have what seems to us civil fellow networkees. If we do want to make an adjustment, I'd suggest adversarial interoperability. Combatting monopoly by allowing competition seems a hundred times more favorable, as a general principle, than accepting monopoly & forever working to insure the monopoly serves each of us adequately to our desires.
api 4y ago
They only want to compel platforms to host racist and crude conspiritainment trash because it tends right. If it were trash that tended to lean or assist the left they would support deplatforming. There is no principle here.
salawat 4y ago
Stop. >Compelling platforms to host vulgar trash they disagree with & want nothing to do with is compelled speech. No. It's compelling them to be a platform. Discretion is tge realm of publishers. If you want to be a publisher, that's cool. You can do that. No safe harbor though. >There's something extremely blind cruel & foul about these ongoing attempts to see only the sovereign individuals rights as having any stake, as not regarding other entities rights to make their own choices as also part of the balance. The Constitution was written for the People, not the legal fictions. Also, if all are equal before the law, we have a problem, because it is clear the judiciary and legislature have lost their way in that regard, because clearly legal fictions tend to enjoy an exaggerated influence in the legislative landscape. >We have to allow a diversity of sites... Again, publishing, three houses --> way >This is a market problem, being exploited & converted into a legal attack, by a segment the small, loud, shouting class. Sounds like the law is doing it's job, providing a stopgap against popular organized behavior that unduly effects a minority! It just doesn't happen to be a minority you're a particular fan of. >Sharing your views has always been a privilege, Stop. No, it has been a right, enshrined in both freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. It's just that by technical accident, the ability of people to access printing presses has been more easily achieved. I'm not about to tgrow out the baby with the bathwater though. The same arguments about "privileges" are the same ones law enforcement made about driving and travel that created the surveillance nightmare that is our Driver's licensure framework. I will not see the same treatment applied to speech.
- rektide 4y ago
  You stop. What is the definition of platform? What makes it the public's? Why does the government have any right to regulate & control this market force? This is all such a ridiculous self-favoring privileged view. The invention of 'publisher' as a hinge upon which any right to self-regulate pivots is pure fantasy. A warped & deranged mania that oh poor us are all being so poorly poorly unfairly treated. And there's a completely fabricated totally fictional line of thinking that your poor poor ooppression gives you some right to control & mandate terms, to make your own rules that you can say whatever you want wherever you go & no one can stop you. You stop. Come back to reality. Stop bullying sites & telling the world it has no right to discern & pick for itself. Accept & move on.