13 ms·
At what point can we finally admit there is a coordinated war on against freedom of expression online? The platforms censor on their own accord, the government
by sneak 3y ago
At what point can we finally admit there is a coordinated war on against freedom of expression online?
The platforms censor on their own accord, the government pushes the platforms to censor even more, the legislature is talking about ways to make the platforms censor more yet.
It seems they're afraid of the situation where anyone can publish to anyone regardless of content. Our efforts should be along these lines, on the most popular of devices.
TikTok doesn't even let you access bio links in a normal browser, and you can't copy them. You can get banned from TikTok based on what you have listed in your bio link webpage on a different service.
Instagram doesn't linkify URLs in comments or descriptions.
Apple doesn't let things in the App Store unless they're firmly PG13. This is what killed Tumblr and ruins the photography site 500px's native app.
There are whole domains of URLs that you can't even send in DM on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, or Discord.
Personally I delete my accounts on these and use Signal exclusively, but how do we solve for the society-wide censorship problem?
- akerl_ 3y agoThese don’t really sound like examples of a war on expression, nor are they really related to the government making questionable requests of private companies. Instagram isn’t obligated to render text in their app in a way that you’d prefer.
- vorpalhex 3y agoFreedom of speech isn't just about what the government does. We can dislike a platform because it's a poor means of expression and urge people to stop using it.
- lolinder 3y agoDislike away, but don't justify your dislike of a specific UX using the language of human rights abuse. An app kind of sucking is not a humanitarian crisis.
- User23 3y agoAccessibility is one obvious counter-example of where a specific UX “kind of sucking” can in fact be a humanitarian crisis, albeit one that disproportionately affects disabled persons. Fortunately we have laws on the books for that and people have sued and won.
- lolinder 3y agoI'll grant that, but that still doesn't excuse OP making it sound like this UX issue is about freedom of expression. I'd readily believe that Instagram's UX is bad for screen readers.
- prepend 3y agoUX that limits expression (not linking urls, not allowing some speech) is just that. These apps limit expression because it makes them more money. But they still limit expression. Instagram doesn’t want you linking out of instagram so you stay and view more ads. Tiktok bans for off site bios because it wants less controversy so they sell more ads. Etc etc.
- akerl_ 3y agoBy this logic, a forum for cooking that doesn’t permit discussion of biking is “limiting expression”. As is a restaurant that doesn’t let me stand up and start singing in their dining room. Being a private entity that allows users to express themselves isn’t a restriction on the types of expression you don’t allow. The default is that Instagram doesn’t exist, not that it exists and must all anything you want it to.
- prepend 3y agoIt is limiting expression. Just like removing spam. Or HN not allowing personal attacks. The question is the extent of the limitation. And what’s “reasonable.”
- 3y ago
- akerl_ 3y agoI never suggested you couldn’t dislike a platform. I dislike eggplant, but I’m not going around saying eggplant is part of a war on broccoli consumption.
- vorpalhex 3y agoLet's say if _every_ restaurant in town, when you tried to order broccoli, gave you eggplant instead. You say "hey, I don't want eggplant, I don't like eggplant" and the restaurants response is to say "but eggplant is really good and only bad people don't like eggplant. You aren't anti-eggplant are you?" It's not an issue when it's one restaurant - that's just weird - but when it starts being 90%... 95%.. when they restaurants all get together and form an anti-broccoli commission, and start colluding to make selling broccoli illegal.. When the restaurants go to the Federal Government and say they need laws making broccoli illegal?
- akerl_ 3y agoRestaurants are free to petition the government, in the same way that you're free to petition the government. And insofar as there has been lobbying to make some kinds of expression illegal, I've generally been opposed to it. But as far as I can tell, every modern example of a group lobbying the government to make kinds of expression illegal have not come from social media platforms, they've come from Republican lobbying groups trying to get books banned or drag shows banned.
- vorpalhex 3y agoWell, we're commenting on an article where the Whitehouse, the President of the United States, has been told to stop abusing their authority to censor speech. I would point out those book bans are not banned from reading or publication.. they are banned from school libraries because they have graphic descriptions of sex. If you feel it's important for your kid to be exposed to a storybook primer on gay oral sex... I suppose you should write your congressperson. And in banning drag shows, the prohibition is on drag shows with underage attendees, usually without parental permission. Again, if you feel your kid needs to see someone in drag hip thrust in yoga pants on a stage without your consent.. you're welcome to lobby for that as you see fit. I will spend my time fighting and continuing to fight for the freedom of expression.
