4 ms·

> That's where the nature of "free speech" ends, when your actions impact someone else negatively (which is why, even in the US, you have the right to speak fre

by kodah 4y ago

> That's where the nature of "free speech" ends, when your actions impact someone else negatively (which is why, even in the US, you have the right to speak freely but not the right to force others to listen). Nit pick: it's not "actions" impacting others. It's when person A exercises their rights to impede anothers. This kind of argumentation that cloud providers don't provide conduit or extenders for free speech is pretty lost on me, but I'm also of the opinion that all of these services should be highly regulated or government owned so that these silly pedantic, and at times opportunistic, arguments stop. It's become the wedge issue of the internet.

judge2020 4y ago
The issue with regulation in this space is that the arguments won't stop, and the free speech angle is the worst thing to address with this. Once we force providers over $x billion in revenue to conform their social media platforms to abide by US free speech standards, do they now have to divert to law enforcement before they can remove anything that might be considered illegal, or at least riot-inciting? Can they no longer ban bots if those bots are ran by a US citizen? Even if you do, and everyone's in agreement, you're effectively sanctioning off the social media sites to only allow posts from US nationals, unless there's some framework for allowing US free speech to proliferate alongside the strict antisemitic hate speech laws of Germany.
- kodah 4y ago
  > do they now have to divert to law enforcement before they can remove anything that might be considered illegal, or at least riot-inciting The courts have precedent that would cover this if online speech equals free speech. Part of the reason I want the government to assume responsibility is because it'll either force them to acknowledge they're the same or craft specific laws for online speech. Part of people's frustration is that the rules are all over the place. > Even if you do, and everyone's in agreement, you're effectively sanctioning off the social media sites to only allow posts from US nationals That's a silly conclusion. Do US companies only enforce US fraud or sanction laws despite operating in another country? The answer is no. There's regionalization baked into services operated on other regions. I've worked on such services. Websites, as they globalize, have to do this with regular frequency.

by kodah 4y ago

judge2020 4y ago

The issue with regulation in this space is that the arguments won't stop, and the free speech angle is the worst thing to address with this. Once we force providers over $x billion in revenue to conform their social media platforms to abide by US free speech standards, do they now have to divert to law enforcement before they can remove anything that might be considered illegal, or at least riot-inciting? Can they no longer ban bots if those bots are ran by a US citizen? Even if you do, and everyone's in agreement, you're effectively sanctioning off the social media sites to only allow posts from US nationals, unless there's some framework for allowing US free speech to proliferate alongside the strict antisemitic hate speech laws of Germany.

kodah 4y ago
> do they now have to divert to law enforcement before they can remove anything that might be considered illegal, or at least riot-inciting The courts have precedent that would cover this if online speech equals free speech. Part of the reason I want the government to assume responsibility is because it'll either force them to acknowledge they're the same or craft specific laws for online speech. Part of people's frustration is that the rules are all over the place. > Even if you do, and everyone's in agreement, you're effectively sanctioning off the social media sites to only allow posts from US nationals That's a silly conclusion. Do US companies only enforce US fraud or sanction laws despite operating in another country? The answer is no. There's regionalization baked into services operated on other regions. I've worked on such services. Websites, as they globalize, have to do this with regular frequency.