6 ms·

Brendan Carr Makes It Clear That He's Eager to Be America's Top Censor

38 points by coloneltcb 2y ago

anigbrowl 2y ago
One of Masnick's best columns in years. As I've said many times before (although most people rejected my message), the phrase 'free speech' is often deployed to shut down discussion rather than open it up. When you inquire into the speech sort of speech thet people claim is being suppressed, it frequently turns out to be about banning pornography, curtailing the organic spread of unwelcome ideas, or proposals for the suppression of people making the unwelcome speech, by means ranging from deportation to elimination.
- bediger4000 2y ago
  We saw your observations on the phrase "free speech" in action when Mr Musk purchased Twitter. One of his stated goals as a "free speech absolutist" was to bring "free speech" back to Twitter. Now, Mr Musk boosts his own tweets, sells blue checks to bots, which boosts their tweets. All to virtually "shout down" any opposing opinions
  - anon291 2y ago
    And yet according to cnns analysis, Mr Musks platform is more representative of the electorate than every other site.
    - bediger4000 2y ago
      I thought that we broadly disagreed with mainstream media, and generally viewed it with suspicion. Gell-Mann amnesia, anyone?
      - anon291 2y ago
        While I think the editorial take of most mainstream media is crap, I'm not sure I believe their data is made up.
        chowchowchow 2y ago
        how credulous of you.
        anon291 2y ago
        Believe it or not .. we can all agree on the facts but have different conclusions. Such things make life interesting
        bediger4000 2y ago
        With all due respect, I don't think that's true. And when we do agree on facts, one side or the other legislates against collecting the data. The Dickey Amendment has been very effective at eliminating fact based discussion on guns. Project 2025 explicitly advocates against collecting weather data. Lots of state governments, Florida notably, quit collecting COVID mortality data.
        anon291 2y ago
        > Lots of state governments, Florida notably, quit collecting COVID mortality data. And lots of state governments counted deaths with COVID as deaths from COVID... what is the point? As long as the data is presented correctly and represented properly, it remains as it is. In the discussion above, there's no reason to disbelieve the data. The collection and meaning is clear.
        bediger4000 2y ago
        We record all rear-ending automobile accidents as the fault of the car behind. We record all auto accidents where someone has blood alcohol above a certain percentage as "drunk driving" or some synonym. The distinction of "from" and "with" here is one of those. The other examples may be better or worse, and the point stands.
    - joegibbs 2y ago
      I think this is a kind of falling knife-type thing: the makeup of Twitter was far more liberal than conservative a few years ago and it's currently about equal, but in two more years I predict that the trend will continue and it will be far more conservative than liberal.
      - rahimnathwani 2y ago
        [flagged]
        orwin 2y ago
        CrimethInc. This was pure and simple censorship. Not saying that Twitter was better with their censorship of Occupy, but crimethInc was probably the one of the last US influencial left wing org on twitter, and didn't last a month. I think John Brown Gun club was also banned, but reinstated, and redneck revolution don't have such an online presence (and is quieter than the gun club about protecting LGBT rights). This calmed down recently, but still.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        hn_acker 2y ago
        > It's currently about equal because conservatives are no longer being deplatformed under pressure from the government. The federal government did not intentionally or unintentionally target conservatives whenever coercing Twitter to remove content (to the extent that the government did any coercing or pressuring, which was very little if at all) [1][2]. [1] Twitter Admits in Court Filing: Elon Musk Is Simply Wrong About Government Interference At Twitter https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05/twitter-admits-in-court-filing-elon-musk-is-simply-wrong-about-government-interference-at-twitter/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05/twitter-admits-in-court-... [2] Internal Twitter Video Reveals Twitter Bent Over Backwards To Protect Trump And Pro-Trump Insurrectionists https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/29/internal-twitter-video-reveals-twitter-bent-over-backwards-to-protect-trump-and-pro-trump-insurrectionists/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/29/internal-twitter-video-r...
      - 2y ago
rayiner 2y ago
[flagged]
- mikeyouse 2y ago
  Insinuating that Biden had anything to do with Trumps FBI warning Facebook that Russia was spreading propaganda in 2020 is something..
