3 ms·

This is the tricky line, isn't it? Regardless of whether someone is entitled to free speech, is a private company bound to the constitutional protection? My u

This is the tricky line, isn't it? Regardless of whether someone is entitled to free speech, is a private company bound to the constitutional protection? My understanding has always been that its specifically the government that can't censor me, a private company or citizen can. The NY Times isn't required to write an article I submit to them for example, that's no different than Twitter deciding not to keep a post a write.

mro_name 2y ago
exactly. Once we stop treating TwiX like a public good but rather like the private website of a a gaming cheater with a lot of guests, things would be more obvious, wouldn't it?
alt227 2y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful reply on an incediary topic. I agree with your viewpoint I think, but Im sure as always there are some edge cases which make this definition difficult.
barrell 2y ago
Tricky? Not really. Difficult? Yes.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Sure, that's fine. Tricky wasn't a great fit there, I meant tricky to define or agree upon. Difficult works better there.
guappa 2y ago
> My understanding has always been that its specifically the government that can't censor me, a private company or citizen can. Then you have no free speech. I can just refuse you internet access, or not sell ink and paper to you… So my take is that no, it should not be allowed to private companies to censor arbitrarily. And of course an "algorithm" that sorts stuff in any other way than chronologically is censorship. The feed should just show chronological ordered stuff of followed accounts. No more and no less.
- intended 2y ago
  Then you do not have free speech, since this is what the rules of free speech are. They are about ensuring that the government doesnt use its unique powers of force to ensure that certain ideas are not shared or discussed. What the current government is doing, with Fox + Twitter, is fundamentally the opposite of free speech. They have the power to say something, then pretend it is true, and act on it. Its not a fair fight.
  - guappa 2y ago
    > Then you do not have free speech Neither do you, unless you redefined it to be the super narrow description that you gave. So you can freely be censored but keep believing you have freedom. You're the poster child of how europeans imagine usa citizens.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Governments can't censor what their citizens say. That's the only protection covered in the US constitution. Private citizens and companies can censor. Twitter can have rules of conduct or terms of use, for example, and you have to play by their rules when posting on their service. The government isn't involved at all (twitter files not withstanding).
      - guappa 2y ago
        I understand how it works. I'm arguing you guys keep saying you have this "freedom of speech" when in fact you have absolutely nothing.
    - intended 2y ago
      I guess.. it must be shocking to you? Seemingly absurd perhaps. You can't say what you want in a shopping mall. They can decide who gets to stay in their premises, and for whatever reason they can eject you. All the free speech cases, have been about government stopping speech. Whether its about deceny laws, or sedition - its always been the government vs a person / corporation. So yeah - these have been the rights you lived under for all your life. Its never changed. That is the operating definition of free speech that has worked in America since I started working in this space.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
> The NY Times isn't required to write an article I submit to them for example, that's no different than Twitter deciding not to keep a post a write I generally agree with your point about private companies and the 1A. However, the NYT and Twitter/X are fundamentally different in that the NYT is not a user platform but rather a media company who decides what it wants to publish--meaning that is it's stated goal. Twitter/X stated goal is to provide a platform for users to publish whatever they want to say. Now, Twitter/X can have a policy saying "here's a platform where you can say whatever you want except for X, Y and Z" and that's fine. Just like HN has policies. As long as it's clear and transparent as to what they are allowing or disallowing, then users are informed enough to know what they're going to get when they log on to X. Just like I know what I'm going to get if I visit Fox News. Prior to Elon, Twitter's policies were stricter and so there was a lot less "hate speech" (for lack of a better term). Those guardrails are gone, since for one Elon fired the whole moderation team, and also because of Elon's own immature posts setting the example, it's devolved into a reddit-style cesspool so I decided not to go there anymore. Banning links to Signal would be no big deal if Elon hadn't loudly proclaimed himself as the "defender of free speech" and demonized the "censorship" of Twitter.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  We pretty much agree here. The contradiction of claiming free speech while doing things like banning Signal links is frustrating for sure. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I've gotten too cynical to believe any company or rich individual making a business deal to actually tell the truth - its all marketing at that point.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    > I've gotten too cynical to believe any company or rich individual making a business deal to actually tell the truth - its all marketing at that point I think that's reality, not cynicism

mro_name 2y ago

exactly. Once we stop treating TwiX like a public good but rather like the private website of a a gaming cheater with a lot of guests, things would be more obvious, wouldn't it?

alt227 2y ago

Thanks for the thoughtful reply on an incediary topic. I agree with your viewpoint I think, but Im sure as always there are some edge cases which make this definition difficult.

barrell 2y ago

Tricky? Not really. Difficult? Yes.

