3 ms·

If "free speech" doesn't mean "protecting speech I don't like" then it means nothing at all. 60 years ago, it meant "protecting the rights of non-white, non-st

If "free speech" doesn't mean "protecting speech I don't like" then it means nothing at all. 60 years ago, it meant "protecting the rights of non-white, non-straight, non-religious people." It could mean that again someday.

chasing 3y ago
I believe the people who signed this define "free speech" as "forcing Twitter to promote every dumb thing I say."
- ertian 3y ago
  What makes you believe that?
  - hotnfresh 3y ago
    That's very nearly the only kind of thing happening that is among their grievances. Most of their issues boil down to "someone else won't promote a thing I want them to" or "someone else said a thing (about a thing another someone said) that I don't like". I'm sensitive to the notion that megacorps have positioned themselves as a replacement for the commons, but to address the issues these folks have without making some really weird speech-policy moves, we'd need to take those same platforms out of the "promoting" game entirely, which would both kill those platforms (no complaints here, let's do it) and make them uninteresting to the people signing declarations like this. Otherwise, we're doing the equivalent of saying "it's not enough that I can hand out home-printed fliers of my op-ed on the street corner—nobody takes them! The NYT must be both compelled to publish them and prohibited from expressing their belief that these are a bunch of nonsense!" I don't think Facebook, Twitter, Google, et c. should be taking on the role of editors, publishers, and promoters without the usual amount of responsibility, but as long as we're allowing that, I don't think it makes sense to force them to promote or publish everything or to editorially frame everything a certain way, which is exactly what these folks want.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      ad hominem attacks: is that all you've got? Where do you see anything about "twitter must promote my views"? Where do you see anything about NYT, or anyone, being prohibited from publishing its own reaction? When I search for "Twitter" I find a reference to the Twitter files, which demonstrated that governmental units communicated directly with social networks to get them to censor certain viewpoints. Shortly SCOTUS will probably rule on that, which should settle the matter of whether that's even legal (prediction: it's not). As for "a bunch of nonsense" -- that's what free speech is: the right to spew a bunch of nonsense. And as for socials being "forced" -- it's sufficient if they follow the same rules named for the licensing of standards-essential patents: FRAND: fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory
      - hotnfresh 3y ago
        > ad hominem attacks: is that all you've got? No, there was also the other 95% of my post. > Where do you see anything about "twitter must promote my views"? Where do you see anything about NYT, or anyone, being prohibited from publishing its own reaction? NYT was an example, to illustrate the role of internet media companies in terms of Old Media. I don't literally mean the NYT is one of this group's specific targets. Sorry that wasn't clear. As for the rest, it's in the linked declaration that this thread's about. Aside from worrying about government censorship programs (sure, that'd be bad, OK) it's really the only other thing in it, in fact. The signatories don't want Twitter (and more than just Twitter, since we had the confusion above—that's an example, to be clear) to express their opinion that certain posts are nonsense, or to remove tweets Twitter doesn't want to publish. That's censorship and compelled speech. FWIW I think certain core things about how social media companies operate ought to be illegal (all the spying) or ought to shift more legal liability onto them (they are publishers, whatever they claim), such that they'd probably all have to shutter, so it's not that I love social media companies—but these folks want to compel speech and censor, it's literally what they're asking for. Meanwhile, if they don't want to force someone to promote and publish their speech for them, they have plenty of outlets for that [EDIT Like their own website—and oh, look, that's exactly where they've published this!]—yet here we are, so I guess they do want that. > When I search for "Twitter" I find a reference to the Twitter files, which demonstrated that governmental units communicated directly with social networks to get them to censor certain viewpoints. Shortly SCOTUS will probably rule on that, which should settle the matter of whether that's even legal (prediction: it's not). K. > As for "a bunch of nonsense" -- that's what free speech is: the right to spew a bunch of nonsense. Fine? > And as for socials being "forced" -- it's sufficient if they follow the same rules named for the licensing of standards-essential patents: > FRAND: fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory I entirely don't see what that has to do with this. [EDIT] Actually, let me amend that: let's say we apply this rule to social media for some reason, then where's the room for their simply not wanting to publish, promote, or frame your post as you'd prefer, for any reason they choose? This is the exact thing I'm writing about! You wondered where I'm getting this from, look at your own post!
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Is that based on something you know but isn't written down?
- t0bia_s 3y ago
  Define "dumb".

