4 ms·

These are private platforms. They can censor whatever speech they want. They decide whether to listen to big bad government with an axe over its head or simpl

These are private platforms. They can censor whatever speech they want. They decide whether to listen to big bad government with an axe over its head or simply get their head cut off, right? I mean, they could have just chosen to be crushed with legal battles from the government, right? Free speech and free will in America, right?

echelon 3y ago
I'd rather the platforms be treated as common carriers - unable to censor by themselves. Corporations having the right to censor is no better than the government. It would fix a lot of misalignment in terms of advertiser spend, too. In a common carrier world, the government censoring private individuals would go against our first amendment rights. Pretty clear cut. Ideally we eventually reach p2p social networking protocols. I don't want my interest or attention graph dictated or influenced by a third party. I want to be able to (de)weight and (de)prioritize based off of my own personal preferences.
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  I'd rather the platforms be treated as common carriers That's called the internet. Corporations having the right to censor is no better than the government. Yes it is, there are lots of corporations and anyone can start one. There is only one government that applies to someone at any one time and they have a monopoly on violence. In a common carrier world, the government censoring private individuals would go against our first amendment rights. Pretty clear cut. It's clear cut that the internet does that already and corporations do not have to broadcast what they don't want to. If you hate censorship so much why are you on hacker news? This is one of the most censored sites on the internet. Comments are not just deleted and removed but there is no record when they are. There are plenty of sites that let anyone post whatever they want and they turn into people spamming nazi propaganda. You can find these sites and see if you like them better than the mainstream sites of the internet.
  - echelon 3y ago
    > Yes it is, there are lots of corporations and anyone can start one. Please tell me how to start a Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, or Twitter and reach their scale and engagement. Preferably up and running with billions of users by tomorrow. Your suggestion is implausible and denies the reality that these entities are entrenched and more or less here to stay. > If you hate censorship so much why are you on hacker news? You want me to leave because I hate censorship? Same argument as "If you don't like America, then leave." Systems can be improved. Just because we don't like the status quo doesn't mean we want to throw everything out. This is a shallow dismissal of the free speech argument. > There are plenty of sites that let anyone post whatever they want and they turn into people spamming nazi propaganda. You can find these sites and see if you like them better than the mainstream sites of the internet. Again, clearly not what I'm advocating for here. Not all discourse turns to "Nazism" (as liberals say) or "kiddie diddling" (as conservatives say). I operated forums back in their 2000-2010 heydey that had a free speech policy. People behaved, and we all learned a lot. The only reason corporations have the market share now is that they blitzscaled to critical mass. My argument stands. The ideal social media system is a p2p protocol that nobody can exert undue control or influence over. That everyone can tailor as they so please.
    - CyberDildonics 3y ago
      Please tell me how to start a Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, or Twitter You can start a site and say what you want. You aren't entitled to have a wide audience. If no one wants to broadcast or read what you say, too bad. You want me to leave because I hate censorship? Read what I wrote again and pay closer attention, I don't care what you do, the question is if you care about the censorship on the site you are posting on now. "If you don't like America, then leave." I never said that, I asked why you were using a heavily censored site while being against censorship. Not all discourse turns to "Nazism" I also never said this, read again. You can look at voat, slashdot, zero hedge and 4chan knockoffs, and there is tons of nazi spam along with other terrible stuff that people don't want to read and sites don't want to broadcast. If people don't want to broadcast it and other people don't want to ever see it, but you allow it anyway, that drives away users. No one is going to allow that on a site they control. You can go make your own site but you aren't entitled to an audience. The ideal social media system is a p2p protocol that nobody can exert undue control or influence over. That's been done and it gets over run with spam if people can message other people without explicitly connecting first. My argument stands. You didn't actually make an argument and you didn't back anything up with evidence at all. You just said you wanted big sites to not have any moderation.
thsksbd 3y ago
Its not Big Tech thats getting sued, its the executive branch of the government. Big Tech did its bro-thing and they're cool - they're getting away with it. The WH, however, cannot do what they did and they're getting hammered for it.
qntty 3y ago
The Supreme Court said in Norwood v. Harrison (1973): Racial discrimination in state-operated schools is barred by the Constitution and "[i]t is also axiomatic that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish." Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 267 F. Supp. 458, 475-476 (MD Ala. 1967).
mrguyorama 3y ago
Which is why they were swiftly cut down when they ignored these requests. Oh wait.

