3 ms·

> the decision to do so or not is part of their freedom of speech. If this is true, then they should also face liability for that speech. As it is "platforms"

by shkkmo 4y ago

> the decision to do so or not is part of their freedom of speech. If this is true, then they should also face liability for that speech. As it is "platforms" are given the rights of free speech with none of the responsibility. Personally, I don't think that platforms are people and thus don't have the same rights to speech which is why we allow them to escape some of the responsibility. There are big benefits to allowing platforms to do some level of moderation without accepting full liability for all speech on their platform. However, in exchange these platforms lose the right to arbitrarily ban and censor people.

bee_rider 4y ago
> If this is true, then they should also face liability for that speech. As it is "platforms" are given the rights of free speech with none of the responsibility. It is not true, we don’t live in a free speech absolutist world. I’m pointing out that free speech absolutism doesn’t obviously point in the direction of maximum free speech for the individual. In a free speech absolutist world, there’s no liability to worry about in the first place. > Personally, I don't think that platforms are people and thus don't have the same rights to speech which is why we allow them to escape some of the responsibility. Platforms aren’t people, but they are owned and operated by people, who have the same free speech rights as everybody else. It seems like this ought to include the owner’s right to selectively publish content they’ve been sent. I’m not a free speech absolutist, and so I resolve this issue by saying, yeah, free speech absolutism is dumb, it is fine if we protect some types of speech, and selectively acknowledge the right of platform-owners to not broadcast some types of speech. There are competing interests and navigating them requires getting into the weeds. Unfortunately, this doesn’t have quite the moral certainty of “free speech absolutism.”
- shkkmo 4y ago
  > In a free speech absolutist world, there’s no liability to worry about in the first place. Says who? While it is an admittedly poor label, there are few, if any "free speech absolutists" who advocate removing all limits on speech. Usually they would accept some level of law restricting fraud or perjury. > I’m not a free speech absolutist Neither am I, I think it is a stupid label. > It is fine if we protect some types of speech, and selectively acknowledge the right of platform-owners to not broadcast some types of speech. There is a very large difference between allowing (or requiring) companies to censor specific types of speech in an open and content neutral fashion, and giving companies carte blanche to not broadcast anything they want without any legal responsibility because of those companies "free speech rights". There are of course, also numerous shades of grey between these extremes. The "you have to let companies censor whoever they want because that is their right" argument is logically inconsistent.

by shkkmo 4y ago

bee_rider 4y ago

> If this is true, then they should also face liability for that speech. As it is "platforms" are given the rights of free speech with none of the responsibility. It is not true, we don’t live in a free speech absolutist world. I’m pointing out that free speech absolutism doesn’t obviously point in the direction of maximum free speech for the individual. In a free speech absolutist world, there’s no liability to worry about in the first place. > Personally, I don't think that platforms are people and thus don't have the same rights to speech which is why we allow them to escape some of the responsibility. Platforms aren’t people, but they are owned and operated by people, who have the same free speech rights as everybody else. It seems like this ought to include the owner’s right to selectively publish content they’ve been sent. I’m not a free speech absolutist, and so I resolve this issue by saying, yeah, free speech absolutism is dumb, it is fine if we protect some types of speech, and selectively acknowledge the right of platform-owners to not broadcast some types of speech. There are competing interests and navigating them requires getting into the weeds. Unfortunately, this doesn’t have quite the moral certainty of “free speech absolutism.”

shkkmo 4y ago
> In a free speech absolutist world, there’s no liability to worry about in the first place. Says who? While it is an admittedly poor label, there are few, if any "free speech absolutists" who advocate removing all limits on speech. Usually they would accept some level of law restricting fraud or perjury. > I’m not a free speech absolutist Neither am I, I think it is a stupid label. > It is fine if we protect some types of speech, and selectively acknowledge the right of platform-owners to not broadcast some types of speech. There is a very large difference between allowing (or requiring) companies to censor specific types of speech in an open and content neutral fashion, and giving companies carte blanche to not broadcast anything they want without any legal responsibility because of those companies "free speech rights". There are of course, also numerous shades of grey between these extremes. The "you have to let companies censor whoever they want because that is their right" argument is logically inconsistent.