14 ms·

When in all of US history were private companies not controlling the public discourse and "censoring free speech"?

by pfisch 3y ago

krapp 3y ago
Never. In fact, the reason the First Amendment limits the government, exclusively, is that the ability to abridge free speech (to choose which forms of speech you support, spread, or disassociate from) is implicitly a part of individual liberty, held by the people. Free speech has never guaranteed anyone a platform. That's not a bug, it's a feature. Yes, it can be messy. Yes, it can be abused. Yes, it means social media companies are allowed to ban you for any reason they like, just as restaurants are allowed to refuse you service. Yes it means ISPs don't have to do business with nazis and assholes. The alternative is that the government - that controls the monopoly on violence - controls all speech, at all levels, and any business that engages in any form of speech. That it forces you to publish speech against your will, against your interests, even against your safety. The great thing about ISPs being private is that you can always find another ISP. Kiwifarms did. Being banned from social media isn't the end of the world. But I can't as easily find another government if mine reads my social media posts and decides I'm too "woke" to live.
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  You're not free to not associate with people in the U.S. Businesses are not allowed to discriminate against protected classes. This is because businesses are foundational to modern life, so being excluded from them greatly hurts a person. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that we should look to expand such protections to all people for certain services, especially those which are more like infrastructure for modern life. Not saying sites can't have a TOS, but an ISP should have a really good business reason for blocking you(illegal activity, spam).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - krapp 3y ago
    >You're not free to not associate with people in the U.S. Yes I am. If Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door I am perfectly within my rights to tell them to go away. I don't have to go to church if I don't want to. I'm perfectly allowed not to associate with racists and homophobes. Businesses are not allowed to discriminate against protected classes, true, but being an asshole is not a protected class, and every bar and restaurant still has a sign saying they can refuse service to anyone. >Not saying sites can't have a TOS, but an ISP should have a really good business reason for blocking you(illegal activity, spam). I'd be willing to agree if I didn't remember the last few months of vociferous support for repealing Section 230, having the government take over social media platforms and make TOS's and most forms of moderation illegal. Even make "algorithms" illegal. On the one hand, I get the free speech argument, but on the other hand, there is a right-wing accelerationist agenda using that argument to push the Overton window of acceptable regulations far enough that it becomes illegal, de facto or de jure, for any site to engage in any form of moderation. I don't believe for a second that people are going to be satisfied with simply regulating ISPs, even if I'm far more sympathetic to the argument that they should be considered infrastructure than websites themselves. For the time being, the market seems to be working. Conservative and right-wing alternatives are rising to take advantage of sites being pushed out of the mainstream, and I think that's acceptable.
    - zeroCalories 3y ago
      > Yes I am. If Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door I am perfectly within my rights to tell them to go away. I don't have to go to church if I don't want to. I'm perfectly allowed not to associate with racists and homophobes. > Businesses are not allowed to discriminate against protected classes, true, but being an asshole is not a protected class, and every bar and restaurant still has a sign saying they can refuse service to anyone. Clearly I'm not talking about interpersonal association. We're talking about your freedom when conducting business, which is normal to regulate in the U.S in this way. > I'd be willing to agree if I didn't remember the last few months of vociferous support for repealing Section 230, having the government take over social media platforms and make TOS's and most forms of moderation illegal. Even make "algorithms" illegal. Do you think I support repealing section 230 when I said "Not saying sites can't have a TOS"? > On the one hand, I get the free speech argument Nothing I said has anything to do with free speech. As stated above, I think it's fine for sites to moderate themselves in a partisan manner. > but on the other hand, there is a right-wing accelerationist agenda using that argument to push the Overton window of acceptable regulations far enough that it becomes illegal, de facto or de jure, for any site to engage in any form of moderation. I don't believe for a second that people are going to be satisfied with simply regulating ISPs, even if I'm far more sympathetic to the argument that they should be considered infrastructure than websites themselves. There are other threats besides right wing extremism, like the centralization of power. Even if the power is wielded by some collective consciousness, I have interests that are not shared by the collective, so I don't want them having the ability to dictate my life. I think many people would also share this concern, so the government is a good way to solve that. > For the time being, the market seems to be working. Conservative and right-wing alternatives are rising to take advantage of sites being pushed out of the mainstream, and I think that's acceptable. That seems to be the exact opposite of what you want, doesn't it?Extremism is very popular and profitable.
  - rascul 3y ago
    > You're not free to not associate with people in the U.S. I'm not? There are certain exceptions, such as certain police interactions, or a court order, or protected classes when I'm doing business stuff, but I don't think that's correct in general.
- lr4444lr 3y ago
  I think the concept of Common Carrier is a direct refutation to what you're saying, but hey, that's just my opinion.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hexage1814 3y ago
  >it means social media companies are allowed to ban you for any reason they like Can they ban someone for being black or gay? Do you think they should have this right, since they are private corporations?
  - tomtheelder 3y ago
    Amendment to the post you are responding to: any reason aside from membership in a protected class. Political belief does not, and absolutely should not, constitute a protected class.
