5 ms·

> If you’re an economic loser as a result, that is not a failure of free speech This neatly avoids the question of whether we should want advertisers and multi

> If you’re an economic loser as a result, that is not a failure of free speech This neatly avoids the question of whether we should want advertisers and multi-billion dollar corporations to be gatekeepers of the public sphere. As usual, laissez-faire when things are going my way, anti-discrimination and disparate impact laws when they're not.

mcpackieh 3y ago
Our "public spheres" are in fact not public, but rather are private property. Advertisers having control over them is a consequence of this. If you actually go into town IRL and talk in the public square, no advertiser will be able to silence you because the public square is actually public. Or if you use an actually public means of communication like the postal service, again you won't be cut out because some corporate advertisers consider your speech bad for business. This phenomenon of corporate advertisers being gatekeepers of the "public sphere" only exists in actually-not-public spaces.
- SenAnder 3y ago
  Public sphere as in the places and platforms hosting most public conversations these days. I am aware they are privately owned.
  - defrost 3y ago
    That Rubicon was crossed long before mass general public internet forums - Mall Cops policing privately owned shopping malls were enforcing the control of the spaces where most of the public convened .. particularly in smaller population centres that had seen their local shopping areas razed to the ground by price cutting mega stores.
- ytoawwhra92 3y ago
  > This phenomenon of corporate advertisers being gatekeepers of the "public sphere" only exists in actually-not-public spaces. I disagree with this. A very common example is a person saying a thing outside of work, that thing being brought to the attention of their employer, and their employer firing them. People know this happens, and it creates a chilling effect on what they say regardless of whether they're in a public or actually-not-public space.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  > Our "public spheres" are in fact not public, but rather are private property. You have misunderstood the meaning of the word "public", because it is often used for government provided things. Many private establishments are public spheres, the most common example are Pubs - short for Public Houses. So you have completely misunderstood the word and arguing from your mistaken assumption.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    I haven't misunderstood anything. In a "public house" you can be kicked out of the owner doesn't like what you're saying, because it's private property. In places which are actually public, like a town square, this isn't the case. I understand that it is conventional to speak of some places that are private property as being public, but they are not public in the sense that actually counts for the protection of free speech.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      Some private properties really are part of the public sphere, counting for the protection of free speech. The main example being printed newspapers, that will print opinion pieces sent to them, even when they go against the private owner's interest, even when the opinion piece comes from a political enemy. They are privately owned public forums. Other examples of public spheres in private hands are the internet provider you're using to read my comment and write your own reply. The ISP doesn't interfere with your free speech. E-Mail is another great example of a public sphere. You can freely send your opinion to any and all the people you want. In some countries, all unexploited nature is considered public space. Trump's Twitter was deemed a public forum. It has nothing to do with government ownership, even though most physical public forums are government owned, such as parks, streets and squares.
- pauldenton 3y ago
  [dead]

mcpackieh 3y ago

Our "public spheres" are in fact not public, but rather are private property. Advertisers having control over them is a consequence of this. If you actually go into town IRL and talk in the public square, no advertiser will be able to silence you because the public square is actually public. Or if you use an actually public means of communication like the postal service, again you won't be cut out because some corporate advertisers consider your speech bad for business. This phenomenon of corporate advertisers being gatekeepers of the "public sphere" only exists in actually-not-public spaces.

SenAnder 3y ago
Public sphere as in the places and platforms hosting most public conversations these days. I am aware they are privately owned.
- defrost 3y ago
  That Rubicon was crossed long before mass general public internet forums - Mall Cops policing privately owned shopping malls were enforcing the control of the spaces where most of the public convened .. particularly in smaller population centres that had seen their local shopping areas razed to the ground by price cutting mega stores.
ytoawwhra92 3y ago
> This phenomenon of corporate advertisers being gatekeepers of the "public sphere" only exists in actually-not-public spaces. I disagree with this. A very common example is a person saying a thing outside of work, that thing being brought to the attention of their employer, and their employer firing them. People know this happens, and it creates a chilling effect on what they say regardless of whether they're in a public or actually-not-public space.
carlosjobim 3y ago
> Our "public spheres" are in fact not public, but rather are private property. You have misunderstood the meaning of the word "public", because it is often used for government provided things. Many private establishments are public spheres, the most common example are Pubs - short for Public Houses. So you have completely misunderstood the word and arguing from your mistaken assumption.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  I haven't misunderstood anything. In a "public house" you can be kicked out of the owner doesn't like what you're saying, because it's private property. In places which are actually public, like a town square, this isn't the case. I understand that it is conventional to speak of some places that are private property as being public, but they are not public in the sense that actually counts for the protection of free speech.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    Some private properties really are part of the public sphere, counting for the protection of free speech. The main example being printed newspapers, that will print opinion pieces sent to them, even when they go against the private owner's interest, even when the opinion piece comes from a political enemy. They are privately owned public forums. Other examples of public spheres in private hands are the internet provider you're using to read my comment and write your own reply. The ISP doesn't interfere with your free speech. E-Mail is another great example of a public sphere. You can freely send your opinion to any and all the people you want. In some countries, all unexploited nature is considered public space. Trump's Twitter was deemed a public forum. It has nothing to do with government ownership, even though most physical public forums are government owned, such as parks, streets and squares.
pauldenton 3y ago
[dead]