3 ms·

> "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. Num

> "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.

themitigating 4y ago
"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." This is an interesting argument. However, if you are conservative especially, where does such specific extras for freedom of speech come from? This also isn't something that would just come about because of social media. What if it's extremely cold in the street that you are protesting on but there's a walmart nearby, nice and toasty. All the townspeople who aren't are home are inside it. It's free to go inside and open to the public. Should walmart not be able to restrict what I say inside
- didibus 4y ago
  I've actually updated my response with two more arguments just before you posted. I think it addresses some of your other questions here.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    "Now logically, this implies an assumption that you can assemble and petition somewhere that will reach others and the government." I agree, however it doesn't say you have to be able to reach all or even a large percentage of the people, that they have to listen, and the like for the government. When the first amendment was written if you were to go outside and protest in a public square how many people would hear your speech? As for the government, that's what elections are for. You can also contact your member of congress or send a letter. They ignore you? Don't vote for them. "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." This is an appeal to extremes. Being censored by private companies does not lead to complete isolation of your speech because there are multiple private companies and other ways of expressing yourself. ---------------------------- "If people are now online and on some social media platform, and that's realistically the only place to reach others and the government, " Why? Whatever method of reaching government prior to social media existing still exist now. Why is it "realistically the only place"? --------------------------- "Public means: done, perceived, or existing in open view > ordinary people in general; the community" This is the definition of the word "public" in the public/private space debate we are talking about "public space" which isn't a word and doesn't have a defitinion in the diction however just a few lines from Wikipedia: 'A public space is a place that is open and accessible to the general public. Roads (including the pavement), public squares, parks, and beaches are typically considered public space.' What a public space is or isn't is debatable. However what isn't is a private space. A business is a private space. A home is a private. Facebook's servers are private property on private space. If I have an open house (because I'm selling) and invite the public that doesn't mean people can come in and say whatever they want. This is like a public area of Walmart, it's public per the companies rules not the state. ------------------------------ "I think just the fact many people are asking for this can be good enough to consider a reasonable way of making it happen" The first amendment to the US condition is: "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." It doesn't say people or businesses can't make rules regulating free speech. You want to change this there is a process to amend the constitution. Perhaps a quote from Gov Abbott - "During my time as a judge, as a justice, and as attorney general, I've had one overarching goal, and that is a strict interpretation and application of the laws and the Constitution.

themitigating 4y ago

"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." This is an interesting argument. However, if you are conservative especially, where does such specific extras for freedom of speech come from? This also isn't something that would just come about because of social media. What if it's extremely cold in the street that you are protesting on but there's a walmart nearby, nice and toasty. All the townspeople who aren't are home are inside it. It's free to go inside and open to the public. Should walmart not be able to restrict what I say inside

didibus 4y ago
I've actually updated my response with two more arguments just before you posted. I think it addresses some of your other questions here.
- themitigating 4y ago
  "Now logically, this implies an assumption that you can assemble and petition somewhere that will reach others and the government." I agree, however it doesn't say you have to be able to reach all or even a large percentage of the people, that they have to listen, and the like for the government. When the first amendment was written if you were to go outside and protest in a public square how many people would hear your speech? As for the government, that's what elections are for. You can also contact your member of congress or send a letter. They ignore you? Don't vote for them. "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." This is an appeal to extremes. Being censored by private companies does not lead to complete isolation of your speech because there are multiple private companies and other ways of expressing yourself. ---------------------------- "If people are now online and on some social media platform, and that's realistically the only place to reach others and the government, " Why? Whatever method of reaching government prior to social media existing still exist now. Why is it "realistically the only place"? --------------------------- "Public means: done, perceived, or existing in open view > ordinary people in general; the community" This is the definition of the word "public" in the public/private space debate we are talking about "public space" which isn't a word and doesn't have a defitinion in the diction however just a few lines from Wikipedia: 'A public space is a place that is open and accessible to the general public. Roads (including the pavement), public squares, parks, and beaches are typically considered public space.' What a public space is or isn't is debatable. However what isn't is a private space. A business is a private space. A home is a private. Facebook's servers are private property on private space. If I have an open house (because I'm selling) and invite the public that doesn't mean people can come in and say whatever they want. This is like a public area of Walmart, it's public per the companies rules not the state. ------------------------------ "I think just the fact many people are asking for this can be good enough to consider a reasonable way of making it happen" The first amendment to the US condition is: "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." It doesn't say people or businesses can't make rules regulating free speech. You want to change this there is a process to amend the constitution. Perhaps a quote from Gov Abbott - "During my time as a judge, as a justice, and as attorney general, I've had one overarching goal, and that is a strict interpretation and application of the laws and the Constitution.