- GenerWork 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - hn_acker 2y ago
    Unlike what GP claimed, Mark Zuckerberg was putting on a show [1][2][3], pretending that the FBI's FYI suggestions during Trump's first term were threats and pretending that the Biden administration coerced Facebook into removing content. [1] Zuckerberg’s Spineless Surrender: Rehashing Old News To Enable False GOP Narratives https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/28/trumps-accidental-admission-and-zuckerbergs-surrender-the-real-takeaways-from-metas-letter/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/28/trumps-accidental-admiss... [2] New Trump Book Threatens To Jail Zuckerberg, Putting Zuck’s Groveling Letter In New Light https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/30/new-trump-book-threatens-to-jail-zuckerberg-putting-groveling-letter-in-new-light/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/30/new-trump-book-threatens... [3] Zuckerberg Vows To Stop Apologizing To Bad Faith Politicians, Right After Doing Just That https://www.techdirt.com/2024/09/12/zuckerberg-vows-to-stop-apologizing-to-bad-faith-politicians-right-after-doing-just-that/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/09/12/zuckerberg-vows-to-stop-...
    - rayiner 2y ago
      > Unlike what GP claimed, Mark Zuckerberg was putting on a show [1][2][3], pretending that the FBI's FYI suggestions during Trump's first term were threats and pretending that the Biden administration coerced Facebook into removing content. Wow.
      - 2y ago
carlosdp 2y ago
There are certainly some good points about some statements Carr has made that seem to be pushing at the limits of what the FCC actually has purview over, but the contention that Carr is "the most direct and sustained threat to the First Amendment and the freedom of the press any of us will ever experience" is on its face absurd to anyone that follows Carr's work. Even the examples in this article fail to come close to making this case. In each one, he's advocating for more speech, for increased access to publishing platforms. No ordinary person would possibly see that as "censorship." He's not seeking to eliminate "speech he dislikes" by making statements against NewsGuard's heavy involvement in social media "disinformation" moderation, he's making the point that moderation on political speech has been unfairly applied in many cases, and that's largely the fault of activist groups that push social networks to censor speech they don't like (and label "disinformation"). The article starts out by accusing the Trump camp of projection, by lauding Carr as a champion of free speech. It's ironic that the author is guilty of that very thing (projecting) by accusing Carr of being not only pro-censorship, but the biggest threat to free speech in the country? Where have you been for the past 15 years? Come on
- beej71 2y ago
  And him saying NBC could lose it's license for giving airtime to Trump's opponents...? Where does that land?
  - anon291 2y ago
    By the time he pulls NBCs license, it'll probably have been sold to someone else. At the end of the day, the radio spectrum is limited and the licenses ought to be reserved for the channels most popular with the American people. Platforms losing viewership would naturally qualify for eviction.
    - mrbombastic 2y ago
      I don’t understand your argument, because NBC is not popular it is okay to censor them because of a political vendetta?
    - 2y ago
infotainment 2y ago
Remember, no one is actually in favor of free speech. Everyone, and I mean everyone, regardless of their personal political views, wants to silence people they disagree with. I suspect this is some kind of trait inherent to human psychology. Often, they’ll do so hiding behind complex philosophical rationales, but in the end the result is the same.
- ChicagoDave 2y ago
  Filtering out trolls, passive aggressive jerkoffs, and outright verbal abuse is everyone's right. Musk (and Dorsey) believe those people have a "right" to do those things without being muted. Right.
  - lelanthran 2y ago
    > Filtering out trolls, passive aggressive jerkoffs, and outright verbal abuse is everyone's right. Musk (and Dorsey) believe those people have a "right" to do those things without being muted. > Right. Okay, when you get 99.999% of the population to agree on the definition of those terms and who they apply to, then sure ... let's take their voices away. My personal observation over the recent years is that these slurs, and more, are applied to anyone not in a group (which is literally a vocal minority), by that very same group. What we have now is a very vocal minority that is campaigning as if they have the support of the entire population, and they are calling anyone who doesn't support them some pretty awful names. Those terms of yours (and more, like "nazi") have been so diluted by overuse on the average person that they don't mean anything anymore. People unsupportive of the current approach to treating gender dysphoria are accused of being awful humans, while those doing the shaming are ignoring that we regard other types of dysphoria as mental issues, not fixable via surgery. More recently, I've noticed that the L, G and B individuals, that I personally know socially, are actively distancing themselves from the rest of that alphabet soup. So, yeah, we need some new terms to define what an actual troll is, because now the meaning includes "doesn't support my campaign for $IDEOLOGY".
