3 ms·

No one should be banned for content that isn't illegal. Anything less promotes partisan abuse of censorship mechanisms, which harms democracy. First amendment l

No one should be banned for content that isn't illegal. Anything less promotes partisan abuse of censorship mechanisms, which harms democracy. First amendment law provides an adequate guideline, as enforced everywhere else and as defined by the Supreme Court. But yes, government representatives are different than the rest of us as they are the public voices of their constituents. Silencing them is the same as silencing their mass of voters. Which, again, is deeply antidemocratic. Today, too many people believe in the unresolvable paradox that democracy only exists when their views are spoken to and when they win. Continuing with the paradox: at the same time, they believe that those who are too much of a "threat to democracy" to speak (or win) have to keep believing in the system or democracy is also at risk. Censorship "in defense of democracy" has rendered the national discussion to be ridiculous, on its face.

kevinh 2y ago
That's how you get content that's 90% pornography.
- mrangle 2y ago
  Why? I'm referring to what comprises "good", meaning democratic, policy for political content. Not an autistic implementation of rules or lack thereof. But if you want to plaster a Vote Biden poster on some poor working person, then maybe that's a discussion. But to engage in the nonexistent autistic premise, just because I guess. It's illegal to show pornography to users under 18 years of age. Pornography can be easily blocked on that premise, utilizing a blanket ban and no opt in. 90%+ of users would be fine with that.
- philipkglass 2y ago
  Or 99% spam. Advertising your legal services [1] or auto body shop is not against the law in the US, and the CAN-SPAM act doesn't apply to social media, so people will use automation to post about their business 100 times per hour if platforms can't prohibit that via terms of service. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Canter_and_Martha_Siegel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Canter_and_Martha_Sie...
jasonlotito 2y ago
> No one should be banned for content that isn't illegal. Trump, through policy on Truth Social, disagrees with this statement. > Anything less promotes partisan abuse of censorship mechanisms, which harms democracy. So just to be clear, you are claiming that Trump, through policy on Truth Social, is harming democracy with this policy. > First amendment law provides an adequate guideline, as enforced everywhere else and as defined by the Supreme Court. First Amendment does not apply to the individual. > But yes, government representatives are different than the rest of us as they are the public voices of their constituents. And in that regard, they use that voice to speak within the chambers of congress. That have no extra rights above and beyond that guarantee they can use my personal resources to spread their word. > Silencing them Trump was not silenced. The claim that he was silenced is 100% false, and a lie.
tzs 2y ago
> No one should be banned for content that isn't illegal It is almost essential for the protection of free speech that private entities can and do ban people for content that isn't illegal. When you've only got two categories of speech, (1) legal speech that is allowed everywhere and (2) illegal speech that is banned everywhere, there is going to be a lot of pressure by the majority to expand #2 to cover speech that is currently not illegal but that the majority things is repugnant. By allowing private entities to ban speech that they don't want to have on their platform even if it is legal speech we have a third category between #1 and #2. That reduces the pressure to expand #2.
thaumasiotes 2y ago
> No one should be banned for content that isn't illegal. That problem is easily solved by making more content illegal. ;p

kevinh 2y ago

That's how you get content that's 90% pornography.

mrangle 2y ago
Why? I'm referring to what comprises "good", meaning democratic, policy for political content. Not an autistic implementation of rules or lack thereof. But if you want to plaster a Vote Biden poster on some poor working person, then maybe that's a discussion. But to engage in the nonexistent autistic premise, just because I guess. It's illegal to show pornography to users under 18 years of age. Pornography can be easily blocked on that premise, utilizing a blanket ban and no opt in. 90%+ of users would be fine with that.
philipkglass 2y ago
Or 99% spam. Advertising your legal services [1] or auto body shop is not against the law in the US, and the CAN-SPAM act doesn't apply to social media, so people will use automation to post about their business 100 times per hour if platforms can't prohibit that via terms of service. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Canter_and_Martha_Siegel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Canter_and_Martha_Sie...

jasonlotito 2y ago

> No one should be banned for content that isn't illegal. Trump, through policy on Truth Social, disagrees with this statement. > Anything less promotes partisan abuse of censorship mechanisms, which harms democracy. So just to be clear, you are claiming that Trump, through policy on Truth Social, is harming democracy with this policy. > First amendment law provides an adequate guideline, as enforced everywhere else and as defined by the Supreme Court. First Amendment does not apply to the individual. > But yes, government representatives are different than the rest of us as they are the public voices of their constituents. And in that regard, they use that voice to speak within the chambers of congress. That have no extra rights above and beyond that guarantee they can use my personal resources to spread their word. > Silencing them Trump was not silenced. The claim that he was silenced is 100% false, and a lie.

tzs 2y ago

> No one should be banned for content that isn't illegal It is almost essential for the protection of free speech that private entities can and do ban people for content that isn't illegal. When you've only got two categories of speech, (1) legal speech that is allowed everywhere and (2) illegal speech that is banned everywhere, there is going to be a lot of pressure by the majority to expand #2 to cover speech that is currently not illegal but that the majority things is repugnant. By allowing private entities to ban speech that they don't want to have on their platform even if it is legal speech we have a third category between #1 and #2. That reduces the pressure to expand #2.

thaumasiotes 2y ago

> No one should be banned for content that isn't illegal. That problem is easily solved by making more content illegal. ;p