- alistairSH 3y agoFreedom of speech isn't just about what the government does. As far as the first amendment is concerned, government limitation of free speech, political speech in particular, is what matters.
- User23 3y ago> Instagram isn’t obligated to render text in their app in a way that you’d prefer. They are if we pass a law saying that they are. Suggesting such a law be passed is just normal democracy.
- mannykannot 3y agoBy exactly the same argument, OP's "coordinated war against freedom of expression online" is also "just normal democracy."
- User23 3y agoNo, because that didn’t involve any sort of legislative action and is in fact clearly contrary to legislative intent.
- mannykannot 3y agoOn the contrary: yes, because that's irrelevant; the back-and-forth between disparate interests, and over interpretations of current legislation (and the constitution, for that matter), is just what normal democracy has that is lacking from other polities.
- User23 3y agoI don’t know what to say other than that is obviously and completely incorrect and anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history should know that.
- mannykannot 3y agoIt seems, then, that I am to be judged wrong just on your say-so, for no particular reason.
- akerl_ 3y agoI wouldn’t have made the reply I did if the post I replied to was advocating passing laws about social media platforms.
- sneak 3y agoBut if Instagram is blocking links in DMs between second and third parties at the request of the state (which we saw happening at Twitter), then that is a different matter entirely. What makes you think Meta would be exempt from the same pressure Twitter received, given that Meta's platform is larger?
- tgv 3y ago> how do we solve for the society-wide censorship problem Or: how do we "solve for" the people-that-want-absolute-freedom-of-speech problem? Because that's the other side of the coin. Some mild restrictions on what can or cannot be said in public environments is not tyranny.
- ttt3ts 3y agoMaybe you should read the text of the first amendment?
- chomp 3y agoI don’t think you understand the first amendment - there are numerous Supreme Court decisions that place limits: obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, speech integral to criminal conduct, threats, child pornography. You cannot have absolutism in a well functioning country.
- MightyBuzzard 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- shaftoe 3y agoMild is subjective. Truth isn't determined by a majority. Tyranny is on a dimmer switch.
- tgv 3y ago> Truth isn't determined by a majority. It's not about truth. It's about stability, safety. How do you keep a bunch of pretty hard-core fascist propagandists from stirring up the people without any repercussion? A government needs control, or it loses its legitimacy. I think that's at least implied in the main text of the constitution.
- lalaland1125 3y ago> Instagram doesn't linkify URLs in comments or descriptions. You think this is evidence of a "coordinated war on against freedom of expression online"?
- sneak 3y agoYes. https://www.anildash.com/2019/12/10/link-in-bio-is-how-they-tried-to-kill-the-web/ https://www.anildash.com/2019/12/10/link-in-bio-is-how-they-... It's an attack on the web, to promote censorship platforms that replace it.
- progrus 3y agoIt’s a big catch-22 kind of problem. “Politics is downstream from culture” but right now politics is being weaponized against culture.
- thsksbd 3y agoDecentralize. Break up social media into far smaller segments with the segments required to provide api for competing services and for users to download their data. Also, the data should be obscure to the company Facebook account should only be able to encrypted junk. My friends, then are given decryption keys. Of course, there needs to be through data auditing requirements for any large store of data, just like we mandate external audits of any large publicly traded company
- drewcoo 3y agoThat idea turns what was a soapbox into a lot of tiny speakeasies. It's a very different model. And one that also goes against free expression. "You're free to express yourself as much as you like with people you invite to your private room" is the sex motel model of free speech.
- RosanaAnaDana 3y agoWelcome to Lemmy.
- yanderekko 3y ago>At what point can we finally admit there is a coordinated war on against freedom of expression online? Just call it a war of hate speech or "disinformation" instead and plenty of people will admit it.
