3 ms·

> Except for platform providers, such as AWS deplatforming customers, duopoly app stores doing the same, and even core infrastructure providers like cloudflare

by rstat1 4y ago

> Except for platform providers, such as AWS deplatforming customers, duopoly app stores doing the same, and even core infrastructure providers like cloudflare making editorial decisions. I have absolutely 0 issue with people being "deplatformed" for pushing very obvious messages of hate. These providers have rules you must follow or you get banned. Literally no different than any business with a physical presence. The exact same thing would happen outside the internet if some idiot decided to grab a megaphone and take up a prime location in your local town to push their hate. In fact in that instance they might actually ended up being arrested. This really isn't that hard to understand.

claytongulick 4y ago
> This really isn't that hard to understand. Then you aren't thinking critically. It's incredibly complex. Here, simple question then. Define "obvious messages of hate". I know some people who define that as disagreeing with same sex marriage. I know people who define it as supporting Israel. I've also heard CRT and discussion of white privilege described as hateful. But I'm certain you can do it in a way that effectively balances society's interest in free expression with the interest of all parties to be protected from reputational harm, while protecting the rights of private citizens, owners of businesses and taking into consideration hundreds of years of legal precedent and Constitutional protections. So it's easy, right? Super simple. Everyone that's grappling with these issues and balancing limits on free expression must be pretty dumb, I guess. Including the framers and most Supreme Court justices that have been trying to figure it out for hundreds of years [1], I suppose. [1] https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-01/freedom-speech/defamation/ https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-01/freedom-s...

by rstat1 4y ago

claytongulick 4y ago

> This really isn't that hard to understand. Then you aren't thinking critically. It's incredibly complex. Here, simple question then. Define "obvious messages of hate". I know some people who define that as disagreeing with same sex marriage. I know people who define it as supporting Israel. I've also heard CRT and discussion of white privilege described as hateful. But I'm certain you can do it in a way that effectively balances society's interest in free expression with the interest of all parties to be protected from reputational harm, while protecting the rights of private citizens, owners of businesses and taking into consideration hundreds of years of legal precedent and Constitutional protections. So it's easy, right? Super simple. Everyone that's grappling with these issues and balancing limits on free expression must be pretty dumb, I guess. Including the framers and most Supreme Court justices that have been trying to figure it out for hundreds of years [1], I suppose. [1] https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-01/freedom-speech/defamation/ https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-01/freedom-s...