4 ms·

If you want to envisage such a future for a dystopian novel or something like that, just imagine this wild fantasy: 1. Imagine a world where all the major onli

If you want to envisage such a future for a dystopian novel or something like that, just imagine this wild fantasy: 1. Imagine a world where all the major online spaces - twitter, reddit, facebook, tumblr, HN, tiktok, instagram, youtube, twitch, slack, and discord and so on are privately owned. As are skype, zoom and google meet. Imagine a world where you can't even send e-mails if private companies don't like your 'sender reputation'. 2. Then imagine a world where all Radio and TV channels, newspapers and billboards are owned by private corporations. Maybe they're even owned by a tiny number of corporations, with specific political leanings. 3. Then fantasise that universities and similar venues for public speaking are a law unto themselves, and are within their rights to choose who they invite to speak. 4. Imagine a world of rising land values and increasing urbanisation, where only the absolute richest people could hold an event of any scale on land they own themselves. 5. Then imagine a world where public squares and parks in cities increasingly in private ownership. Perhaps city hall is sold to an investment firm who lease it back to the city. As it's private land, private security can move anyone on for 'unacceptable behaviour'. 6. There's still a risk some free speech would happen on public roads - we probably can't transfer those to private companies. We'll have to use the state's power here and arrest them - but don't worry, it's not a free speech issue. They were, uh, obstructing ambulance traffic. Or we could just make it legal for motorists to drive into people and let nature take it's course. Thank goodness such an absurd fiction could never happen in real life :)

gadders 4y ago
And let's not forget that the government are influencing which items get suppressed by the social media companies: https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/ https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformat...
eesmith 4y ago
This list doesn't come close to being a place where "private companies own every method of articulating your views". I believe you want to force a large company to accept an advertisement on any topic whatsoever, at a "reasonable price", and that that there should be no First Amendment right of free association which allows them to deny that advertisement. If not, do you want to force them to post that same information at no cost?
- michaelt 4y ago
  Yes, you'd still be entirely free to articulate your views in the privacy of your own bathroom, so I suppose it's technically true private companies don't control every way of articulating your views.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    I wasn't being that pedantic. Your list didn't include federated systems like Mastadon or IRC. It didn't include open source systems like Zulip that you can host yourself. I don't use one of the big email providers, so I do get bounces when an organization thinks my ISP is untrusted. But that's not "can't even send e-mails if private companies don't like your 'sender reputation'" only "can't send e-mails to some people". And those people decided to use that system in part because they want the email provider to filter out some of their email. We are not in a world where "all Radio and TV channels, newspapers and billboards are owned by private corporations." Member-supported radio and TV, and college radio, are still things, as is community/public-access cable. Further, how do you want to change it? Do you want a government station which is required to be open access so anyone can broadcast anything? Universities and similar venues for public speaking have always had the right to choose who they invite to speak. This is what freedom of association means. Also, they are not a "law unto themselves". There are limits on the types of speech they can prohibit - a public university is restricted by civil rights laws, as is a private/non-publicly funded school which allows public rental of a space. How do you want to change it? Do you want them colleges to be forced to accept any speaker on any topic, whatsoever? We see events like the Gathering of the Juggalos, with 20,000 people, and wonder what you mean by 'only the absolute richest people could hold an event of any scale on land they own themselves.' And I already commented on your "As it's private land" in my "fantasy libertarian future where everything has been privatized" - as something we aren't close to doing. Yes, I totally agree that privatization of public spaces is something I don't like, though I'll point out the oddity of how the privately-owned public space at Zuccotti Park was a better site for the Occupy Wall Street protest than a public park, because the latter had curfews.
    - michaelt 4y ago

gadders 4y ago

And let's not forget that the government are influencing which items get suppressed by the social media companies: https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/ https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformat...

eesmith 4y ago

This list doesn't come close to being a place where "private companies own every method of articulating your views". I believe you want to force a large company to accept an advertisement on any topic whatsoever, at a "reasonable price", and that that there should be no First Amendment right of free association which allows them to deny that advertisement. If not, do you want to force them to post that same information at no cost?

michaelt 4y ago
Yes, you'd still be entirely free to articulate your views in the privacy of your own bathroom, so I suppose it's technically true private companies don't control every way of articulating your views.
- eesmith 4y ago
  I wasn't being that pedantic. Your list didn't include federated systems like Mastadon or IRC. It didn't include open source systems like Zulip that you can host yourself. I don't use one of the big email providers, so I do get bounces when an organization thinks my ISP is untrusted. But that's not "can't even send e-mails if private companies don't like your 'sender reputation'" only "can't send e-mails to some people". And those people decided to use that system in part because they want the email provider to filter out some of their email. We are not in a world where "all Radio and TV channels, newspapers and billboards are owned by private corporations." Member-supported radio and TV, and college radio, are still things, as is community/public-access cable. Further, how do you want to change it? Do you want a government station which is required to be open access so anyone can broadcast anything? Universities and similar venues for public speaking have always had the right to choose who they invite to speak. This is what freedom of association means. Also, they are not a "law unto themselves". There are limits on the types of speech they can prohibit - a public university is restricted by civil rights laws, as is a private/non-publicly funded school which allows public rental of a space. How do you want to change it? Do you want them colleges to be forced to accept any speaker on any topic, whatsoever? We see events like the Gathering of the Juggalos, with 20,000 people, and wonder what you mean by 'only the absolute richest people could hold an event of any scale on land they own themselves.' And I already commented on your "As it's private land" in my "fantasy libertarian future where everything has been privatized" - as something we aren't close to doing. Yes, I totally agree that privatization of public spaces is something I don't like, though I'll point out the oddity of how the privately-owned public space at Zuccotti Park was a better site for the Occupy Wall Street protest than a public park, because the latter had curfews.
  - michaelt 4y ago