3 ms·

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 compan

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
    > And I already commented on your "As it's private land" in my "fantasy libertarian future where everything has been privatized" Ah, that's actually a real example, from London https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseudo-public-space-pops-london-investigation-map https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseu...: "Outside City Hall on the south bank of the Thames, home to London’s democratically elected mayor and assembly, private security guards working for the More London estate (ultimately owned by the sovereign wealth fund of Kuwait) prevented the Guardian from carrying out any interviews. Security officers intervened within moments of a reporter attempting to ask questions of members of the public, and immediately escorted him to the security office where it was explained that unsanctioned journalistic activity is banned on the site. So the example of a city hall leased from an investment fund with private security moving people on for unacceptable behaviour is, unfortunately, not merely fantasy. > Further, how do you want to change it? Who says I want to change it? My beliefs don't include defending to the death other people's right to glorify the holocaust. I recently lived through a pandemic where offline means of communication and assembly were severely curtailed - and everything from education to concerts to job interviews to doctor's appointments to courts to funerals to national legislatures ended up reliant on multinational tech companies' servers. It seems to me, in other words, that almost all communication was in the hands of private companies. If someone says they support free speech except when private companies are involved, IMHO they might as well say they support free speech except on days ending in Y.
    - eesmith 4y ago
      Are we anywhere near close to selling out city halls in the way you describe, in such a way that "private companies own every method of articulating your views" is meaningful? I specifically called out POPS as something I don't like. FWIW, the HQ for the Greater London Authority has since moved, to a building owned by the Greater London Authority - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Hall,_London_(Newham) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Hall,_London_(Newham) . (Confusingly, as I just learned, it's not a city hall, in that it does not serve a city.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space says "the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan promised to publish new guidelines on how these spaces are governed." - any progress? > If someone says they support free speech except when private companies are involved, IMHO they might as well say they support free speech except on days ending in Y. IMHO, those who support free speech without also supporting the right of free association ... are not actually supporting free speech. Hecklers do not have a veto right. I would change it by having and enforcing significantly stronger anti-trust laws, restoring restrictions on media conglomeration, stronger personal privacy rights, including strict limitations on resale of personal information, and restoring postal banking for anyone to use. For starters. Yet the result will still have all major online spaces be privately owned and nearly all Radio and TV channels, newspapers and billboards owned by private corporations. Do you think it would still be so dystopian? Could you elaborate more on real-world examples of your points #3 and #4? Regarding #3 has many cases where a college has changed its mind on inviting a speaker, but every case I've read seems to be a valid exercise of a right of free association.

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
  > And I already commented on your "As it's private land" in my "fantasy libertarian future where everything has been privatized" Ah, that's actually a real example, from London https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseudo-public-space-pops-london-investigation-map https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseu...: "Outside City Hall on the south bank of the Thames, home to London’s democratically elected mayor and assembly, private security guards working for the More London estate (ultimately owned by the sovereign wealth fund of Kuwait) prevented the Guardian from carrying out any interviews. Security officers intervened within moments of a reporter attempting to ask questions of members of the public, and immediately escorted him to the security office where it was explained that unsanctioned journalistic activity is banned on the site. So the example of a city hall leased from an investment fund with private security moving people on for unacceptable behaviour is, unfortunately, not merely fantasy. > Further, how do you want to change it? Who says I want to change it? My beliefs don't include defending to the death other people's right to glorify the holocaust. I recently lived through a pandemic where offline means of communication and assembly were severely curtailed - and everything from education to concerts to job interviews to doctor's appointments to courts to funerals to national legislatures ended up reliant on multinational tech companies' servers. It seems to me, in other words, that almost all communication was in the hands of private companies. If someone says they support free speech except when private companies are involved, IMHO they might as well say they support free speech except on days ending in Y.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    Are we anywhere near close to selling out city halls in the way you describe, in such a way that "private companies own every method of articulating your views" is meaningful? I specifically called out POPS as something I don't like. FWIW, the HQ for the Greater London Authority has since moved, to a building owned by the Greater London Authority - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Hall,_London_(Newham) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Hall,_London_(Newham) . (Confusingly, as I just learned, it's not a city hall, in that it does not serve a city.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space says "the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan promised to publish new guidelines on how these spaces are governed." - any progress? > If someone says they support free speech except when private companies are involved, IMHO they might as well say they support free speech except on days ending in Y. IMHO, those who support free speech without also supporting the right of free association ... are not actually supporting free speech. Hecklers do not have a veto right. I would change it by having and enforcing significantly stronger anti-trust laws, restoring restrictions on media conglomeration, stronger personal privacy rights, including strict limitations on resale of personal information, and restoring postal banking for anyone to use. For starters. Yet the result will still have all major online spaces be privately owned and nearly all Radio and TV channels, newspapers and billboards owned by private corporations. Do you think it would still be so dystopian? Could you elaborate more on real-world examples of your points #3 and #4? Regarding #3 has many cases where a college has changed its mind on inviting a speaker, but every case I've read seems to be a valid exercise of a right of free association.