- hattmall 3y ago
  Focus on speech though. Can the Phone company cut you off because of the content of your communication? Assuming you aren't breaking any other law like harassment? The deciding factor is if your business revolves around facilitating speech. The law has some way to go to catch up with the current state of affairs, but right now the government is enjoying the power of censoring that speech so it may not be an easy path.
  - chonkerz 3y ago
    Kiwifarms is breaking a lot of harassment and stalking laws.
    - hexage1814 3y ago
      Good, then it should be easy for the police to shutdown the website if that's the case. Tell the authorities and let the justice system to deal with it.
      - mftrhu 3y ago
        > That’s what must happen here. The cops and the courts should be working to protect the victims of KF and go after the perpetrators with every legal tool at their disposal. We should be giving them the resources and societal mandate to do so. Solid enforcement of existing laws is something that has been sorely lacking for harassment and abuse online, and it’s one of the reasons people turn to censorship strategies. Finally, we should enact strong data privacy laws that target, among others, the data brokers whose services help enable doxxing. But the authorities and the justice system seem unwilling to do so, and - in the face of their refusal to act - you can't expect people to just give up and not defend themselves, not when they can exert other forms of pressure.
        hexage1814 3y ago
        >But the authorities and the justice system seem unwilling to do so To me sounds like a conspiracy theory. If their crimes are so unquestionable and clear, it should be pretty easy and straightforward to prove it in a court of law. The other alternative being, of course, that there is no crime happening here, at least under the US law, and their actions, as tasteless and despicable as they might be, are covered under the american law and KF opponents are using corporations to censor legally protected speech.
lmm 3y ago
We didn't used to let private companies control the public discourse. The mail is government-run and there are mail privacy protections as deep as the constitution. In the age of radio and TV we at least had the equal time rule and some level of public oversight.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  And an FCC that could yank your broadcast license for transmitting obscenity.
  - lmm 3y ago
    Sure, but there's at least some democratic accountability to that.
- pfisch 3y ago
  The mail wasn't really public discourse though. Newspapers/tv/radio were, and no one was giving nazi's equal time on every issue. Newspapers only ever published what they wanted to, censoring any viewpoint they felt like censoring.
- Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
  > control the public discourse The truth is that before the internet, there wasn't really any genuine public discourse. If you wanted any reach at all, you had to go through a gatekeeper of some sort.
- tomtheelder 3y ago
  Following all my opinion, but easier to write without constant hedging: IMO public discourse is less controlled by private corporations/organizations now than at basically any other point in our history, with the possible exception of like, 10 years ago. There was never previously any realistic method for a private citizen to gain a platform to meaningfully influence discourse. Traditional media _literally_ defined the narratives in play. I’d argue that a whole lot of the ideological carnage and polarization going on is directly a result of the “democratization” of public discourse. While there was some oversight, the reality is that news media still had basically total control over whatever narrative they were interested in pushing. In fact, I’d argue that a lot of the ideological chaos and subsequent censorship we have seen recently is precisely a result of private corporations losing control of public discourse.
stale2002 3y ago
When we made laws to prevent them from doing so. In the US, related to this specific situation, the laws are called "Net Neutrality" and "Common Carrier" laws. Such laws are well established and uncontroversial. Pretty much everyone agrees that it is a good thing that the power company can't shut off your electricity just because you said something that it didn't like.
- pfisch 3y ago
  Those weren't really the public square or a mass communication system though. You're kinda comparing apples and oranges.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    If you want an example of something that is almost quite literally the public square, you could look at the court case robin vs pruneyard. In this case, the government forced privately owned malls to allow political protests. So yes the government has forced public squares to be open to the public and prevents private companies from censoring political speech in those public squares. > or a mass communication system though Common carriers quite literally are mass communication systems. What do you think common carriers "carry"? The answer is that many of them carry communication. Things like the phone system are for mass communication. So yes, we have laws that effect both the public square and mass communication systems. ISPs are also communication systems and laws called "net neutrality" laws force them to do certain things. In fact, this article itself is about how the ISP is acting illegally and is breaking existing laws about what the ISPs can censor.
bluescrn 3y ago
When 'the public square' was a physical location rather than a social media feed.
- pfisch 3y ago
  There is really no point in us history where getting your viewpoint out there wasn't done with media like newspapers. You could always go yell at people in the street like a crazy person. You still can.
- Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
  The public square had a very minimal reach. If you wanted to reach significant numbers of people you had to pay or get a sponsor.
didntcheck 3y ago
Probably never, but the past being bad is hardly a justification for present inaction
- pfisch 3y ago
  I don't know if you've noticed, but in the short time since we have basically removed all gatekeepers things have not gone well. Our democracy is on the verge of collapsing because liars and frauds have grabbed their newly available megaphone and convinced a very significant portion of the population that any election they lose is rigged. If our democracy even survives this, which is questionable right now, we really need to rein in social media if we don't want to live under a despot.

