4 ms·

How dumb does one have to be to fail to realize that kicking an asshole out of a party (read website/app/whatever) isn’t the government censoring you. Xkcd cov

by freen 2y ago

How dumb does one have to be to fail to realize that kicking an asshole out of a party (read website/app/whatever) isn’t the government censoring you. Xkcd covered this in detail, what a decade ago? https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

freen 2y ago
Gonna hazard that if the above gets moderated/deleted, our new friend “eff-tagline” won’t complain that my freedom of speech is being impinged.
- Over2Chars 2y ago
  Yes, free speech advocates seem to lose enthusiasm for the freedom of speech they disagree with. Curious.
  - freen 2y ago
    They never seem to be grumpy about spam getting deleted. It’s always “why can’t I be mean to people without consequences?” Or, “I should be able to be racist/ableist/discriminatory and you have to host my vitriol or else you are violating my freedom of speech, private company!!”
    - Over2Chars 2y ago
      I would love to be able to cure the problem of people being mean on the internet. I think it's a million dollar idea, if it's possible. I think it can be done, but it seems that incivility is seen as more profitable, or something? Twitter Japan, for example, is known for being fairly civil. I think even Elon Musk, at one point, said that Twitter Japan was a model for all of Twitter. Go Elon! Then Elon took over and actively, it seems to me, promoted incivility. I think he figured that making Twitter, now X, more controversial would promote engagement. But Twitter Japan showed that people could engage civilly and didn't need controversy to promote engagement. I suspect had Elon chose to make Twitter/X more like Twitter Japan, he wouldn't have lost his advertisers (which apparently were a major percentage of revenue). But the past is history, and Twitter/X is what it is, and is likely to stay that way I think.
eff-tagline 2y ago
I’m glad you’ve shared your opinion that “free speech” strictly refers to government censorship. I disagree.
- beej71 2y ago
  You're free to disagree. But you're not free to force me or HN or anyone else to host your disagreement. To do so would be a violation of their free speech.
- freen 2y ago
  Would love to see votes of case law where individuals/people/conpanies have successfully sued/prosecuted/convicted for violating the first amendment rights of other people/entities/companies etc. I bet spammers would love to argue that deleting their Facebook posts is a violation of their first amendment rights.
readthenotes1 2y ago
I guess I'm pretty dumb cuz when I hear about the government asking Facebook to censor stuff and they do, sorry, when I hear about the government asking Facebook to kick someone they don't like out of the party because they're saying inconvenient things about the government and they do, it sounds like the government censorship.
- verdverm 2y ago
  FB was doing this on their own during covid, the government simply pointed FB towards content they found concerning w.r.t. public health policy during a global pandemic. FB then made their own calls for their content moderation policy
LightHugger 2y ago
The general idea is that social media platforms especially at the scale of twitter and facebook are not private parties but public squares, in which free speech must be protected. I think this is obviously true, but there is of course the question of how exactly to draw the line between a large public square and a small private platform. There are many good possible answers. It could be delimited by user count, by moderation style, by liability accepted (section 230 is frequently brought up as an option). In any case, if you think a billion user platform is a private party, you are plainly wrong. It's a bit telling that you think a a 6 panel comic is "covering it in detail". If you want an even more simplified version of how this can go, free speech is a human right, and given that you're against free speech we can limit yours and make everyone happy. I'm more than happy to let people play by their own rules in this case.
- MattPalmer1086 2y ago
  That is a line pushed by the owners of these privately owned platforms. But they really are not public squares. They are not publicly owned or managed in the best interests of the users. They are corporate money-making machines. Don't be fooled.
  - LightHugger 2y ago
    I agree that they are not publicly owned or managed decently, but regardless these are the large publicly available communications platforms that people use these days, in massive numbers. Therefore repressing speech here causes a violation of free speech. That is what's important. "But they are run like shit and against the user's interests" Doesn't somehow justify even more repression. In a sense, what these companies invested into is capturing the public square, capturing speech, because controlling it allows profitable advert injection, manipulation and generic power. But their awful motives don't mean they were unsuccessful. They were, they have the public square now.
    - MattPalmer1086 2y ago
      I don't dispute they are massively used and important communication tools. The analogy to a public square is deeply flawed though. A public space is not a broadcast medium. If I don't want to hear the crazy person shouting, I just have to walk a short distance away. The people who are presented to me are not chosen by some algorithm under the control of the space's owner. I can largely control my interaction with others. If someone is being threatening to others in a public space, then the police will arrest them, and nobody would call that censorship.
like_any_other 2y ago
A very good comic. But it would be even better and more accurate if it changed "the people" in "It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole, and they're showing you the door." to "the unelected multinational corporation". Anyway I'll go tell Human Rights Watch [1] that it's just free association in action and that if Palestinians want to have their stories heard they should just build their own competing media platform with global reach. And the EU Commission should also have a copy of that comic sent to them [2]. [1] https://text.hrw.org/news/2023/12/20/meta-systemic-censorship-palestine-content https://text.hrw.org/news/2023/12/20/meta-systemic-censorshi... [2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/01/eu-energetically-probing-disinformation-right-wing-bias-on-x-report-says/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/01/eu-energetically...
- freen 2y ago
  Unelected multinational corporation: still just a bunch of people. A bar, or a music festival is also possibly an unelected multinational corporation. Still can kick people out. I wonder, why can’t I go into the lobby of the Sony building in NYC and stand in my soapbox and rant about TimeCube? Technically, my blog is run by an unelected multinational corporation… I guess when I delete spam, I’m censoring, right? It’s just not that hard people. Facebook is t the government.
  - like_any_other 2y ago
    Yes, if I kick someone out of my house for being a jerk, and if Google and Facebook globally censor a story, it's the same, because in both cases it's done by people. Thank you for this insightful contribution.
    - freen 2y ago
      Correct. It is the same, legally, and with respect to the first amendment to the constitution. You cannot force a private (read non-government) entity to endorse, publish, promote, host, etc. anything. It’s their choice. Morally equivalent? Heck no.

