2 ms·

It isn’t surprising that they get details wrong. It’s the same NY Times that called the constitution “dangerous”(https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/31/books/review

It isn’t surprising that they get details wrong. It’s the same NY Times that called the constitution “dangerous”(https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/31/books/review/constitution-secession-democracy-crisis.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/31/books/review/constitution...), fanning the flames of a kind of uncivil line of thinking that has unfortunately been more and more popular. But this article itself makes mistakes - it does not seem to understand that the first amendment is about protecting free speech principles, which are actually much bigger than just what the first amendment says. The author makes an illogical claim that there is a category of speech that we want to illegitimize and shield platforms from. This is fundamentally opposed to the principles of free speech. Yes there is the tricky case of spam. But we should not block people based on political views or skepticism about science or anything else that is controversial. The censorship regime of big social media platforms should be viewed as an editorial choice, under law and in principle. Lastly - large social media platforms are utility communication services and public squares. They need to be regulated and treated like a government agency, restricting their ability to ban users and content. After all, so much of today’s speech is on these platforms. Not being able to share your ideas there is similar to not having free speech rights at all.

kaibee 2y ago
> But we should not block people based on political views or skepticism about science or anything else that is controversial. The censorship regime of big social media platforms should be viewed as an editorial choice, under law and in principle. > Lastly - large social media platforms are utility communication services and public squares. They need to be regulated and treated like a government agency, restricting their ability to ban users and content. After all, so much of today’s speech is on these platforms. Not being able to share your ideas there is similar to not having free speech rights at all. This is all well and good, but maybe the place to rehash a debate about whether vaccines work is not in fact, the center town square. I would say that a person who has no idea about any of the underlying science and evidence, but is spreading doubt about it anyway (especially while benefiting financially), is not in fact, 'sharing their ideas', because they don't meet the minimum standard to actually have an opinion on the topic.
- pests 2y ago
  Everyone is equal. Just because they don't "meet the minimum standard" doesn't mean their view or opinion is irrelevant. There are people sprouting crazy ideas in actual public town squares all the time, and they have done so forever. You don't have to go there and you don't have to listen.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  > they don't meet the minimum standard to actually have an opinion on the topic Who should judge that and why? I think that’s what makes free speech a basic right in functional democracies - there is no pre judging it. Challenging authority and science is important if we want to seek truth. In the case of vaccines, for example, people were getting censored for discussing side effects. Myocarditis is now officially acknowledged as a (rare) side effect of the MRNA based COVID vaccines. But not long ago it was labeled as a “conspiracy theory” and you would get banned on Twitter or Reddit for mentioning it.
  - kaibee 2y ago
    > Myocarditis is now officially acknowledged as a (rare) side effect of the MRNA based COVID vaccines. Sure. But the MRNA vaccines were the first ones to be available and the Myocarditis risk from getting COVID-19 while unvaccinated is still multiple times higher than the risk from the MRNA vaccine. So, all that telling people about the risk of myocarditis does is dissuade some portion of people from getting the MRNA vaccine... which leads to more cases of myocarditis/deaths.
pessimizer 2y ago
> the first amendment is about protecting free speech principles, which are actually much bigger than just what the first amendment says. The First Amendment definitely is not about "free speech principles." It's the first of a short list of absolute restraints on the previous text, which is a description of US government, insisted upon by interests suspicious of federalization under that government. Free speech writ large is good and something to fight for, but the First Amendment is not an ideology, it is law. The reason (imo) to talk about the First Amendment in terms of these giant social media platforms is simply because of their size, which was encouraged by friendly government acts such as Section 230 in the first place, without which they couldn't scale. Government encouragement and protection of these platforms gives the government some responsibility for them.

kaibee 2y ago

> But we should not block people based on political views or skepticism about science or anything else that is controversial. The censorship regime of big social media platforms should be viewed as an editorial choice, under law and in principle. > Lastly - large social media platforms are utility communication services and public squares. They need to be regulated and treated like a government agency, restricting their ability to ban users and content. After all, so much of today’s speech is on these platforms. Not being able to share your ideas there is similar to not having free speech rights at all. This is all well and good, but maybe the place to rehash a debate about whether vaccines work is not in fact, the center town square. I would say that a person who has no idea about any of the underlying science and evidence, but is spreading doubt about it anyway (especially while benefiting financially), is not in fact, 'sharing their ideas', because they don't meet the minimum standard to actually have an opinion on the topic.

pests 2y ago
Everyone is equal. Just because they don't "meet the minimum standard" doesn't mean their view or opinion is irrelevant. There are people sprouting crazy ideas in actual public town squares all the time, and they have done so forever. You don't have to go there and you don't have to listen.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
> they don't meet the minimum standard to actually have an opinion on the topic Who should judge that and why? I think that’s what makes free speech a basic right in functional democracies - there is no pre judging it. Challenging authority and science is important if we want to seek truth. In the case of vaccines, for example, people were getting censored for discussing side effects. Myocarditis is now officially acknowledged as a (rare) side effect of the MRNA based COVID vaccines. But not long ago it was labeled as a “conspiracy theory” and you would get banned on Twitter or Reddit for mentioning it.
- kaibee 2y ago
  > Myocarditis is now officially acknowledged as a (rare) side effect of the MRNA based COVID vaccines. Sure. But the MRNA vaccines were the first ones to be available and the Myocarditis risk from getting COVID-19 while unvaccinated is still multiple times higher than the risk from the MRNA vaccine. So, all that telling people about the risk of myocarditis does is dissuade some portion of people from getting the MRNA vaccine... which leads to more cases of myocarditis/deaths.

pessimizer 2y ago

> the first amendment is about protecting free speech principles, which are actually much bigger than just what the first amendment says. The First Amendment definitely is not about "free speech principles." It's the first of a short list of absolute restraints on the previous text, which is a description of US government, insisted upon by interests suspicious of federalization under that government. Free speech writ large is good and something to fight for, but the First Amendment is not an ideology, it is law. The reason (imo) to talk about the First Amendment in terms of these giant social media platforms is simply because of their size, which was encouraged by friendly government acts such as Section 230 in the first place, without which they couldn't scale. Government encouragement and protection of these platforms gives the government some responsibility for them.