    - ChicagoDave 2y ago
ChicagoDave 2y ago
At what point will it be universally understood that "free speech" is only legally binding when a person is speaking with the government. The government cannot limit a person from speaking outside of libel and slander. (Note the successful Dominion lawsuits against Fox News, you can't say _anything_ you want if it materially harms a person or a legal entity). A private corporation like Twitter/X, Facebook, and now Bluesky can implement any moderation policies they want, and it will never violate "free speech" laws. Elon Musk can filter and restrain the speech he doesn't like (mostly liberal speech and external links that he can't monetize) and Zuck can do the same. Bluesky only moderates illegal activity itself like CSAM. All other moderation is done by the community, and each person chooses who to follow, block, or mute who they wish. The government could enact regulation to limit corporate moderation (debatable, but a given with the current SC) but it would be a very extreme step to restrict the individual from moderating their own timelines on Bluesky. It's hinted that Carr might try to regulate Bluesky, but the outcome wouldn't match his expectations. You see, Bluesky is an open network. It would be simple for every user to implement their own data server and only communicate on the open network. The government would have no way to control that network outside of radical national firewall filtering like China's Great Firewall.
- suchire 2y ago
  Given how little the US invests in public education, probably never
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >Given how little the US invests in public education, probably never While I understand the sentiment, this isn't factually true: from figures I've seen, the US actually spends more per student in pre-college schooling than any other nation. It's a lot like the US healthcare system: the US spends (much) more per-capita, but gets much worse results overall. The problem isn't the level of funding, but how it's used and who runs it. Another factor is US education is that the funding is largely from local sources and locally controlled, so if you live in a wealthy county, you might have (relatively) very good schools, while kids in poor counties will have poorly-funded schools. This is mostly a problem unique to the US because it loves keeping power at local levels so much.
AlexandrB 2y ago
Just focusing on this portion: > Finally, and perhaps most importantly, private companies making editorial decisions about what content they allow on their own private property is not (and cannot be!) taking away First Amendment rights. The First Amendment restricts the government, not private property owners from making their own editorial decisions. That's really the whole debate when it comes to social media. Is it ok that they are governed like private property where the owners can make whatever moderation decisions they want or is it more like a modern "public square" where it should be possible to say anything you can shout on the street without being moderated for it. Personally, I don't know if there's a right answer. Perhaps the best approach is encouraging more competition among social media companies so there are alternatives to the dominant platforms - but the network effects of something like Facebook are very strong even if competitors existed. Treating social media like a private space is the status quo, but it rubs me the wrong way that there's not really an equivalent of public spaces in the online world. Edit: I find it weird how many people are happy to defend unchecked corporate power when it comes to this issue. The lack of any guardrails on moderation is why YouTube has slowly transformed into a baby-talk version of itself. Now people talk about "unaliving yourself" and "PDF files" instead of using the normal English words for these concepts.
- nothrabannosir 2y ago
  I always thought this scotus case was interesting and relevant to the question of “can a private space count as a public square?”. Clearly in some way it can. Curious what a real lawyer or constitutional scholar has to say about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
  - hn_acker 2y ago