echelon 3y ago

I'd rather the platforms be treated as common carriers - unable to censor by themselves. Corporations having the right to censor is no better than the government. It would fix a lot of misalignment in terms of advertiser spend, too. In a common carrier world, the government censoring private individuals would go against our first amendment rights. Pretty clear cut. Ideally we eventually reach p2p social networking protocols. I don't want my interest or attention graph dictated or influenced by a third party. I want to be able to (de)weight and (de)prioritize based off of my own personal preferences.

CyberDildonics 3y ago
I'd rather the platforms be treated as common carriers That's called the internet. Corporations having the right to censor is no better than the government. Yes it is, there are lots of corporations and anyone can start one. There is only one government that applies to someone at any one time and they have a monopoly on violence. In a common carrier world, the government censoring private individuals would go against our first amendment rights. Pretty clear cut. It's clear cut that the internet does that already and corporations do not have to broadcast what they don't want to. If you hate censorship so much why are you on hacker news? This is one of the most censored sites on the internet. Comments are not just deleted and removed but there is no record when they are. There are plenty of sites that let anyone post whatever they want and they turn into people spamming nazi propaganda. You can find these sites and see if you like them better than the mainstream sites of the internet.
- echelon 3y ago
  > Yes it is, there are lots of corporations and anyone can start one. Please tell me how to start a Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, or Twitter and reach their scale and engagement. Preferably up and running with billions of users by tomorrow. Your suggestion is implausible and denies the reality that these entities are entrenched and more or less here to stay. > If you hate censorship so much why are you on hacker news? You want me to leave because I hate censorship? Same argument as "If you don't like America, then leave." Systems can be improved. Just because we don't like the status quo doesn't mean we want to throw everything out. This is a shallow dismissal of the free speech argument. > There are plenty of sites that let anyone post whatever they want and they turn into people spamming nazi propaganda. You can find these sites and see if you like them better than the mainstream sites of the internet. Again, clearly not what I'm advocating for here. Not all discourse turns to "Nazism" (as liberals say) or "kiddie diddling" (as conservatives say). I operated forums back in their 2000-2010 heydey that had a free speech policy. People behaved, and we all learned a lot. The only reason corporations have the market share now is that they blitzscaled to critical mass. My argument stands. The ideal social media system is a p2p protocol that nobody can exert undue control or influence over. That everyone can tailor as they so please.
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    Please tell me how to start a Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, or Twitter You can start a site and say what you want. You aren't entitled to have a wide audience. If no one wants to broadcast or read what you say, too bad. You want me to leave because I hate censorship? Read what I wrote again and pay closer attention, I don't care what you do, the question is if you care about the censorship on the site you are posting on now. "If you don't like America, then leave." I never said that, I asked why you were using a heavily censored site while being against censorship. Not all discourse turns to "Nazism" I also never said this, read again. You can look at voat, slashdot, zero hedge and 4chan knockoffs, and there is tons of nazi spam along with other terrible stuff that people don't want to read and sites don't want to broadcast. If people don't want to broadcast it and other people don't want to ever see it, but you allow it anyway, that drives away users. No one is going to allow that on a site they control. You can go make your own site but you aren't entitled to an audience. The ideal social media system is a p2p protocol that nobody can exert undue control or influence over. That's been done and it gets over run with spam if people can message other people without explicitly connecting first. My argument stands. You didn't actually make an argument and you didn't back anything up with evidence at all. You just said you wanted big sites to not have any moderation.

thsksbd 3y ago

Its not Big Tech thats getting sued, its the executive branch of the government. Big Tech did its bro-thing and they're cool - they're getting away with it. The WH, however, cannot do what they did and they're getting hammered for it.

qntty 3y ago

The Supreme Court said in Norwood v. Harrison (1973): Racial discrimination in state-operated schools is barred by the Constitution and "[i]t is also axiomatic that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish." Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 267 F. Supp. 458, 475-476 (MD Ala. 1967).

mrguyorama 3y ago

Which is why they were swiftly cut down when they ignored these requests. Oh wait.