24 ms·

I hope that this shifts the Overton window toward discussion about banning facebook, twitter and instagram. They play a major role in exacerbating the divisions

by lykahb 3y ago

I hope that this shifts the Overton window toward discussion about banning facebook, twitter and instagram. They play a major role in exacerbating the divisions in the society and the rising suicide rate. Those domestic platforms do a better job at undermining the national security than any foreign force could dream of.

CamperBob2 3y ago
How do you reconcile this position with the First Amendment?
- lykahb 3y ago
  The First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It is open to interpretation, but banning social platforms that do not create their content is not the same as censoring the press. At the time the amendment was conceived, it was unimaginable to have a nation-wide entity that threatens the freedom of expression other than the government. So, it may actually be in spirit of the First Amendment to control the entities which promote and censor public discourse according to their opaque internal algorithms.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- _blz2 3y ago
  A platform that allows unhinged free speech would be more in line, but tech players wouldn't pursue it citing hate speech/advertisements and would outright ban it.
- karaterobot 3y ago
  There's nothing in the law, as far as I am aware, that requires an otherwise banned enterprise be allowed to operate because it also allows people to speak freely on the premises.
- jareklupinski 3y ago
  From the Constitution: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. There is nothing there that explicitly grants private enterprises the right to store, sell, and manipulate your free speech.
  - krapp 3y ago
    >There is nothing there that explicitly grants private enterprises the right to store, sell, and manipulate your free speech. ... because the Constitution limits the government. It doesn't grant rights to private enterprise or the people (of which private enterprise is a superset.) Note the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which explicitly state that the rights listed in the Constitution are not exhaustive, and that all such rights not enumerated in the Constitution are granted to the states and the people. So the right of private enterprise to store, sell and "manipulate your free speech" (which is just a bad faith framing of moderation as a violation of civil rights) is implicit to the right of free speech itself, a right which is neither defined by, and which cannot be limited by, the First Amendment to begin with. Although yes, there are limits even within the US, those limits are usually very strictly scrutinized. Banning all major social media platforms because "They play a major role in exacerbating the divisions in the society and the rising suicide rate" on the basis that the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you can't is blatantly contrary to the spirit of the First Amendment and the whole philosophy of free speech in American law.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Note the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which explicitly state that the rights listed in the Constitution are not exhaustive, and that all such rights not enumerated in the Constitution are granted to the states and the people. That’s wrong on the Ninth and Tenth: the Ninth Amendment says that enumerated rights don’t limit other rights of the people that exist (the purpose of this was that the Constitution wasn’t a “blank slate” document, there was law existing before it which established rights, and Ninth Amendment was to make clear that the Constitution did not extinguish them, it doesn’t give anything at all to states; the Tenth Amendment, which does address states, says all powers (not rights) not granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people. > So the right of private enterprise to store, sell and “manipulate your free speech” (which is just a bad faith framing of moderation as a violation of civil rights) is implicit to the right of free speech itself No the right to conduct commerce that relies on doing this is not inherent in either the First Amendment nor is such conduct of commerce, insofar as it has an interstate character, protected from federal regulation by the 9th and 10th Amendments, because regulating interstate commerce is an explicit power of Congress.
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  The first amendment doesn't necessarily protect being-an-incredibly-invasive-and-creepy-stalker-with-an-eternal-memory (but "at scale", which apparently makes it OK somehow?) The business model is what would be at risk, not Facebook's free speech.

by lykahb 3y ago

CamperBob2 3y ago

How do you reconcile this position with the First Amendment?

lykahb 3y ago
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It is open to interpretation, but banning social platforms that do not create their content is not the same as censoring the press. At the time the amendment was conceived, it was unimaginable to have a nation-wide entity that threatens the freedom of expression other than the government. So, it may actually be in spirit of the First Amendment to control the entities which promote and censor public discourse according to their opaque internal algorithms.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
_blz2 3y ago
A platform that allows unhinged free speech would be more in line, but tech players wouldn't pursue it citing hate speech/advertisements and would outright ban it.
karaterobot 3y ago
There's nothing in the law, as far as I am aware, that requires an otherwise banned enterprise be allowed to operate because it also allows people to speak freely on the premises.
jareklupinski 3y ago
From the Constitution: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. There is nothing there that explicitly grants private enterprises the right to store, sell, and manipulate your free speech.
- krapp 3y ago
  >There is nothing there that explicitly grants private enterprises the right to store, sell, and manipulate your free speech. ... because the Constitution limits the government. It doesn't grant rights to private enterprise or the people (of which private enterprise is a superset.) Note the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which explicitly state that the rights listed in the Constitution are not exhaustive, and that all such rights not enumerated in the Constitution are granted to the states and the people. So the right of private enterprise to store, sell and "manipulate your free speech" (which is just a bad faith framing of moderation as a violation of civil rights) is implicit to the right of free speech itself, a right which is neither defined by, and which cannot be limited by, the First Amendment to begin with. Although yes, there are limits even within the US, those limits are usually very strictly scrutinized. Banning all major social media platforms because "They play a major role in exacerbating the divisions in the society and the rising suicide rate" on the basis that the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you can't is blatantly contrary to the spirit of the First Amendment and the whole philosophy of free speech in American law.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Note the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which explicitly state that the rights listed in the Constitution are not exhaustive, and that all such rights not enumerated in the Constitution are granted to the states and the people. That’s wrong on the Ninth and Tenth: the Ninth Amendment says that enumerated rights don’t limit other rights of the people that exist (the purpose of this was that the Constitution wasn’t a “blank slate” document, there was law existing before it which established rights, and Ninth Amendment was to make clear that the Constitution did not extinguish them, it doesn’t give anything at all to states; the Tenth Amendment, which does address states, says all powers (not rights) not granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people. > So the right of private enterprise to store, sell and “manipulate your free speech” (which is just a bad faith framing of moderation as a violation of civil rights) is implicit to the right of free speech itself No the right to conduct commerce that relies on doing this is not inherent in either the First Amendment nor is such conduct of commerce, insofar as it has an interstate character, protected from federal regulation by the 9th and 10th Amendments, because regulating interstate commerce is an explicit power of Congress.
yamtaddle 3y ago
The first amendment doesn't necessarily protect being-an-incredibly-invasive-and-creepy-stalker-with-an-eternal-memory (but "at scale", which apparently makes it OK somehow?) The business model is what would be at risk, not Facebook's free speech.