    I think that this article [1] by Mike Masnick (not a lawyer or professor, but often writes about First Amendment issues) and Brian L. Frye (a law professor) is useful for understanding the nuances of the Pruneyard case. Here's an excerpt (but I recommend reading the entire article): > That’s fatal to AELP’s argument. According to AELP, the First Amendment allows states to prohibit social media companies from censoring users, because social media websites are “open-access.” But newspapers are also “open-access,” because anyone can buy an advertisement. So, AELP’s argument necessarily implies that the First Amendment also allows states to prohibit newspapers from censoring advertisers. > Wrong. The Supreme Court explicitly said the opposite in PruneYard itself. And if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the government can’t tell newspapers what to print. > What’s the real difference between Miami Herald and PruneYard? It’s simple. Newspapers are in the speech business and shopping malls aren’t. The First Amendment says the government can’t force you to share someone else’s speech, but sometimes it can require you to tolerate speech you dislike. And which is social media more like? The business that is in the speech business, or a shopping mall where speech has nothing to do with its business? [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/22/social-media-isnt-a-shopping-mall/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/22/social-media-isnt-a-shop...
anon291 2y ago
[flagged]
- sundaeofshock 2y ago
  Andersen says a lot of things. Who were the political opponents that were “debanked”? I’m looking for names here, along with actual citations.
  - anon291 2y ago
    Andreesen is a former Democrat donor and endorsed Hillary and a well respected VC. I have no reason to disbelieve him. Supporting trump is not popular (or wasn't) in silicon valley. For them to endorse him would indicate something happened...
musicale 2y ago
> Telling internet companies that if they moderate things in a way he doesn’t like, he will use the power of the state to punish them. This includes fact-checking things in a way he dislikes, I like dang's comment on fact-checking where he noted: > the question, "what are the facts?" is complex enough to already recreate the entire political and ideological contest. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29597867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29597867
- jauntywundrkind 2y ago
  Also coming to mind is some other recent Techdirt, > Dear Senators Klobuchar & Lujan: Now Do You See Why Letting HHS Censor “Misinformation” Is A Terrible Idea? https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/20/dear-senators-klobuchar-lujan-now-do-you-see-why-letting-hhs-censor-misinformation-is-a-terrible-idea https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/20/dear-senators-klobuchar-... Because facts are at best malleable and at worst disinformation, and what seems about to happen with HHS seems like some seriously dangerous alt-facts. I'm making a leap in domain here, but also alas, Trump is already about facing on any pretense of things like journalistic shield laws. This government seems so intent on pursuing a very specific narrow interpretation of facts, and doing incredibly bad things to people who have ever said otherwise. https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/25/trump-orders-republicans-to-kill-journalism-shield-law-they-had-supported/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/25/trump-orders-republicans...
- cowboylowrez 2y ago
  "complex enough" bah, this is just a white flag. sure wave it all you want, many folks think the "terms of surrender" are reasonable enough etc. Its sort of like the "enshittification" trend applied to philosophy lol its a nice gesture for dang to do the "both sides" thing but I just lump that in with memes like "<candidate> tells it like it is" when in reality what <candidate> says is just crazy talk. not everything is so unverifiable that the only choice left is to view everything through <candidates> goggles.
  - dang 2y ago
    I protest! It's not a "both sides" thing. It's an empirical observation, and in my experience quite a reliable one. There are infinitely many facts, and the choice of which facts to select and how strongly to weigh them is not itself a fact, it's a choice made by humans. When those humans are busy advocating for a political position, you can be sure that this is what's dominating their choice. As I pointed out once before (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25973366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25973366), it only takes a little self-honesty to notice oneself doing it. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20infinitely%20many%20facts&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... This doesn't mean there's no truth or that it's impossible to know what the truth is. It might mean that political passion is too strong a force for the truth-finding process not to be perturbed by it.
readthenotes1 2y ago
"Also, NBC did not violate the equal time rule, because it gave Donald Trump an equivalent amount of free time on its affiliates following a NASCAR race the next day" Gee, wonder why they did this? (And the NFL commercial)?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