When in all of US history were private companies not controlling the public discourse and "censoring free speech"?

by pfisch 3y ago

When in all of US history were private companies not controlling the public discourse and "censoring free speech"?

Never. In fact, the reason the First Amendment limits the government, exclusively, is that the ability to abridge free speech (to choose which forms of speech you support, spread, or disassociate from) is implicitly a part of individual liberty, held by the people. Free speech has never guaranteed anyone a platform. That's not a bug, it's a feature. Yes, it can be messy. Yes, it can be abused. Yes, it means social media companies are allowed to ban you for any reason they like, just as restaurants are allowed to refuse you service. Yes it means ISPs don't have to do business with nazis and assholes. The alternative is that the government - that controls the monopoly on violence - controls all speech, at all levels, and any business that engages in any form of speech. That it forces you to publish speech against your will, against your interests, even against your safety. The great thing about ISPs being private is that you can always find another ISP. Kiwifarms did. Being banned from social media isn't the end of the world. But I can't as easily find another government if mine reads my social media posts and decides I'm too "woke" to live.

zeroCalories 3y ago
You're not free to not associate with people in the U.S. Businesses are not allowed to discriminate against protected classes. This is because businesses are foundational to modern life, so being excluded from them greatly hurts a person. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that we should look to expand such protections to all people for certain services, especially those which are more like infrastructure for modern life. Not saying sites can't have a TOS, but an ISP should have a really good business reason for blocking you(illegal activity, spam).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- krapp 3y ago
  >You're not free to not associate with people in the U.S. Yes I am. If Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door I am perfectly within my rights to tell them to go away. I don't have to go to church if I don't want to. I'm perfectly allowed not to associate with racists and homophobes. Businesses are not allowed to discriminate against protected classes, true, but being an asshole is not a protected class, and every bar and restaurant still has a sign saying they can refuse service to anyone. >Not saying sites can't have a TOS, but an ISP should have a really good business reason for blocking you(illegal activity, spam). I'd be willing to agree if I didn't remember the last few months of vociferous support for repealing Section 230, having the government take over social media platforms and make TOS's and most forms of moderation illegal. Even make "algorithms" illegal. On the one hand, I get the free speech argument, but on the other hand, there is a right-wing accelerationist agenda using that argument to push the Overton window of acceptable regulations far enough that it becomes illegal, de facto or de jure, for any site to engage in any form of moderation. I don't believe for a second that people are going to be satisfied with simply regulating ISPs, even if I'm far more sympathetic to the argument that they should be considered infrastructure than websites themselves. For the time being, the market seems to be working. Conservative and right-wing alternatives are rising to take advantage of sites being pushed out of the mainstream, and I think that's acceptable.
  - zeroCalories 3y ago
    > Yes I am. If Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door I am perfectly within my rights to tell them to go away. I don't have to go to church if I don't want to. I'm perfectly allowed not to associate with racists and homophobes. > Businesses are not allowed to discriminate against protected classes, true, but being an asshole is not a protected class, and every bar and restaurant still has a sign saying they can refuse service to anyone. Clearly I'm not talking about interpersonal association. We're talking about your freedom when conducting business, which is normal to regulate in the U.S in this way. > I'd be willing to agree if I didn't remember the last few months of vociferous support for repealing Section 230, having the government