chasing 3y ago

I believe the people who signed this define "free speech" as "forcing Twitter to promote every dumb thing I say."

ertian 3y ago
What makes you believe that?
- hotnfresh 3y ago
  That's very nearly the only kind of thing happening that is among their grievances. Most of their issues boil down to "someone else won't promote a thing I want them to" or "someone else said a thing (about a thing another someone said) that I don't like". I'm sensitive to the notion that megacorps have positioned themselves as a replacement for the commons, but to address the issues these folks have without making some really weird speech-policy moves, we'd need to take those same platforms out of the "promoting" game entirely, which would both kill those platforms (no complaints here, let's do it) and make them uninteresting to the people signing declarations like this. Otherwise, we're doing the equivalent of saying "it's not enough that I can hand out home-printed fliers of my op-ed on the street corner—nobody takes them! The NYT must be both compelled to publish them and prohibited from expressing their belief that these are a bunch of nonsense!" I don't think Facebook, Twitter, Google, et c. should be taking on the role of editors, publishers, and promoters without the usual amount of responsibility, but as long as we're allowing that, I don't think it makes sense to force them to promote or publish everything or to editorially frame everything a certain way, which is exactly what these folks want.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    ad hominem attacks: is that all you've got? Where do you see anything about "twitter must promote my views"? Where do you see anything about NYT, or anyone, being prohibited from publishing its own reaction? When I search for "Twitter" I find a reference to the Twitter files, which demonstrated that governmental units communicated directly with social networks to get them to censor certain viewpoints. Shortly SCOTUS will probably rule on that, which should settle the matter of whether that's even legal (prediction: it's not). As for "a bunch of nonsense" -- that's what free speech is: the right to spew a bunch of nonsense. And as for socials being "forced" -- it's sufficient if they follow the same rules named for the licensing of standards-essential patents: FRAND: fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory
    - hotnfresh 3y ago
      > ad hominem attacks: is that all you've got? No, there was also the other 95% of my post. > Where do you see anything about "twitter must promote my views"? Where do you see anything about NYT, or anyone, being prohibited from publishing its own reaction? NYT was an example, to illustrate the role of internet media companies in terms of Old Media. I don't literally mean the NYT is one of this group's specific targets. Sorry that wasn't clear. As for the rest, it's in the linked declaration that this thread's about. Aside from worrying about government censorship programs (sure, that'd be bad, OK) it's really the only other thing in it, in fact. The signatories don't want Twitter (and more than just Twitter, since we had the confusion above—that's an example, to be clear) to express their opinion that certain posts are nonsense, or to remove tweets Twitter doesn't want to publish. That's censorship and compelled speech. FWIW I think certain core things about how social media companies operate ought to be illegal (all the spying) or ought to shift more legal liability onto them (they are publishers, whatever they claim), such that they'd probably all have to shutter, so it's not that I love social media companies—but these folks want to compel speech and censor, it's literally what they're asking for. Meanwhile, if they don't want to force someone to promote and publish their speech for them, they have plenty of outlets for that [EDIT Like their own website—and oh, look, that's exactly where they've published this!]—yet here we are, so I guess they do want that. > When I search for "Twitter" I find a reference to the Twitter files, which demonstrated that governmental units communicated directly with social networks to get them to censor certain viewpoints. Shortly SCOTUS will probably rule on that, which should settle the matter of whether that's even legal (prediction: it's not). K. > As for "a bunch of nonsense" -- that's what free speech is: the right to spew a bunch of nonsense. Fine? > And as for socials being "forced" -- it's sufficient if they follow the same rules named for the licensing of standards-essential patents: > FRAND: fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory I entirely don't see what that has to do with this. [EDIT] Actually, let me amend that: let's say we apply this rule to social media for some reason, then where's the room for their simply not wanting to publish, promote, or frame your post as you'd prefer, for any reason they choose? This is the exact thing I'm writing about! You wondered where I'm getting this from, look at your own post!
AlbertCory 3y ago
Is that based on something you know but isn't written down?
t0bia_s 3y ago
Define "dumb".