38 points by coloneltcb 2y ago

One of Masnick's best columns in years. As I've said many times before (although most people rejected my message), the phrase 'free speech' is often deployed to shut down discussion rather than open it up. When you inquire into the speech sort of speech thet people claim is being suppressed, it frequently turns out to be about banning pornography, curtailing the organic spread of unwelcome ideas, or proposals for the suppression of people making the unwelcome speech, by means ranging from deportation to elimination.

bediger4000 2y ago
We saw your observations on the phrase "free speech" in action when Mr Musk purchased Twitter. One of his stated goals as a "free speech absolutist" was to bring "free speech" back to Twitter. Now, Mr Musk boosts his own tweets, sells blue checks to bots, which boosts their tweets. All to virtually "shout down" any opposing opinions
- anon291 2y ago
  And yet according to cnns analysis, Mr Musks platform is more representative of the electorate than every other site.
  - bediger4000 2y ago
    I thought that we broadly disagreed with mainstream media, and generally viewed it with suspicion. Gell-Mann amnesia, anyone?
    - anon291 2y ago
      While I think the editorial take of most mainstream media is crap, I'm not sure I believe their data is made up.
      - chowchowchow 2y ago
        how credulous of you.
        anon291 2y ago
        Believe it or not .. we can all agree on the facts but have different conclusions. Such things make life interesting
        bediger4000 2y ago
        With all due respect, I don't think that's true. And when we do agree on facts, one side or the other legislates against collecting the data. The Dickey Amendment has been very effective at eliminating fact based discussion on guns. Project 2025 explicitly advocates against collecting weather data. Lots of state governments, Florida notably, quit collecting COVID mortality data.
        anon291 2y ago
        > Lots of state governments, Florida notably, quit collecting COVID mortality data. And lots of state governments counted deaths with COVID as deaths from COVID... what is the point? As long as the data is presented correctly and represented properly, it remains as it is. In the discussion above, there's no reason to disbelieve the data. The collection and meaning is clear.
        bediger4000 2y ago
        We record all rear-ending automobile accidents as the fault of the car behind. We record all auto accidents where someone has blood alcohol above a certain percentage as "drunk driving" or some synonym. The distinction of "from" and "with" here is one of those. The other examples may be better or worse, and the point stands.
  - joegibbs 2y ago
    I think this is a kind of falling knife-type thing: the makeup of Twitter was far more liberal than conservative a few years ago and it's currently about equal, but in two more years I predict that the trend will continue and it will be far more conservative than liberal.
    - rahimnathwani 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - orwin 2y ago
        CrimethInc. This was pure and simple censorship. Not saying that Twitter was better with their censorship of Occupy, but crimethInc was probably the one of the last US influencial left wing org on twitter, and didn't last a month. I think John Brown Gun club was also banned, but reinstated, and redneck revolution don't have such an online presence (and is quieter than the gun club about protecting LGBT rights). This calmed down recently, but still.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - hn_acker 2y ago
        > It's currently about equal because conservatives are no longer being deplatformed under pressure from the government. The federal government did not intentionally or unintentionally target conservatives whenever coercing Twitter to remove content (to the extent that the government did any coercing or pressuring, which was very little if at all) [1][2]. [1] Twitter Admits in Court Filing: Elon Musk Is Simply Wrong About Government Interference At Twitter https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05/twitter-admits-in-court-filing-elon-musk-is-simply-wrong-about-government-interference-at-twitter/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05/twitter-admits-in-court-... [2] Internal Twitter Video Reveals Twitter Bent Over Backwards To Protect Trump And Pro-Trump Insurrectionists https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/29/internal-twitter-video-reveals-twitter-bent-over-backwards-to-protect-trump-and-pro-trump-insurrectionists/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/29/internal-twitter-video-r...
    - 2y ago

rayiner 2y ago

[flagged]