by freen 2y ago

freen 2y ago

Gonna hazard that if the above gets moderated/deleted, our new friend “eff-tagline” won’t complain that my freedom of speech is being impinged.

Over2Chars 2y ago
Yes, free speech advocates seem to lose enthusiasm for the freedom of speech they disagree with. Curious.
- freen 2y ago
  They never seem to be grumpy about spam getting deleted. It’s always “why can’t I be mean to people without consequences?” Or, “I should be able to be racist/ableist/discriminatory and you have to host my vitriol or else you are violating my freedom of speech, private company!!”
  - Over2Chars 2y ago
    I would love to be able to cure the problem of people being mean on the internet. I think it's a million dollar idea, if it's possible. I think it can be done, but it seems that incivility is seen as more profitable, or something? Twitter Japan, for example, is known for being fairly civil. I think even Elon Musk, at one point, said that Twitter Japan was a model for all of Twitter. Go Elon! Then Elon took over and actively, it seems to me, promoted incivility. I think he figured that making Twitter, now X, more controversial would promote engagement. But Twitter Japan showed that people could engage civilly and didn't need controversy to promote engagement. I suspect had Elon chose to make Twitter/X more like Twitter Japan, he wouldn't have lost his advertisers (which apparently were a major percentage of revenue). But the past is history, and Twitter/X is what it is, and is likely to stay that way I think.

eff-tagline 2y ago

I’m glad you’ve shared your opinion that “free speech” strictly refers to government censorship. I disagree.

beej71 2y ago
You're free to disagree. But you're not free to force me or HN or anyone else to host your disagreement. To do so would be a violation of their free speech.
freen 2y ago
Would love to see votes of case law where individuals/people/conpanies have successfully sued/prosecuted/convicted for violating the first amendment rights of other people/entities/companies etc. I bet spammers would love to argue that deleting their Facebook posts is a violation of their first amendment rights.

