3 ms·

I would say that authoritarianism could work two ways: a content platform revoking someone's permission to participate (by choice) or a content platform being f

I would say that authoritarianism could work two ways: a content platform revoking someone's permission to participate (by choice) or a content platform being forced (by governments) to host content despite rules violations. I think the former is clearly preferable.

sph 4y ago
Yes and no, I don't think it's quite so simple. A private company can do whatever they want and ban whoever from their platform. But can a private company that's used by 99% of the population do the same? I think there's an unexplored grey area there. If HN bans me that's not necessarily censorship, but if Twitter does so, there's an argument it could be. Censorship is not a function of who does it, it's function of scale. The bigger the audience, the more important it is that free speech is upheld. Our free speech laws have to be updated for the information and Internet era, and the era of mega corporations monopolising a huge chunk of the public space. Of course none of this would happen if open and decentralised standards were used, but that's a discussion for another time.
- powerhour 4y ago
  If a platform is too large to be allowed to self-regulate, maybe it should just be nationalized and the suggestion algorithms deleted. That'd free the platform owners from the personal responsibility of hosting objectionable content (as is the case here) and ensure the government isn't abusing its platform to elevate some speech above others. I can't see any way to justify requiring Facebook et al to host misogynistic content at the barrel of a metaphorical gun.
- krapp 4y ago
  > But can a private company that's used by 99% of the population do the same? Yes, because that's how rights work. The rights being debated here are freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, be careful where you draw the line in the sand and decide those rights end, because lines in the sand can be redrawn. Plus, Twitter isn't used by anywhere near 99% of the population. It isn't, despite what many people say, a primary means of discourse, communication, broadcast media or politics. It's popular but it isn't infrastructure. It isn't the public commons, it isn't a utility. It really isn't worth burning the Constitution over.
  - apostacy 4y ago
    Telegraph companies, electric companies, bus companies, and airlines had far less of a monopoly than these tech platforms. Forcing them to respect 1st amendment values is the only reasonable thing to do.
    - krapp 4y ago
      The values of the First Amendment are explicitly that Congress cannot do the thing you're arguing is the only reasonable thing to do. If you want the government to take over social media and coerce speech, fine, but accept that that position is explicitly the opposite of what the First Amendment stands for.
      - apostacy 4y ago
        No it isn't. Freedom of speech is an essential American principle. The First Amendment is an instantiation of that. Congress should force big tech monopolies to reflect our core values. Essentially, the first amendment is the floor, not the ceiling. People who want to minimize freedom of speech will point to the first amendment and say that restricting congress from restricting our speech is all we should have. Big tech companies should be forced to enshrine freedom of speech into their platforms, or face still government sanctions.
        krapp 4y ago
        I feel like this is going to be impossible but I'm going to try one more time. The reason the First Amendment denies Congress the right to abridge speech is that freedom of speech implicitly allows freedom from speech, just as the right to assembly implicitly allows the right not to assemble and freedom of religion implies freedom from religion. The First Amendment is written the way it is to protect the right of the people, and of private enterprise, to moderate speech on their property. Their doing so isn't a violation of freedom of speech, it is freedom of speech. >People who want to minimize freedom of speech will point to the first amendment and say that restricting congress from restricting our speech is all we should have. First, no one here is actually making that argument. Second, it baffles me how you can type that and not realize that allowing congress to restrict our speech more than they're allowed to makes our speech less free. And third, I have to echo the sentiment of sascha_sl's comment here. It's telling that this outrage only ever comes out on behalf of people with a specific political bent. None of Hacker News' free speech advocates ever go to bat for LGBT or black or leftist content that gets unfairly demonetized or banned, which despite the narrative happens all the time. Only ever for the right-wingers, racists and assholes, and only after Trump's white supremacist fringe base started getting banned en masse. This isn't about freedom of speech, and never has been. It's about one political ideology wanting the government to coerce private platforms into publishing their propaganda against their will.
mrcheesebreeze 4y ago
I disagree, I would rather the second option. In my opinion its far more damaging to allow sites like youtube to become so influencial in public life yet wield the power to censor anyone they don't like. I believe that social media should be tightly bound by the constitution so that they may not overstep the rights of the people. They shouldn't be allowed to ban viewpoints they don't like. They shouldn't be allowed to unreasonably collect and use data, nor come up with agreements that allow the use of important data. Quite simply I would rather trust a government that at occasionally follows the rules than near despot oligarchs who never do.