mikeyouse 2y ago
Insinuating that Biden had anything to do with Trumps FBI warning Facebook that Russia was spreading propaganda in 2020 is something..
GenerWork 2y ago
[flagged]
- hn_acker 2y ago
  Unlike what GP claimed, Mark Zuckerberg was putting on a show [1][2][3], pretending that the FBI's FYI suggestions during Trump's first term were threats and pretending that the Biden administration coerced Facebook into removing content. [1] Zuckerberg’s Spineless Surrender: Rehashing Old News To Enable False GOP Narratives https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/28/trumps-accidental-admission-and-zuckerbergs-surrender-the-real-takeaways-from-metas-letter/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/28/trumps-accidental-admiss... [2] New Trump Book Threatens To Jail Zuckerberg, Putting Zuck’s Groveling Letter In New Light https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/30/new-trump-book-threatens-to-jail-zuckerberg-putting-groveling-letter-in-new-light/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/30/new-trump-book-threatens... [3] Zuckerberg Vows To Stop Apologizing To Bad Faith Politicians, Right After Doing Just That https://www.techdirt.com/2024/09/12/zuckerberg-vows-to-stop-apologizing-to-bad-faith-politicians-right-after-doing-just-that/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/09/12/zuckerberg-vows-to-stop-...
  - rayiner 2y ago
    > Unlike what GP claimed, Mark Zuckerberg was putting on a show [1][2][3], pretending that the FBI's FYI suggestions during Trump's first term were threats and pretending that the Biden administration coerced Facebook into removing content. Wow.
    - 2y ago

carlosdp 2y ago

There are certainly some good points about some statements Carr has made that seem to be pushing at the limits of what the FCC actually has purview over, but the contention that Carr is "the most direct and sustained threat to the First Amendment and the freedom of the press any of us will ever experience" is on its face absurd to anyone that follows Carr's work. Even the examples in this article fail to come close to making this case. In each one, he's advocating for more speech, for increased access to publishing platforms. No ordinary person would possibly see that as "censorship." He's not seeking to eliminate "speech he dislikes" by making statements against NewsGuard's heavy involvement in social media "disinformation" moderation, he's making the point that moderation on political speech has been unfairly applied in many cases, and that's largely the fault of activist groups that push social networks to censor speech they don't like (and label "disinformation"). The article starts out by accusing the Trump camp of projection, by lauding Carr as a champion of free speech. It's ironic that the author is guilty of that very thing (projecting) by accusing Carr of being not only pro-censorship, but the biggest threat to free speech in the country? Where have you been for the past 15 years? Come on

beej71 2y ago
And him saying NBC could lose it's license for giving airtime to Trump's opponents...? Where does that land?
- anon291 2y ago
  By the time he pulls NBCs license, it'll probably have been sold to someone else. At the end of the day, the radio spectrum is limited and the licenses ought to be reserved for the channels most popular with the American people. Platforms losing viewership would naturally qualify for eviction.
  - mrbombastic 2y ago
    I don’t understand your argument, because NBC is not popular it is okay to censor them because of a political vendetta?
  - 2y ago

infotainment 2y ago

Remember, no one is actually in favor of free speech. Everyone, and I mean everyone, regardless of their personal political views, wants to silence people they disagree with. I suspect this is some kind of trait inherent to human psychology. Often, they’ll do so hiding behind complex philosophical rationales, but in the end the result is the same.

