6 ms·

> Large corporations policing free speech Let me stop you right there. This is not a free speech issue. Please be precise with your terminology.

wyager 4y ago
"Free speech" for normal people means "the practical freedom to speak freely", not whatever nitpicking legalistic definition I infer you're using.
- phillipcarter 4y ago
  I don't think you know that this is what it means, nor do I think you know what "normal people" entails.
psyc 4y ago
And let me get you out the way so gp doesn't get sidetracked. Nobody needs pedantry when the subject under discussion is existentially important, and every normal person already knows what the problem is.
- phillipcarter 4y ago
  Firstly, this is not existentially important aside for the people whose lives are ruined (and will continue to be ruined) by Kiwi Farms. Secondly, "every normal person already knows..." doesn't mean anything, because (a) you don't get to declare what normal is, and (b) you don't know that.
xdennis 4y ago
> This is not a free speech issue. Please be precise with your terminology. Let me take a stab in the dark: you think "free speech" refers only to the United States' First Amendment, and not a universal principle, which: * according to Wikipedia, is "a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction" * or, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the "freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
- phillipcarter 4y ago
  You're shifting goalposts.
  - noptd 4y ago
    No, you need to be more precise in your wording if you're not getting your intended message across.
    - phillipcarter 4y ago
      There's really nothing else to say here other than, "no, you do".
  - taxyz 4y ago
    Just stating the type of fallacy being made is not evidence the fallacy occurred. You should qualify how the goalpost is being shifted. I don’t see any evidence to your claim.
  - biotinker 4y ago
    That's not true. The concept of free speech, and what is specifically allowed and disallowed by the First Amendment of the USA, are two different things. Not least which is that the latter applies to a small fraction of the world's population. Censorship of ideas by a private company is not a first amendment issue. It is a free speech issue.
baggy_trough 4y ago
Takes some presumption to demand precision in terminology while being completely and totally incorrect.
- phillipcarter 4y ago
  Okay.
sieabahlpark 4y ago
It's an American company hosting content for an American. The laws of America apply.
- phillipcarter 4y ago
  Precisely, they do! Which is why this isn't a free speech issue. Cloudflare is not a utility, nor are they a government entity.
  - taxyz 4y ago
    As another commenter already pointed out, you’re treating first amendment and free speech as synonymous. If you request that others be precise with their language you should too. This could be a free speech issue although not a first amendment issue. America does have a constitutional protection for citizens from their government in terms of free speech but we also place cultural value to it and laws that codify or restrict certain speech.
  - sieabahlpark 4y ago
Georgelemental 4y ago
It is a free speech issue. It is not a First Amendment (or equivalent in non-US jurisdictions) issue. Legal provisions that protect speech from government interference provide a minimum level of free expression; in a health society private citizens and organizations will generally go above and beyond that minimum.
- CharlesW 4y ago
  Just a reminder that (lowercase) "free speech" always has a giant fucking asterisk after it. It has never been, and will never be, absolute. "Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that 'the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others'." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech Additionally, private companies can always throw you off their platform for any reason. No shirt, no shoes, no service.

wyager 4y ago

"Free speech" for normal people means "the practical freedom to speak freely", not whatever nitpicking legalistic definition I infer you're using.

phillipcarter 4y ago
I don't think you know that this is what it means, nor do I think you know what "normal people" entails.

psyc 4y ago

And let me get you out the way so gp doesn't get sidetracked. Nobody needs pedantry when the subject under discussion is existentially important, and every normal person already knows what the problem is.

phillipcarter 4y ago
Firstly, this is not existentially important aside for the people whose lives are ruined (and will continue to be ruined) by Kiwi Farms. Secondly, "every normal person already knows..." doesn't mean anything, because (a) you don't get to declare what normal is, and (b) you don't know that.

xdennis 4y ago

> This is not a free speech issue. Please be precise with your terminology. Let me take a stab in the dark: you think "free speech" refers only to the United States' First Amendment, and not a universal principle, which: * according to Wikipedia, is "a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction" * or, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the "freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

phillipcarter 4y ago
You're shifting goalposts.
- noptd 4y ago
  No, you need to be more precise in your wording if you're not getting your intended message across.
  - phillipcarter 4y ago
    There's really nothing else to say here other than, "no, you do".
- taxyz 4y ago
  Just stating the type of fallacy being made is not evidence the fallacy occurred. You should qualify how the goalpost is being shifted. I don’t see any evidence to your claim.
- biotinker 4y ago
  That's not true. The concept of free speech, and what is specifically allowed and disallowed by the First Amendment of the USA, are two different things. Not least which is that the latter applies to a small fraction of the world's population. Censorship of ideas by a private company is not a first amendment issue. It is a free speech issue.

baggy_trough 4y ago

Takes some presumption to demand precision in terminology while being completely and totally incorrect.

phillipcarter 4y ago
Okay.

sieabahlpark 4y ago

It's an American company hosting content for an American. The laws of America apply.

phillipcarter 4y ago
Precisely, they do! Which is why this isn't a free speech issue. Cloudflare is not a utility, nor are they a government entity.
- taxyz 4y ago
  As another commenter already pointed out, you’re treating first amendment and free speech as synonymous. If you request that others be precise with their language you should too. This could be a free speech issue although not a first amendment issue. America does have a constitutional protection for citizens from their government in terms of free speech but we also place cultural value to it and laws that codify or restrict certain speech.
- sieabahlpark 4y ago

Georgelemental 4y ago

It is a free speech issue. It is not a First Amendment (or equivalent in non-US jurisdictions) issue. Legal provisions that protect speech from government interference provide a minimum level of free expression; in a health society private citizens and organizations will generally go above and beyond that minimum.

CharlesW 4y ago
Just a reminder that (lowercase) "free speech" always has a giant fucking asterisk after it. It has never been, and will never be, absolute. "Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that 'the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others'." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech Additionally, private companies can always throw you off their platform for any reason. No shirt, no shoes, no service.