sph 4y ago

Yes and no, I don't think it's quite so simple. A private company can do whatever they want and ban whoever from their platform. But can a private company that's used by 99% of the population do the same? I think there's an unexplored grey area there. If HN bans me that's not necessarily censorship, but if Twitter does so, there's an argument it could be. Censorship is not a function of who does it, it's function of scale. The bigger the audience, the more important it is that free speech is upheld. Our free speech laws have to be updated for the information and Internet era, and the era of mega corporations monopolising a huge chunk of the public space. Of course none of this would happen if open and decentralised standards were used, but that's a discussion for another time.

powerhour 4y ago
If a platform is too large to be allowed to self-regulate, maybe it should just be nationalized and the suggestion algorithms deleted. That'd free the platform owners from the personal responsibility of hosting objectionable content (as is the case here) and ensure the government isn't abusing its platform to elevate some speech above others. I can't see any way to justify requiring Facebook et al to host misogynistic content at the barrel of a metaphorical gun.
krapp 4y ago
> But can a private company that's used by 99% of the population do the same? Yes, because that's how rights work. The rights being debated here are freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, be careful where you draw the line in the sand and decide those rights end, because lines in the sand can be redrawn. Plus, Twitter isn't used by anywhere near 99% of the population. It isn't, despite what many people say, a primary means of discourse, communication, broadcast media or politics. It's popular but it isn't infrastructure. It isn't the public commons, it isn't a utility. It really isn't worth burning the Constitution over.
- apostacy 4y ago
  Telegraph companies, electric companies, bus companies, and airlines had far less of a monopoly than these tech platforms. Forcing them to respect 1st amendment values is the only reasonable thing to do.
  - krapp 4y ago
    The values of the First Amendment are explicitly that Congress cannot do the thing you're arguing is the only reasonable thing to do. If you want the government to take over social media and coerce speech, fine, but accept that that position is explicitly the opposite of what the First Amendment stands for.
    - apostacy 4y ago
      No it isn't. Freedom of speech is an essential American principle. The First Amendment is an instantiation of that. Congress should force big tech monopolies to reflect our core values. Essentially, the first amendment is the floor, not the ceiling. People who want to minimize freedom of speech will point to the first amendment and say that restricting congress from restricting our speech is all we should have. Big tech companies should be forced to enshrine freedom of speech into their platforms, or face still government sanctions.
      - krapp 4y ago
        I feel like this is going to be impossible but I'm going to try one more time. The reason the First Amendment denies Congress the right to abridge speech is that freedom of speech implicitly allows freedom from speech, just as the right to assembly implicitly allows the right not to assemble and freedom of religion implies freedom from religion. The First Amendment is written the way it is to protect the right of the people, and of private enterprise, to moderate speech on their property. Their doing so isn't a violation of freedom of speech, it is freedom of speech. >People who want to minimize freedom of speech will point to the first amendment and say that restricting congress from restricting our speech is all we should have. First, no one here is actually making that argument. Second, it baffles me how you can type that and not realize that allowing congress to restrict our speech more than they're allowed to makes our speech less free. And third, I have to echo the sentiment of sascha_sl's comment here. It's telling that this outrage only ever comes out on behalf of people with a specific political bent. None of Hacker News' free speech advocates ever go to bat for LGBT or black or leftist content that gets unfairly demonetized or banned, which despite the narrative happens all the time. Only ever for the right-wingers, racists and assholes, and only after Trump's white supremacist fringe base started getting banned en masse. This isn't about freedom of speech, and never has been. It's about one political ideology wanting the government to coerce private platforms into publishing their propaganda against their will.

mrcheesebreeze 4y ago

I disagree, I would rather the second option. In my opinion its far more damaging to allow sites like youtube to become so influencial in public life yet wield the power to censor anyone they don't like. I believe that social media should be tightly bound by the constitution so that they may not overstep the rights of the people. They shouldn't be allowed to ban viewpoints they don't like. They shouldn't be allowed to unreasonably collect and use data, nor come up with agreements that allow the use of important data. Quite simply I would rather trust a government that at occasionally follows the rules than near despot oligarchs who never do.