ChicagoDave 2y ago
Filtering out trolls, passive aggressive jerkoffs, and outright verbal abuse is everyone's right. Musk (and Dorsey) believe those people have a "right" to do those things without being muted. Right.
- lelanthran 2y ago
  > Filtering out trolls, passive aggressive jerkoffs, and outright verbal abuse is everyone's right. Musk (and Dorsey) believe those people have a "right" to do those things without being muted. > Right. Okay, when you get 99.999% of the population to agree on the definition of those terms and who they apply to, then sure ... let's take their voices away. My personal observation over the recent years is that these slurs, and more, are applied to anyone not in a group (which is literally a vocal minority), by that very same group. What we have now is a very vocal minority that is campaigning as if they have the support of the entire population, and they are calling anyone who doesn't support them some pretty awful names. Those terms of yours (and more, like "nazi") have been so diluted by overuse on the average person that they don't mean anything anymore. People unsupportive of the current approach to treating gender dysphoria are accused of being awful humans, while those doing the shaming are ignoring that we regard other types of dysphoria as mental issues, not fixable via surgery. More recently, I've noticed that the L, G and B individuals, that I personally know socially, are actively distancing themselves from the rest of that alphabet soup. So, yeah, we need some new terms to define what an actual troll is, because now the meaning includes "doesn't support my campaign for $IDEOLOGY".
  - ChicagoDave 2y ago

ChicagoDave 2y ago

At what point will it be universally understood that "free speech" is only legally binding when a person is speaking with the government. The government cannot limit a person from speaking outside of libel and slander. (Note the successful Dominion lawsuits against Fox News, you can't say _anything_ you want if it materially harms a person or a legal entity). A private corporation like Twitter/X, Facebook, and now Bluesky can implement any moderation policies they want, and it will never violate "free speech" laws. Elon Musk can filter and restrain the speech he doesn't like (mostly liberal speech and external links that he can't monetize) and Zuck can do the same. Bluesky only moderates illegal activity itself like CSAM. All other moderation is done by the community, and each person chooses who to follow, block, or mute who they wish. The government could enact regulation to limit corporate moderation (debatable, but a given with the current SC) but it would be a very extreme step to restrict the individual from moderating their own timelines on Bluesky. It's hinted that Carr might try to regulate Bluesky, but the outcome wouldn't match his expectations. You see, Bluesky is an open network. It would be simple for every user to implement their own data server and only communicate on the open network. The government would have no way to control that network outside of radical national firewall filtering like China's Great Firewall.

suchire 2y ago
Given how little the US invests in public education, probably never
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >Given how little the US invests in public education, probably never While I understand the sentiment, this isn't factually true: from figures I've seen, the US actually spends more per student in pre-college schooling than any other nation. It's a lot like the US healthcare system: the US spends (much) more per-capita, but gets much worse results overall. The problem isn't the level of funding, but how it's used and who runs it. Another factor is US education is that the funding is largely from local sources and locally controlled, so if you live in a wealthy county, you might have (relatively) very good schools, while kids in poor counties will have poorly-funded schools. This is mostly a problem unique to the US because it loves keeping power at local levels so much.

AlexandrB 2y ago

Just focusing on this portion: > Finally, and perhaps most importantly, private companies making editorial decisions about what content they allow on their own private property is not (and cannot be!) taking away First Amendment rights. The First Amendment restricts the government, not private property owners from making their own editorial decisions. That's really the whole debate when it comes to social media. Is it ok that they are governed like private property where the owners can make whatever moderation decisions they want or is it more like a modern "public square" where it should be possible to say anything you can shout on the street without being moderated for it. Personally, I don't know if there's a right answer. Perhaps the best approach is encouraging more competition among social media companies so there are alternatives to the dominant platforms - but the network effects of something like Facebook are very strong even if competitors existed. Treating social media like a private space is the status quo, but it rubs me the wrong way that there's not really an equivalent of public spaces in the online world. Edit: I find it weird how many people are happy to defend unchecked corporate power when it comes to this issue. The lack of any guardrails on moderation is why YouTube has slowly transformed into a baby-talk version of itself. Now people talk about "unaliving yourself" and "PDF files" instead of using the normal English words for these concepts.

