3 ms·

I do think there's a rationale middle of the road here. Hear me out. I think if you provide a service that basically creates a free public sphere, and you don'

I do think there's a rationale middle of the road here. Hear me out. I think if you provide a service that basically creates a free public sphere, and you don't charge for it, it makes sense to consider what you're offering a public sphere and that just mean it has to be treated like one, where you should be free to speak up and mobilize peacefully. If social platforms charge a fee, or subscription, then it is a private sphere, and I think platforms should be allowed to do whatever they want in that case. Finally, the constitution only applies to lawful citizens of the US, which means that in order for platforms that would provide a free sphere of discourse, to be excluded from their enforcements, you would need to have performed full know your customers, and proven to the platform you are a real citizen of the US, with regularly having to re-proove that your account is still owned and used only by real citizen of the US. If you didn't provide this info and proved your status, the platform should be allowed to apply enforcement, because you could very well be a bot, or a foreigner. Lastly, you should also have to speak non-anonymously, if you don't reveal your true identity to others in the public sphere, enforcement would still apply to you, because in a real-life public sphere people are not anonymous either, you should be able to know who is speaking. Lastly, you shouldn't be allowed to make it look like you are more than one person, so use of multiple accounts and various pseudonyms if found should also make you eligible for enforcement again. I think with these, it's reasonable on both front, prove you're a real US citizen, have a single public account that's not hiding your identity, go ahead and say what you want unrestricted, you're right to free speech applies. Otherwise, it's not clear you're someone who has a right to free speech, and therefore enforcement should be taking place.

ryeights 4y ago
The 1st Amendment applies to aliens. https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Are%20Immigrants%20Covered%20By%20the%20US%20Const%20PPT%201-12-2017.pptx https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Are%20Immig...
- didibus 4y ago
  There are many various alien statuses, so I would guess it depends, but that's fine, whoever it legally applies too, just you need to prove it applies to you first.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    It legally applies to everybody. The limits depend not on who you are, but on the contents of the speech.
- NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
  Actually, the first amendment applies to the government, not people at all. Most of the bill of rights work that way. They're not things given to people, but things the government is barred from doing. So there's really no legal analysis necessary, the bulk of the bill of rights is pretty easily read and understood by the average person as intended. How can you stand for your rights if you don't know what they are? Anyway, here's the US 1st amendment: >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I strongly recommend every American to at least read the bill of rights. It'll take you 5 minutes. Tangentially, you may notice while doing so that the TSA violates the 4th amendment millions of times a day.
  - 8note 4y ago
    "the people" is who exactly?
    - NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
      People in the jurisdiction of America. Only citizens or naturalized citizens can vote, but the Bill of Rights has been held to apply to visitors and immigrants too.
variadix 4y ago
I agree. I also think the ‘free to use’ model of most big social media websites undermines competition.
- magicalist 4y ago
  I think relying on advertising undermines the news market as well, but I wouldn't argue freedom of the press only applies if you use a paywall.
themitigating 4y ago
Your argument starts with an assertion that I don't think is true "think if you provide a service that basically creates a free public sphere, " You don't provide any justification for this
- didibus 4y ago
  > "think if you provide a service that basically creates a free public sphere, " You don't provide any justification for this My justification is two fold. Number one, I think there's a large amount of people who believe that these new media should be covered by free speech. I think you can disagree, but just the fact that a lot of people think so makes it legitimate in my opinion. The question is, is it reasonable for others who don't think so, and what's the right balance. It's one thing to say people can exercise there right to free speech on these new media platforms, and another to allow them to be abused by various bad actors, or for undemocratic political gain. My second justification is that these platforms effectively steal public channels of their attention, through subsidization. In my opinion, if you subvert public spheres by making spheres of discussion that are more enticing, but still free, but obviously you make money from secondary means from it. This in itself is against free speech. People trying to exercise their free speech shouldn't have the added difficulty of having to compete with your platform to get people's attention and time of day. My third justification is, we have to go back to what we even mean by the right to free speech. > the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances Now logically, this implies an assumption that you can assemble and petition somewhere that will reach others and the government. It would be silly to say, ok, you're allowed to do this, but only in some isolated room that's sound proof by yourself. What that means is to me, it implies there has to be a way to do it that can reach others and the government, and that's also an implied right. If people are now online and on some social media platform, and that's realistically the only place to reach others and the government, I think it makes it that that place now becomes the place where this right applies. Finally, my last justification is on the public/private debate. Public means: > done, perceived, or existing in open view > ordinary people in general; the community I think even if you're a private space, but you open yourself to the public in that sense, it does make you a public sphere, and so again the right of the ordinary people you've invited now applies. In the end though, I don't think all of this matters much, like I said, I think just the fact many people are asking for this can be good enough to consider a reasonable way of making it happen. And I think what I described is sensible, will protect the platforms from abuse, the people from having the platform subverted by bad actors or people looking to manipulate or control a narrative for their own interests, but also give an avenue for people to petition for changes in a fair manner.
LatteLazy 4y ago
The constitution mostly applies to the US government ("Congress shall make no law" etc). Also, people speak anonymously in public spaces all the time. I don't have to provide ID to stand on a street corner and shout about politics or Jesus etc... I like the idea of separating public from private spaces based on charging. Of course, none of this solves (at least one of the) core issue: if you have moderation, someone has to decide what is moderated, if you don't bad faith actors will lie, troll etc. Either way, real discourse is very difficult to achieve.