- conartist6 3y agoI think there's a very reasonable distinction here between platforms that publish content without promoting it, and what Facebook is in the business of doing which is promoting content. Facebook opens itself to additional liability by increasing the reach of posts which do well. In practical terms I see the basic issue as being a lack of downvotes. Users can do nothing to combat disinformation, because every form of engagement boosts posts.
- liquidpele 3y ago[flagged]
- lolinder 3y ago> Instagram doesn't linkify URLs in comments or descriptions. This is a personal preference you have that Instagram decided against in order to offer a slightly larger barrier to scams. Not a great example. > This is what killed Tumblr and ruins the photography site 500px's native app. I know nothing about 500px, but forcing PG-13 killed Tumblr because Tumblr was built on NSFW. They tried to pivot too late. Apple has never had their brand wrapped up in NSFW—on the contrary, their brand is explicitly family-friendly and this policy is designed to keep it that way. Honestly, there may well be a coordinated war on freedom of expression, but your examples kind of suck. Each of them is trivially explained by companies pursuing their own goals in ways that are only vaguely related to each other and only tangentially related to freedom of expression.
- cowpig 3y agoI really don't get it. There was a massive wave of misinformation during covid-19 that contributed to the USA having the worst mortality count of any country. A lot of people died. This isn't a case where people thought the wrong things and it made them vote wrong. It caused them to spread diseases to other people and kill them. That's what this court case is about right? I'm shocked that people think this is a case where the government should not step in. I think they should have been much more aggressive.
- MightyBuzzard 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- throwawa14223 3y agoWhy does the state have an interest in what free people choose to talk about?
- acdha 3y agoThe state has an interest in keeping people alive, and in having people not make decisions which will negatively impact those around them. Someone not taking simple precautions like wearing a mask or getting vaccinated and taking a bed in a full hospital is a legitimate state concern – but a time-limited one, too, which is only compelling during a crisis.
- Gartent 3y agoThe state has an interest in forcing people to make the Right Decisions. Thus... who cares about free speech anyway, when it can lead to the Wrong Decisions? But yes, that is one of many Legitimate State Concerns.
- melindajb 3y agoIt's sad that you're being downvoted only because you disagreed with the prevailing pov here. for all its talk of being an open exchange of ideas, HN often devolves into exactly the opposite.
- causality0 3y agoThey don't have to admit it because nobody is against it anymore. Everyone just has a different idea of what should and should not be allowed, even what should and should not be legal.
- Zetice 3y agoThe only war against freedom of expression is the constant threat of no longer allowing private organizations their freedom of speech by letting them publish what they want. Society doesn’t have a censorship problem, we have an entitlement problem. People now apparently think they’re entitled to someone else’s platform, when they’re not.
- anon291 3y agoIt's one thing for instagram to not show things; it's quite another for the government to even request they not.
- Zetice 3y agoNo it isn’t, not so long as Instagram is the one making the decision.
- prepend 3y agoThe the government requesting your employer fire you is ok as long as your employer makes the decision? That’s not how the law works. The government can’t limit speech, except in rare exceptions. Making suggestions to limit speech is still limiting speech.
- Zetice 3y agoAbsolutely, request away, and yes it is absolutely how the law works. Anyone can ask for anything, you’re free to just say no. You do not have an absolute right to free speech when it impinges on the free speech rights of somebody else.
- Karunamon 3y agoAn entity that has power over you "asking" you to do anything is inherently coercive.
- zeckalpha 3y agoHow do you balance the free speech of the platform operator relative to the free speech of the members of the platform? There is some zero sum free speech here. If you require platform operators to include all of their member's speech, you are violating the operators speech.
- Karunamon 3y agoThe operators, as corporate entities (that only exist at the government's permission in the first place) rather than human beings, do not have all the same freedoms. Their behavior can be coerced or restricted in many different ways.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoThis is a valid argument when it comes to things like recommendations but there are some simple functions of platforms that in no way constitute the platforms speech: - When two people privately chat with each other, this is not the chat platforms speech, anymore then a phone call is the phone company's speech, it is something that should fall under common carrier laws, just like phone companies. - When someone explicitly decides to follow someone else and that person posts something, then relaying that post is not the platforms speech, anymore then delivering a magazine to a subscriber is the postal services speech.
- zeckalpha 3y agoThat analogy falls down because there is speech you aren't allowed to convey via the telephone or postal service.