nothrabannosir 2y ago
I always thought this scotus case was interesting and relevant to the question of “can a private space count as a public square?”. Clearly in some way it can. Curious what a real lawyer or constitutional scholar has to say about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
- hn_acker 2y ago
  I think that this article [1] by Mike Masnick (not a lawyer or professor, but often writes about First Amendment issues) and Brian L. Frye (a law professor) is useful for understanding the nuances of the Pruneyard case. Here's an excerpt (but I recommend reading the entire article): > That’s fatal to AELP’s argument. According to AELP, the First Amendment allows states to prohibit social media companies from censoring users, because social media websites are “open-access.” But newspapers are also “open-access,” because anyone can buy an advertisement. So, AELP’s argument necessarily implies that the First Amendment also allows states to prohibit newspapers from censoring advertisers. > Wrong. The Supreme Court explicitly said the opposite in PruneYard itself. And if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the government can’t tell newspapers what to print. > What’s the real difference between Miami Herald and PruneYard? It’s simple. Newspapers are in the speech business and shopping malls aren’t. The First Amendment says the government can’t force you to share someone else’s speech, but sometimes it can require you to tolerate speech you dislike. And which is social media more like? The business that is in the speech business, or a shopping mall where speech has nothing to do with its business? [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/22/social-media-isnt-a-shopping-mall/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/22/social-media-isnt-a-shop...

anon291 2y ago

[flagged]

sundaeofshock 2y ago
Andersen says a lot of things. Who were the political opponents that were “debanked”? I’m looking for names here, along with actual citations.
- anon291 2y ago
  Andreesen is a former Democrat donor and endorsed Hillary and a well respected VC. I have no reason to disbelieve him. Supporting trump is not popular (or wasn't) in silicon valley. For them to endorse him would indicate something happened...

musicale 2y ago

> Telling internet companies that if they moderate things in a way he doesn’t like, he will use the power of the state to punish them. This includes fact-checking things in a way he dislikes, I like dang's comment on fact-checking where he noted: > the question, "what are the facts?" is complex enough to already recreate the entire political and ideological contest. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29597867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29597867

jauntywundrkind 2y ago
Also coming to mind is some other recent Techdirt, > Dear Senators Klobuchar & Lujan: Now Do You See Why Letting HHS Censor “Misinformation” Is A Terrible Idea? https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/20/dear-senators-klobuchar-lujan-now-do-you-see-why-letting-hhs-censor-misinformation-is-a-terrible-idea https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/20/dear-senators-klobuchar-... Because facts are at best malleable and at worst disinformation, and what seems about to happen with HHS seems like some seriously dangerous alt-facts. I'm making a leap in domain here, but also alas, Trump is already about facing on any pretense of things like journalistic shield laws. This government seems so intent on pursuing a very specific narrow interpretation of facts, and doing incredibly bad things to people who have ever said otherwise. https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/25/trump-orders-republicans-to-kill-journalism-shield-law-they-had-supported/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/25/trump-orders-republicans...
cowboylowrez 2y ago
"complex enough" bah, this is just a white flag. sure wave it all you want, many folks think the "terms of surrender" are reasonable enough etc. Its sort of like the "enshittification" trend applied to philosophy lol its a nice gesture for dang to do the "both sides" thing but I just lump that in with memes like "<candidate> tells it like it is" when in reality what <candidate> says is just crazy talk. not everything is so unverifiable that the only choice left is to view everything through <candidates> goggles.
- dang 2y ago
  I protest! It's not a "both sides" thing. It's an empirical observation, and in my experience quite a reliable one. There are infinitely many facts, and the choice of which facts to select and how strongly to weigh them is not itself a fact, it's a choice made by humans. When those humans are busy advocating for a political position, you can be sure that this is what's dominating their choice. As I pointed out once before (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25973366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25973366), it only takes a little self-honesty to notice oneself doing it. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20infinitely%20many%20facts&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... This doesn't mean there's no truth or that it's impossible to know what the truth is. It might mean that political passion is too strong a force for the truth-finding process not to be perturbed by it.

readthenotes1 2y ago

"Also, NBC did not violate the equal time rule, because it gave Donald Trump an equivalent amount of free time on its affiliates following a NASCAR race the next day" Gee, wonder why they did this? (And the NFL commercial)?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]