ryeights 4y ago

The 1st Amendment applies to aliens. https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Are%20Immigrants%20Covered%20By%20the%20US%20Const%20PPT%201-12-2017.pptx https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Are%20Immig...

didibus 4y ago
There are many various alien statuses, so I would guess it depends, but that's fine, whoever it legally applies too, just you need to prove it applies to you first.
- int_19h 4y ago
  It legally applies to everybody. The limits depend not on who you are, but on the contents of the speech.
NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
Actually, the first amendment applies to the government, not people at all. Most of the bill of rights work that way. They're not things given to people, but things the government is barred from doing. So there's really no legal analysis necessary, the bulk of the bill of rights is pretty easily read and understood by the average person as intended. How can you stand for your rights if you don't know what they are? Anyway, here's the US 1st amendment: >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I strongly recommend every American to at least read the bill of rights. It'll take you 5 minutes. Tangentially, you may notice while doing so that the TSA violates the 4th amendment millions of times a day.
- 8note 4y ago
  "the people" is who exactly?
  - NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
    People in the jurisdiction of America. Only citizens or naturalized citizens can vote, but the Bill of Rights has been held to apply to visitors and immigrants too.

variadix 4y ago

I agree. I also think the ‘free to use’ model of most big social media websites undermines competition.

magicalist 4y ago
I think relying on advertising undermines the news market as well, but I wouldn't argue freedom of the press only applies if you use a paywall.

themitigating 4y ago

Your argument starts with an assertion that I don't think is true "think if you provide a service that basically creates a free public sphere, " You don't provide any justification for this

didibus 4y ago
> "think if you provide a service that basically creates a free public sphere, " You don't provide any justification for this My justification is two fold. Number one, I think there's a large amount of people who believe that these new media should be covered by free speech. I think you can disagree, but just the fact that a lot of people think so makes it legitimate in my opinion. The question is, is it reasonable for others who don't think so, and what's the right balance. It's one thing to say people can exercise there right to free speech on these new media platforms, and another to allow them to be abused by various bad actors, or for undemocratic political gain. My second justification is that these platforms effectively steal public channels of their attention, through subsidization. In my opinion, if you subvert public spheres by making spheres of discussion that are more enticing, but still free, but obviously you make money from secondary means from it. This in itself is against free speech. People trying to exercise their free speech shouldn't have the added difficulty of having to compete with your platform to get people's attention and time of day. My third justification is, we have to go back to what we even mean by the right to free speech. > the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances Now logically, this implies an assumption that you can assemble and petition somewhere that will reach others and the government. It would be silly to say, ok, you're allowed to do this, but only in some isolated room that's sound proof by yourself. What that means is to me, it implies there has to be a way to do it that can reach others and the government, and that's also an implied right. If people are now online and on some social media platform, and that's realistically the only place to reach others and the government, I think it makes it that that place now becomes the place where this right applies. Finally, my last justification is on the public/private debate. Public means: > done, perceived, or existing in open view > ordinary people in general; the community I think even if you're a private space, but you open yourself to the public in that sense, it does make you a public sphere, and so again the right of the ordinary people you've invited now applies. In the end though, I don't think all of this matters much, like I said, I think just the fact many people are asking for this can be good enough to consider a reasonable way of making it happen. And I think what I described is sensible, will protect the platforms from abuse, the people from having the platform subverted by bad actors or people looking to manipulate or control a narrative for their own interests, but also give an avenue for people to petition for changes in a fair manner.

LatteLazy 4y ago

The constitution mostly applies to the US government ("Congress shall make no law" etc). Also, people speak anonymously in public spaces all the time. I don't have to provide ID to stand on a street corner and shout about politics or Jesus etc... I like the idea of separating public from private spaces based on charging. Of course, none of this solves (at least one of the) core issue: if you have moderation, someone has to decide what is moderated, if you don't bad faith actors will lie, troll etc. Either way, real discourse is very difficult to achieve.