3 ms·

> 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 exa

> 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.

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.