_heimdall 2y ago
Sure, that's fine. Tricky wasn't a great fit there, I meant tricky to define or agree upon. Difficult works better there.

guappa 2y ago

> My understanding has always been that its specifically the government that can't censor me, a private company or citizen can. Then you have no free speech. I can just refuse you internet access, or not sell ink and paper to you… So my take is that no, it should not be allowed to private companies to censor arbitrarily. And of course an "algorithm" that sorts stuff in any other way than chronologically is censorship. The feed should just show chronological ordered stuff of followed accounts. No more and no less.

intended 2y ago
Then you do not have free speech, since this is what the rules of free speech are. They are about ensuring that the government doesnt use its unique powers of force to ensure that certain ideas are not shared or discussed. What the current government is doing, with Fox + Twitter, is fundamentally the opposite of free speech. They have the power to say something, then pretend it is true, and act on it. Its not a fair fight.
- guappa 2y ago
  > Then you do not have free speech Neither do you, unless you redefined it to be the super narrow description that you gave. So you can freely be censored but keep believing you have freedom. You're the poster child of how europeans imagine usa citizens.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Governments can't censor what their citizens say. That's the only protection covered in the US constitution. Private citizens and companies can censor. Twitter can have rules of conduct or terms of use, for example, and you have to play by their rules when posting on their service. The government isn't involved at all (twitter files not withstanding).
    - guappa 2y ago
      I understand how it works. I'm arguing you guys keep saying you have this "freedom of speech" when in fact you have absolutely nothing.
  - intended 2y ago
    I guess.. it must be shocking to you? Seemingly absurd perhaps. You can't say what you want in a shopping mall. They can decide who gets to stay in their premises, and for whatever reason they can eject you. All the free speech cases, have been about government stopping speech. Whether its about deceny laws, or sedition - its always been the government vs a person / corporation. So yeah - these have been the rights you lived under for all your life. Its never changed. That is the operating definition of free speech that has worked in America since I started working in this space.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

> The NY Times isn't required to write an article I submit to them for example, that's no different than Twitter deciding not to keep a post a write I generally agree with your point about private companies and the 1A. However, the NYT and Twitter/X are fundamentally different in that the NYT is not a user platform but rather a media company who decides what it wants to publish--meaning that is it's stated goal. Twitter/X stated goal is to provide a platform for users to publish whatever they want to say. Now, Twitter/X can have a policy saying "here's a platform where you can say whatever you want except for X, Y and Z" and that's fine. Just like HN has policies. As long as it's clear and transparent as to what they are allowing or disallowing, then users are informed enough to know what they're going to get when they log on to X. Just like I know what I'm going to get if I visit Fox News. Prior to Elon, Twitter's policies were stricter and so there was a lot less "hate speech" (for lack of a better term). Those guardrails are gone, since for one Elon fired the whole moderation team, and also because of Elon's own immature posts setting the example, it's devolved into a reddit-style cesspool so I decided not to go there anymore. Banning links to Signal would be no big deal if Elon hadn't loudly proclaimed himself as the "defender of free speech" and demonized the "censorship" of Twitter.

_heimdall 2y ago
We pretty much agree here. The contradiction of claiming free speech while doing things like banning Signal links is frustrating for sure. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I've gotten too cynical to believe any company or rich individual making a business deal to actually tell the truth - its all marketing at that point.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  > I've gotten too cynical to believe any company or rich individual making a business deal to actually tell the truth - its all marketing at that point I think that's reality, not cynicism