3 ms·

>get to decide what political speech Americans are allowed to express They're not stopping you from any speech. No one, including older news papers, radio chan

>get to decide what political speech Americans are allowed to express They're not stopping you from any speech. No one, including older news papers, radio channels, tv stations, etc., ever had to let anyone promote anything. You have no right to someone else's property for the tradeoff they don't have right to yours. If anything, the social media startups gave vastly more people more voice than any previous medium. For example, we're chatting right now, something we'd not have done in any previous medium. >must be regulated the same politically-neutral way those public and privately owned communications services are be careful what you ask for - they might end up regulated like over the air TV or radio, where plenty of things expressible online are completely forbidden. If telephone calls or mail content were public, you'd get a lot more stuff banned there too.

t-writescode 4y ago
It sounds like you're ignoring / neglecting the "public square" argument completely out of hand, which is the general response to stances like this.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  A public square is a square of the public, not a private establishment. These are not public platforms, provided by the public for the public. They are private enterprises with a specific brand and desired code of conduct whose goal is to maximize engagement for profit. Essentially their existential risk is becoming a cesspool of toxic trolls and driving out the normals. This is the same, in the context of a public square being different than a private bar, which has an open door to the public but has discretion on who stays in the bar. Example: You certainly can be kicked out of bars for being an asshole. Source: I’m an asshole.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    That's not what "public square" means in US law. Private property is a public square if it is open to the public.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > That's not what "public square" means in US law. Private property is a public square if it is open to the public. “public square” isn't a term with a specific definition in US law, its a common-language term occasionally referenced in illustrating the logic of legal decisions, but not always with the same precise meaning. Public forum is a term with specific legal meaning in First Amendment law, but it refers to a space used for official government business open to the public, not just a place open to the public. The latter is more like a public accomodation (but that is mostly relevant to anti-discrimination law.)
    - fnordpiglet 4y ago
      I think you mean public space: https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-place/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-place/ Rather than public square: https://nclplaw.org/area-of-law/rights-of-expression-in-the-public-square/ https://nclplaw.org/area-of-law/rights-of-expression-in-the-... Generally a public space doesn’t mean you can do anything you want in it, and the owner can restrict speech they deem offensive in their space and expel you. They can not block entry though without reasonable cause, and specifically not on protected statuses. A public square is publicly managed space and the government can not restrict your speech on it but can restrict your conduct. The bar is very high for the government on a public space (although in practice the modern militarized police does what it pleases). They can also restrict the time and duration of your activity and speech if it’s somehow disruptive to the normal function of the space. I would say social media is much more like a public space than a public square. It is not a sidewalk maintained by the public. It is not actually a public institution in any way whatsoever (publicly traded equity doesn’t make something a public entity). As such, they can put up a “no shirt, no shoes, no racists, no service” and kick you out of their place of business.
- SideQuark 4y ago
  The "public square" is not a legal concept. Property and speech rights are. If we're discussing changes and nuances of law the general response should follow legal principles. As to social media companies, they too have free speech rights. In the Supreme Court ruling Reno v. ACLU, the judges ruled unanimously that the Internet is a free speech zone, deserving of at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to books, newspapers and magazines. As such, your rights to post your beliefs ends exactly where another entity begins.
goodSteveramos 4y ago
>You have no right to someone else's property This is totally false in every sense. Try kicking out every African American customer from your restaurant. The Feds will bury your ass in lawsuits if not trumped up hate crime charges. > be careful what you wish for Why does everything you say sound more like a threat than a real argument? We can have different laws for the internet and telephone. Who are you saying would punish Americans by restricting speech further if we demanded more of it?
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  They are however allowed to kick someone out who the other patrons find abusive or offensive in their conduct or behavior. If you went into a restaurant screaming about killing all the black people, you shouldn’t expect a lot of sympathy from anyone when they kick you out.
  - goodSteveramos 4y ago
    This is a strawman. Instigating immediate violence is illegal and not what people are being censored on social media for.
    - fnordpiglet 4y ago
      I don’t think saying all black people should be killed is construed as instigating immediate violence, but you can change it to any stark racism you want and the outcome will be the same. And people are being censored for racism, homophobia, spreading harmful misinformation, and all sorts of stuff that will have the same outcome if you started yelling it in a restaurant. Listen, I know it must feel really lonely holding views most people find offensive to hear. No one can stop you from holding them or sitting in your basement muttering to yourself or even going out on the sidewalk and muttering it to passerby’s. But no business owner is going to let you offend their customers. Mega-globo corp or the coffee shop next door.
    - fnordpiglet 4y ago
      And to head it off, no one is censoring conservatives. They’re just censoring conservatives who are saying generally offensive stuff. Being a conservative isn’t an excuse for being an asshole, and no private business is obliged to amplify assholes. I miss when conservative meant “let’s not spend so much money” instead of “I hate a lot of people and want to be as offensive as possible”

t-writescode 4y ago

It sounds like you're ignoring / neglecting the "public square" argument completely out of hand, which is the general response to stances like this.