take over social media platforms and make TOS's and most forms of moderation illegal. Even make "algorithms" illegal. Do you think I support repealing section 230 when I said "Not saying sites can't have a TOS"? > On the one hand, I get the free speech argument Nothing I said has anything to do with free speech. As stated above, I think it's fine for sites to moderate themselves in a partisan manner. > but on the other hand, there is a right-wing accelerationist agenda using that argument to push the Overton window of acceptable regulations far enough that it becomes illegal, de facto or de jure, for any site to engage in any form of moderation. I don't believe for a second that people are going to be satisfied with simply regulating ISPs, even if I'm far more sympathetic to the argument that they should be considered infrastructure than websites themselves. There are other threats besides right wing extremism, like the centralization of power. Even if the power is wielded by some collective consciousness, I have interests that are not shared by the collective, so I don't want them having the ability to dictate my life. I think many people would also share this concern, so the government is a good way to solve that. > For the time being, the market seems to be working. Conservative and right-wing alternatives are rising to take advantage of sites being pushed out of the mainstream, and I think that's acceptable. That seems to be the exact opposite of what you want, doesn't it?Extremism is very popular and profitable.
- rascul 3y ago
  > You're not free to not associate with people in the U.S. I'm not? There are certain exceptions, such as certain police interactions, or a court order, or protected classes when I'm doing business stuff, but I don't think that's correct in general.
lr4444lr 3y ago
I think the concept of Common Carrier is a direct refutation to what you're saying, but hey, that's just my opinion.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hexage1814 3y ago
>it means social media companies are allowed to ban you for any reason they like Can they ban someone for being black or gay? Do you think they should have this right, since they are private corporations?
- tomtheelder 3y ago
  Amendment to the post you are responding to: any reason aside from membership in a protected class. Political belief does not, and absolutely should not, constitute a protected class.
hattmall 3y ago
Focus on speech though. Can the Phone company cut you off because of the content of your communication? Assuming you aren't breaking any other law like harassment? The deciding factor is if your business revolves around facilitating speech. The law has some way to go to catch up with the current state of affairs, but right now the government is enjoying the power of censoring that speech so it may not be an easy path.
- chonkerz 3y ago
  Kiwifarms is breaking a lot of harassment and stalking laws.
  - hexage1814 3y ago
    Good, then it should be easy for the police to shutdown the website if that's the case. Tell the authorities and let the justice system to deal with it.
    - mftrhu 3y ago
      > That’s what must happen here. The cops and the courts should be working to protect the victims of KF and go after the perpetrators with every legal tool at their disposal. We should be giving them the resources and societal mandate to do so. Solid enforcement of existing laws is something that has been sorely lacking for harassment and abuse online, and it’s one of the reasons people turn to censorship strategies. Finally, we should enact strong data privacy laws that target, among others, the data brokers whose services help enable doxxing. But the authorities and the justice system seem unwilling to do so, and - in the face of their refusal to act - you can't expect people to just give up and not defend themselves, not when they can exert other forms of pressure.
      - hexage1814 3y ago
        >But the authorities and the justice system seem unwilling to do so To me sounds like a conspiracy theory. If their crimes are so unquestionable and clear, it should be pretty easy and straightforward to prove it in a court of law. The other alternative being, of course, that there is no crime happening here, at least under the US law, and their actions, as tasteless and despicable as they might be, are covered under the american law and KF opponents are using corporations to censor legally protected speech.