readthenotes1 2y ago

I guess I'm pretty dumb cuz when I hear about the government asking Facebook to censor stuff and they do, sorry, when I hear about the government asking Facebook to kick someone they don't like out of the party because they're saying inconvenient things about the government and they do, it sounds like the government censorship.

verdverm 2y ago
FB was doing this on their own during covid, the government simply pointed FB towards content they found concerning w.r.t. public health policy during a global pandemic. FB then made their own calls for their content moderation policy

LightHugger 2y ago

The general idea is that social media platforms especially at the scale of twitter and facebook are not private parties but public squares, in which free speech must be protected. I think this is obviously true, but there is of course the question of how exactly to draw the line between a large public square and a small private platform. There are many good possible answers. It could be delimited by user count, by moderation style, by liability accepted (section 230 is frequently brought up as an option). In any case, if you think a billion user platform is a private party, you are plainly wrong. It's a bit telling that you think a a 6 panel comic is "covering it in detail". If you want an even more simplified version of how this can go, free speech is a human right, and given that you're against free speech we can limit yours and make everyone happy. I'm more than happy to let people play by their own rules in this case.

MattPalmer1086 2y ago
That is a line pushed by the owners of these privately owned platforms. But they really are not public squares. They are not publicly owned or managed in the best interests of the users. They are corporate money-making machines. Don't be fooled.
- LightHugger 2y ago
  I agree that they are not publicly owned or managed decently, but regardless these are the large publicly available communications platforms that people use these days, in massive numbers. Therefore repressing speech here causes a violation of free speech. That is what's important. "But they are run like shit and against the user's interests" Doesn't somehow justify even more repression. In a sense, what these companies invested into is capturing the public square, capturing speech, because controlling it allows profitable advert injection, manipulation and generic power. But their awful motives don't mean they were unsuccessful. They were, they have the public square now.
  - MattPalmer1086 2y ago
    I don't dispute they are massively used and important communication tools. The analogy to a public square is deeply flawed though. A public space is not a broadcast medium. If I don't want to hear the crazy person shouting, I just have to walk a short distance away. The people who are presented to me are not chosen by some algorithm under the control of the space's owner. I can largely control my interaction with others. If someone is being threatening to others in a public space, then the police will arrest them, and nobody would call that censorship.

like_any_other 2y ago

A very good comic. But it would be even better and more accurate if it changed "the people" in "It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole, and they're showing you the door." to "the unelected multinational corporation". Anyway I'll go tell Human Rights Watch [1] that it's just free association in action and that if Palestinians want to have their stories heard they should just build their own competing media platform with global reach. And the EU Commission should also have a copy of that comic sent to them [2]. [1] https://text.hrw.org/news/2023/12/20/meta-systemic-censorship-palestine-content https://text.hrw.org/news/2023/12/20/meta-systemic-censorshi... [2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/01/eu-energetically-probing-disinformation-right-wing-bias-on-x-report-says/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/01/eu-energetically...

freen 2y ago
Unelected multinational corporation: still just a bunch of people. A bar, or a music festival is also possibly an unelected multinational corporation. Still can kick people out. I wonder, why can’t I go into the lobby of the Sony building in NYC and stand in my soapbox and rant about TimeCube? Technically, my blog is run by an unelected multinational corporation… I guess when I delete spam, I’m censoring, right? It’s just not that hard people. Facebook is t the government.
- like_any_other 2y ago
  Yes, if I kick someone out of my house for being a jerk, and if Google and Facebook globally censor a story, it's the same, because in both cases it's done by people. Thank you for this insightful contribution.
  - freen 2y ago
    Correct. It is the same, legally, and with respect to the first amendment to the constitution. You cannot force a private (read non-government) entity to endorse, publish, promote, host, etc. anything. It’s their choice. Morally equivalent? Heck no.