fnordpiglet 4y ago
A public square is a square of the public, not a private establishment. These are not public platforms, provided by the public for the public. They are private enterprises with a specific brand and desired code of conduct whose goal is to maximize engagement for profit. Essentially their existential risk is becoming a cesspool of toxic trolls and driving out the normals. This is the same, in the context of a public square being different than a private bar, which has an open door to the public but has discretion on who stays in the bar. Example: You certainly can be kicked out of bars for being an asshole. Source: I’m an asshole.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  That's not what "public square" means in US law. Private property is a public square if it is open to the public.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > That's not what "public square" means in US law. Private property is a public square if it is open to the public. “public square” isn't a term with a specific definition in US law, its a common-language term occasionally referenced in illustrating the logic of legal decisions, but not always with the same precise meaning. Public forum is a term with specific legal meaning in First Amendment law, but it refers to a space used for official government business open to the public, not just a place open to the public. The latter is more like a public accomodation (but that is mostly relevant to anti-discrimination law.)
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    I think you mean public space: https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-place/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-place/ Rather than public square: https://nclplaw.org/area-of-law/rights-of-expression-in-the-public-square/ https://nclplaw.org/area-of-law/rights-of-expression-in-the-... Generally a public space doesn’t mean you can do anything you want in it, and the owner can restrict speech they deem offensive in their space and expel you. They can not block entry though without reasonable cause, and specifically not on protected statuses. A public square is publicly managed space and the government can not restrict your speech on it but can restrict your conduct. The bar is very high for the government on a public space (although in practice the modern militarized police does what it pleases). They can also restrict the time and duration of your activity and speech if it’s somehow disruptive to the normal function of the space. I would say social media is much more like a public space than a public square. It is not a sidewalk maintained by the public. It is not actually a public institution in any way whatsoever (publicly traded equity doesn’t make something a public entity). As such, they can put up a “no shirt, no shoes, no racists, no service” and kick you out of their place of business.
SideQuark 4y ago
The "public square" is not a legal concept. Property and speech rights are. If we're discussing changes and nuances of law the general response should follow legal principles. As to social media companies, they too have free speech rights. In the Supreme Court ruling Reno v. ACLU, the judges ruled unanimously that the Internet is a free speech zone, deserving of at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to books, newspapers and magazines. As such, your rights to post your beliefs ends exactly where another entity begins.

goodSteveramos 4y ago

>You have no right to someone else's property This is totally false in every sense. Try kicking out every African American customer from your restaurant. The Feds will bury your ass in lawsuits if not trumped up hate crime charges. > be careful what you wish for Why does everything you say sound more like a threat than a real argument? We can have different laws for the internet and telephone. Who are you saying would punish Americans by restricting speech further if we demanded more of it?

fnordpiglet 4y ago
They are however allowed to kick someone out who the other patrons find abusive or offensive in their conduct or behavior. If you went into a restaurant screaming about killing all the black people, you shouldn’t expect a lot of sympathy from anyone when they kick you out.
- goodSteveramos 4y ago
  This is a strawman. Instigating immediate violence is illegal and not what people are being censored on social media for.
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    I don’t think saying all black people should be killed is construed as instigating immediate violence, but you can change it to any stark racism you want and the outcome will be the same. And people are being censored for racism, homophobia, spreading harmful misinformation, and all sorts of stuff that will have the same outcome if you started yelling it in a restaurant. Listen, I know it must feel really lonely holding views most people find offensive to hear. No one can stop you from holding them or sitting in your basement muttering to yourself or even going out on the sidewalk and muttering it to passerby’s. But no business owner is going to let you offend their customers. Mega-globo corp or the coffee shop next door.
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    And to head it off, no one is censoring conservatives. They’re just censoring conservatives who are saying generally offensive stuff. Being a conservative isn’t an excuse for being an asshole, and no private business is obliged to amplify assholes. I miss when conservative meant “let’s not spend so much money” instead of “I hate a lot of people and want to be as offensive as possible”