lmm 3y ago

We didn't used to let private companies control the public discourse. The mail is government-run and there are mail privacy protections as deep as the constitution. In the age of radio and TV we at least had the equal time rule and some level of public oversight.

shadowgovt 3y ago
And an FCC that could yank your broadcast license for transmitting obscenity.
- lmm 3y ago
  Sure, but there's at least some democratic accountability to that.
pfisch 3y ago
The mail wasn't really public discourse though. Newspapers/tv/radio were, and no one was giving nazi's equal time on every issue. Newspapers only ever published what they wanted to, censoring any viewpoint they felt like censoring.
Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
> control the public discourse The truth is that before the internet, there wasn't really any genuine public discourse. If you wanted any reach at all, you had to go through a gatekeeper of some sort.
tomtheelder 3y ago
Following all my opinion, but easier to write without constant hedging: IMO public discourse is less controlled by private corporations/organizations now than at basically any other point in our history, with the possible exception of like, 10 years ago. There was never previously any realistic method for a private citizen to gain a platform to meaningfully influence discourse. Traditional media _literally_ defined the narratives in play. I’d argue that a whole lot of the ideological carnage and polarization going on is directly a result of the “democratization” of public discourse. While there was some oversight, the reality is that news media still had basically total control over whatever narrative they were interested in pushing. In fact, I’d argue that a lot of the ideological chaos and subsequent censorship we have seen recently is precisely a result of private corporations losing control of public discourse.

stale2002 3y ago

When we made laws to prevent them from doing so. In the US, related to this specific situation, the laws are called "Net Neutrality" and "Common Carrier" laws. Such laws are well established and uncontroversial. Pretty much everyone agrees that it is a good thing that the power company can't shut off your electricity just because you said something that it didn't like.

pfisch 3y ago
Those weren't really the public square or a mass communication system though. You're kinda comparing apples and oranges.
- stale2002 3y ago
  If you want an example of something that is almost quite literally the public square, you could look at the court case robin vs pruneyard. In this case, the government forced privately owned malls to allow political protests. So yes the government has forced public squares to be open to the public and prevents private companies from censoring political speech in those public squares. > or a mass communication system though Common carriers quite literally are mass communication systems. What do you think common carriers "carry"? The answer is that many of them carry communication. Things like the phone system are for mass communication. So yes, we have laws that effect both the public square and mass communication systems. ISPs are also communication systems and laws called "net neutrality" laws force them to do certain things. In fact, this article itself is about how the ISP is acting illegally and is breaking existing laws about what the ISPs can censor.

bluescrn 3y ago

When 'the public square' was a physical location rather than a social media feed.

pfisch 3y ago
There is really no point in us history where getting your viewpoint out there wasn't done with media like newspapers. You could always go yell at people in the street like a crazy person. You still can.
Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
The public square had a very minimal reach. If you wanted to reach significant numbers of people you had to pay or get a sponsor.

didntcheck 3y ago

Probably never, but the past being bad is hardly a justification for present inaction

pfisch 3y ago
I don't know if you've noticed, but in the short time since we have basically removed all gatekeepers things have not gone well. Our democracy is on the verge of collapsing because liars and frauds have grabbed their newly available megaphone and convinced a very significant portion of the population that any election they lose is rigged. If our democracy even survives this, which is questionable right now, we really need to rein in social media if we don't want to live under a despot.