4 ms·

Doing so would impugn the free speech and property interests of the server owners. Why does Reddit have to host speech that it doesn’t want to? Why does anybod

by SllX 3y ago

Doing so would impugn the free speech and property interests of the server owners. Why does Reddit have to host speech that it doesn’t want to? Why does anybody? Why is their right to exclude subject to limitations on the government of the United States when they are a private corporation? If the FTC wants to bring that suit, they can try, but that’s a lot to prove and I don’t think they’ll be able to count to 1, let alone 5 if they somehow make their case all the way to SCOTUS.

mindslight 3y ago
> Why does [should] Reddit have to host speech that it doesn’t want to? For the same reason that landlords have to continue housing people doing things that the landlord disagrees with. Because they took what was their private dwelling, offered it to the public as housing, and invited in a new party that has their own rights. I don't really have a dog in the "deplatforming" fight, because I think the sooner we move to decentralized protocols the better. It's just utterly disingenuous to pretend that corporate property deliberately employed to perform services for customers is exactly the same as individually owned private property.
- SllX 3y ago
  The right to exclude is the same in both instances but the facts of each individual case matter. In the case of a landlord-tenant relationship, the landlord’s rights are still dominant but the tenant also has rights which compromise the landlord’s rights to a certain extent by a contract agreed to by both parties. Some jurisdictions may also have additional tenants rights enshrined in law, but generally speaking, if a landlord wants to evict, he is going to be able to evict. If you buy a house you intend to move into from someone who has rented the property out, barring some contractual reason you can’t that would be disclosed in the purchasing process, you’re going to be able to evict that family and move in once you own the house. Social media companies don’t lose their right to exclude by having allowed you to sign up and use their services. They can still exclude you (read: ban you) pretty much at-will subject to their terms of service (so pretty much always at-will) and it’s not disingenuous to point out that yes, this is in fact their right as the owners and operators of the service. Other service providers the facts may be different. If you have a contract with a service provider, you have a lot more in your favor under a negotiated agreement than the people that clicked “I Agree” the last time a social media company changed their TOS.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    In the long term, a landlord can always take back possession from a tenant, sure. But in the short term, there are many ways tenants can retain possession of their home in spite of landlord wishes, backed up by valid public policy interests in having the financial details of people's homes not result in the elimination of people's rights. You're talking about what is currently, I'm talking about the philosophical foundations of what could be. Analogous reasoning could be applied to SaaS (Software Augmented with Arbitrary Surveillance). Even if we were to consider individual private property sacrosanct, this doesn't need to extend to corporate property employed providing public-facing services.

by SllX 3y ago

mindslight 3y ago

> Why does [should] Reddit have to host speech that it doesn’t want to? For the same reason that landlords have to continue housing people doing things that the landlord disagrees with. Because they took what was their private dwelling, offered it to the public as housing, and invited in a new party that has their own rights. I don't really have a dog in the "deplatforming" fight, because I think the sooner we move to decentralized protocols the better. It's just utterly disingenuous to pretend that corporate property deliberately employed to perform services for customers is exactly the same as individually owned private property.

SllX 3y ago
The right to exclude is the same in both instances but the facts of each individual case matter. In the case of a landlord-tenant relationship, the landlord’s rights are still dominant but the tenant also has rights which compromise the landlord’s rights to a certain extent by a contract agreed to by both parties. Some jurisdictions may also have additional tenants rights enshrined in law, but generally speaking, if a landlord wants to evict, he is going to be able to evict. If you buy a house you intend to move into from someone who has rented the property out, barring some contractual reason you can’t that would be disclosed in the purchasing process, you’re going to be able to evict that family and move in once you own the house. Social media companies don’t lose their right to exclude by having allowed you to sign up and use their services. They can still exclude you (read: ban you) pretty much at-will subject to their terms of service (so pretty much always at-will) and it’s not disingenuous to point out that yes, this is in fact their right as the owners and operators of the service. Other service providers the facts may be different. If you have a contract with a service provider, you have a lot more in your favor under a negotiated agreement than the people that clicked “I Agree” the last time a social media company changed their TOS.
- mindslight 3y ago
  In the long term, a landlord can always take back possession from a tenant, sure. But in the short term, there are many ways tenants can retain possession of their home in spite of landlord wishes, backed up by valid public policy interests in having the financial details of people's homes not result in the elimination of people's rights. You're talking about what is currently, I'm talking about the philosophical foundations of what could be. Analogous reasoning could be applied to SaaS (Software Augmented with Arbitrary Surveillance). Even if we were to consider individual private property sacrosanct, this doesn't need to extend to corporate property employed providing public-facing services.