6 ms·

> Editorial policy isn't in order to "avoid" offending readers. It's to avoid the spreading of harmful misinformation and disinformation, so that antivaxxers an

> Editorial policy isn't in order to "avoid" offending readers. It's to avoid the spreading of harmful misinformation and disinformation, so that antivaxxers and holocaust deniers and election deniers Yeah, I get it. But personally I'd rather have our society have access to the crazy claims rather than be censorable. If we can't say unproven or unpopular things then many important messages get missed, such as that Jews are human or that some politician took bribes or that a public policy isn't actually evidence based. I think neutering the new public square is more likely to destroy our society than claims of election theft. > It's necessarily done at the point of transmission Yes, control of someone's speech is. But I don't think that's necessary and neither do the vast majority of people. What we can offer you though, is a way to control what you see so that you can engage as you choose - perhaps only through your chosen politician or whatever. > Also regarding your coffee shop -- if a customer buys a coffee, sits down and removes their jacket and is wearing a swastika T-shirt, of course the owner can kick them out, and any morally decent owner should. Do you have an example that's not quite full-on hitler, with a symbol that is actually illegal to display in many countries? How do you think this should work with MAGA hats or shirts? > Privately owned spaces are not public forums with free speech protections. No, but if you sell the use of the space you have to consider that speaking reasonably to people around you, or displaying support for legal political parties via clothing, is something reasonable for a customer to do. If you plan to restrict these activities arbitrarily you have an obligation to say so with the offer. "Coffee, which you may drink in a DEMOCRAT ONLY dining room" for example.

crazygringo 4y ago
> rather than be censorable By definition, it's not censorship when a private company does it on their own platform. Censorship is only something governments can do. > Do you have an example that's not quite full-on hitler But that's the point, it's only the extreme things that get banned. > How do you think this should work with MAGA hats or shirts?... "Coffee, which you may drink in a DEMOCRAT ONLY dining room" Nobody's doing that, that's a straw man of your own creation. The whole point is that social networks and coffee shops kick out only the extreme/abusive/disinforming/conspiracy fringe. You're worried about missing that "some politician took bribes or that a public policy isn't actually evidence based" but absolutely nobody is moderating those messages. That's 100% a straw man. This topic is about private moderation of what are in practice extreme fringe arguments. We don't need to worry about a slippery slope to banning mainstream political speech of half of Americans, like a nonsensical "DEMOCRAT ONLY dining room", simply because it would be atrocious for business. Banning customers for mainstream political views is business suicide. Private moderation of extreme views is a free speech protection afforded to the private owners of spaces. End of story.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  > it's not censorship when a private company does it on their own platform. It's legal, but it's still censorship. And 'censorable' is about the ability to be censored, not necessarily current censorship. I do not think it benefits the people to have censorable networks because every tool eventually gets used. We're better off with the phone company not being able to moderate our speech. > But that's the point, it's only the extreme things that get banned. Not at all. It's not the slightest bit extreme to say men shouldn't take spots in women's sports but it is censored on most platforms. They'll take your NYT (for example, but far from the only one) comments taken down if you say this, no matter how polite you are. > You're worried about missing that "some politician took bribes or that a public policy isn't actually evidence based" but absolutely nobody is moderating those messages. That's 100% a straw man. The entire media suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story specifically because it was about politicians and their family taking bribes. And the government cooperated with FB (and others) to identify Covid misinformation, but the definition of misinformation has changed. It used to be censor-worthy to say Covid came from Wuhan and now that's the accepted likely origin. > Private moderation of extreme views is a free speech protection afforded to the private owners of spaces. End of story. In your house, yes. In your mall, in California, no. As you open a place up to the public and trade them the right to be there as FB does in exchange for advertising to you you give away a lot of your rights to control people's actions on your property.
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    > They'll take your NYT (for example, but far from the only one) comments taken down if you say this, no matter how polite you are. That's factually untrue. I read comments in the NYT and come across comments like that all the time. Their moderation policy is very clear, and it's not what you describe. And your examples about Biden and Wuhan are red herrings and have nothing to do with this conversation. > In your house, yes. In your mall, in California, no. That's factually untrue. In a mall, in California, you absolutely can moderate speech. You can't kick people out based on protected classes, but you have the right as a business owner to kick people out based on any other reason. As you need to be able to, as people can be disruptive. And extreme speech that is clearly audible/visible to others absolutely falls in the category of disruptive. A shop in a mall is not a public square, nor should it be.

crazygringo 4y ago

> rather than be censorable By definition, it's not censorship when a private company does it on their own platform. Censorship is only something governments can do. > Do you have an example that's not quite full-on hitler But that's the point, it's only the extreme things that get banned. > How do you think this should work with MAGA hats or shirts?... "Coffee, which you may drink in a DEMOCRAT ONLY dining room" Nobody's doing that, that's a straw man of your own creation. The whole point is that social networks and coffee shops kick out only the extreme/abusive/disinforming/conspiracy fringe. You're worried about missing that "some politician took bribes or that a public policy isn't actually evidence based" but absolutely nobody is moderating those messages. That's 100% a straw man. This topic is about private moderation of what are in practice extreme fringe arguments. We don't need to worry about a slippery slope to banning mainstream political speech of half of Americans, like a nonsensical "DEMOCRAT ONLY dining room", simply because it would be atrocious for business. Banning customers for mainstream political views is business suicide. Private moderation of extreme views is a free speech protection afforded to the private owners of spaces. End of story.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
> it's not censorship when a private company does it on their own platform. It's legal, but it's still censorship. And 'censorable' is about the ability to be censored, not necessarily current censorship. I do not think it benefits the people to have censorable networks because every tool eventually gets used. We're better off with the phone company not being able to moderate our speech. > But that's the point, it's only the extreme things that get banned. Not at all. It's not the slightest bit extreme to say men shouldn't take spots in women's sports but it is censored on most platforms. They'll take your NYT (for example, but far from the only one) comments taken down if you say this, no matter how polite you are. > You're worried about missing that "some politician took bribes or that a public policy isn't actually evidence based" but absolutely nobody is moderating those messages. That's 100% a straw man. The entire media suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story specifically because it was about politicians and their family taking bribes. And the government cooperated with FB (and others) to identify Covid misinformation, but the definition of misinformation has changed. It used to be censor-worthy to say Covid came from Wuhan and now that's the accepted likely origin. > Private moderation of extreme views is a free speech protection afforded to the private owners of spaces. End of story. In your house, yes. In your mall, in California, no. As you open a place up to the public and trade them the right to be there as FB does in exchange for advertising to you you give away a lot of your rights to control people's actions on your property.
- crazygringo 4y ago
  > They'll take your NYT (for example, but far from the only one) comments taken down if you say this, no matter how polite you are. That's factually untrue. I read comments in the NYT and come across comments like that all the time. Their moderation policy is very clear, and it's not what you describe. And your examples about Biden and Wuhan are red herrings and have nothing to do with this conversation. > In your house, yes. In your mall, in California, no. That's factually untrue. In a mall, in California, you absolutely can moderate speech. You can't kick people out based on protected classes, but you have the right as a business owner to kick people out based on any other reason. As you need to be able to, as people can be disruptive. And extreme speech that is clearly audible/visible to others absolutely falls in the category of disruptive. A shop in a mall is not a public square, nor should it be.