3 ms·

> also have monopolies over a certain kind of power But they don’t. Or at least these are completely different types of ‘monopolies’ that don’t necessarily hav

> also have monopolies over a certain kind of power But they don’t. Or at least these are completely different types of ‘monopolies’ that don’t necessarily have that much in common > Freedom of speech and press are part of the first amendment in the US for a reason It only applies to the government though. If taken to the extreme limiting the rights of a social network/other tech platform to spread missinformation or propaganda is a violation of their freedom of speech that’s not clearly compatible with the first amendment.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
> It only applies to the government though. You’re ignoring the “for a reason” part. Freedom of speech and press are principles that are in the first amendment but also exist independent of it, and are older than the US. We should strive to have those values enforced everywhere, not just in the government - but especially at large companies that are immune to competition in many ways. And especially in social media, which is basically a utility for the digital public square. > If taken to the extreme limiting the rights of a social network/other tech platform to spread missinformation or propaganda is a violation of their freedom of speech that’s not clearly compatible with the first amendment. It’s not a violation of their freedom of speech, just like regulating cellphone carriers is not. Social networks are just utilities or common carriers. Like your phone service, they should be obligated to provide service and not deny it, independent of content. Also, the label “misinformation” doesn’t mean anything much these days. It’s just an empty label used to attack opposition, and it is rarely used when the misinformation aligns with the platform owner. Propaganda thrives when different sides’ ideas aren’t given a fair chance, like on most social media platforms. Propaganda is literally a systematic attempt to manipulate public opinion, which is what social media companies are doing when they implement vast moderation/censorship programs that reflect their employees biases.
- ffgjgf1 2y ago
  > Freedom of speech and press are principles that are in the first amendment but also exist independent of it, and are older than the US The constitution was written by the same people who brought you the Alien and Sedition Acts. It’s rather clear that we take the document much, much more seriously than its authorsever did (for whom it was mainly just a collection of nice sounding principles and vague guidelines). Not much changed in the next 100 years. The Sedition Act of 1918 was not struck down as unconstitutional. Something like that would be inconceivable these days. The current interpretation of the first amendment is pretty modern and “freedom of speech” in the way we understand it at least is not something that ever existed on a large scale at any point in the past. > We should strive to have those values enforced everywhere, not just in the government - but especially at large companies How? Do large corporations, their employees, CEOs etc. lose their rights to freedom of speech themselves when their organization surpasses a specific revenue limit?

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

> It only applies to the government though. You’re ignoring the “for a reason” part. Freedom of speech and press are principles that are in the first amendment but also exist independent of it, and are older than the US. We should strive to have those values enforced everywhere, not just in the government - but especially at large companies that are immune to competition in many ways. And especially in social media, which is basically a utility for the digital public square. > If taken to the extreme limiting the rights of a social network/other tech platform to spread missinformation or propaganda is a violation of their freedom of speech that’s not clearly compatible with the first amendment. It’s not a violation of their freedom of speech, just like regulating cellphone carriers is not. Social networks are just utilities or common carriers. Like your phone service, they should be obligated to provide service and not deny it, independent of content. Also, the label “misinformation” doesn’t mean anything much these days. It’s just an empty label used to attack opposition, and it is rarely used when the misinformation aligns with the platform owner. Propaganda thrives when different sides’ ideas aren’t given a fair chance, like on most social media platforms. Propaganda is literally a systematic attempt to manipulate public opinion, which is what social media companies are doing when they implement vast moderation/censorship programs that reflect their employees biases.

ffgjgf1 2y ago
> Freedom of speech and press are principles that are in the first amendment but also exist independent of it, and are older than the US The constitution was written by the same people who brought you the Alien and Sedition Acts. It’s rather clear that we take the document much, much more seriously than its authorsever did (for whom it was mainly just a collection of nice sounding principles and vague guidelines). Not much changed in the next 100 years. The Sedition Act of 1918 was not struck down as unconstitutional. Something like that would be inconceivable these days. The current interpretation of the first amendment is pretty modern and “freedom of speech” in the way we understand it at least is not something that ever existed on a large scale at any point in the past. > We should strive to have those values enforced everywhere, not just in the government - but especially at large companies How? Do large corporations, their employees, CEOs etc. lose their rights to freedom of speech themselves when their organization surpasses a specific revenue limit?