4 ms·

No one in Big Tech decides what you are allowed to say, they can only withhold their distribution of what you say. As a book publisher, should I be required to

No one in Big Tech decides what you are allowed to say, they can only withhold their distribution of what you say. As a book publisher, should I be required to publish your furry smut short stories? Of course not. Is that infringing on your freedom of speech? Of course not.

mitthrowaway2 1y ago
No, they ban your account and exclude you from the market commons if they don't like what you say.
- mulmen 1y ago
  Yes that’s how free markets work. Your idea has to be free to die in obscurity. Compelled speech is not free speech. You have no right to an audience. The existence of a wide distribution platform does not grant you a right to it. These arguments fall completely flat because it’s always about the right to distribute misinformation. It’s never about posting porn or war crimes or spam. That kind of curation isn’t contentious. Google didn’t suddenly see the light and become free speech absolutists. They caved to political pressure and are selectively allowing the preferred misinformation of the current administration.
  - int_19h 1y ago
    A market that has companies with the size - or rather, the market dominance - of the likes of Google is not meaningfully a free market. The fundamental problem isn't whether Google censors or not, nor what it censors, but the very fact that its decision on this matter is so impactful.
    - mulmen 1y ago
      If you want to debate anti trust and regulation then let’s do it. Google’s dominance is bad for our society, culture, and our economy but it’s not a reason to erode our fundamental rights. Compelling free speech will do nothing to erode Google’s market share or encourage competition. In fact it will further entrench Google’s dominance.
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        How is compelling google to censor less going to entrench their dominance? If it's purely by making them suck less, I'm okay with that risk. And I don't think it erodes any fundamental rights to put restrictions on huge monopolies.
        mulmen 1y ago
        > How is compelling google to censor less going to entrench their dominance? If you force Google alone to amplify certain speech then what competitive advantage does a less censorious service provide? > If it's purely by making them suck less, I'm okay with that risk. Define “suck less”. Now ask yourself if you are comfortable with someone you completely disagree with defining what sucks less. > And I don't think it erodes any fundamental rights to put restrictions on huge monopolies. You’re talking about antitrust, not free expression. Compelled speech is an erosion of the first amendment. You may think that erosion is acceptable but you can’t deny it exists.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        > If you force Google alone to amplify certain speech then what competitive advantage does a less censorious service provide? If that's the only "advantage" another service has, I don't care if it has no competitive advantage. If it offers anything else then that's the advantage. Seriously this idea is super weird to me. There are plenty of reasons to avoid too much regulation. But "don't force company X to make their users happier because happy users won't leave" is a terrible reason. >Define “suck less”. Now ask yourself if you are comfortable with someone you completely disagree with defining what sucks less. A big part of the "if" is that people are making their own evaluations. > You’re talking about antitrust I am not talking about antitrust. I'm saying that the bigger and more powerful a corporation gets the further it is from a human and human rights. > Compelled speech is an erosion of the first amendment. You may think that erosion is acceptable but you can’t deny it exists. In this case, barely at all, and it's the same one we already have for common carriers.
        deleted 1y ago
  - themaninthedark 1y ago
    Just to split hairs here, as I do not think that a company should be forced to host content. Hosting content is not giving someone an audience. If I take my stool into the main square and stand on it, giving a speech about the evils of canned spinach. People pass by but no-one stops and listens(or not for long), I did not have an audience. If I record the same thing and put it up on Youtube and the same reaction happens. I only get 5~10 views, Youtube is not giving me an audience. They are hosting the video, just like they do for many other videos that are uploaded everyday. If Youtube suddenly starts pushing my video onto everyone's "Home", "Recommended " or whatever; then that would be them giving me an audience. If the Big Spinach Canners find my video and ask Youtube to take it down, that is censorship.
    - mulmen 1y ago
      > Hosting content is not giving someone an audience. Yes, it is. > If I take my stool into the main square and stand on it, giving a speech about the evils of canned spinach. People pass by but no-one stops and listens(or not for long), I did not have an audience. Well, yes, you did. They are free to cheer, boo, or leave. YouTube is more like an open mic night. I reject the idea that it is a public space like a main square. > If I record the same thing and put it up on Youtube and the same reaction happens. I only get 5~10 views, Youtube is not giving me an audience. They are hosting the video, just like they do for many other videos that are uploaded everyday. I am lucky to have never worked in content moderation but I’m certain YouTube refuses or removes submissions every day. So while your spinach speech may survive there are many other videos that don’t. > If Youtube suddenly starts pushing my video onto everyone's "Home", "Recommended " or whatever; then that would be them giving me an audience. Being on YouTube at all is YouTube giving you an audience. Their recommendation algorithm is the value proposition of their product to consumers whose attention is the product sold to advertisers. > If the Big Spinach Canners find my video and ask Youtube to take it down, that is censorship. Perhaps in the strictest dictionary sense it is censorship but it is not censorship in a first amendment sense. This is a private business decision. You’re free to submit your video as an ad and pay Google directly for eyeballs. And they can still say no. The only problem here is the size of YouTube relative to competitors. The fix there is antitrust, not erosion of civil liberties. Consider the landscape that evolves in a post-YouTube environment with an eroded first amendment and without section 230 protections. Those protections are critical for innovation and free expression.
AfterHIA 1y ago
If the furry smut people became the dominant force in literature and your company was driven out of business fairly for not producing enough furry smut would that too constitute censorship? I want to see how steep this hill you're willing to die on is. What's that old saying-- that thing about the shoe being on the other foot?

mitthrowaway2 1y ago

No, they ban your account and exclude you from the market commons if they don't like what you say.

mulmen 1y ago
Yes that’s how free markets work. Your idea has to be free to die in obscurity. Compelled speech is not free speech. You have no right to an audience. The existence of a wide distribution platform does not grant you a right to it. These arguments fall completely flat because it’s always about the right to distribute misinformation. It’s never about posting porn or war crimes or spam. That kind of curation isn’t contentious. Google didn’t suddenly see the light and become free speech absolutists. They caved to political pressure and are selectively allowing the preferred misinformation of the current administration.
- int_19h 1y ago
  A market that has companies with the size - or rather, the market dominance - of the likes of Google is not meaningfully a free market. The fundamental problem isn't whether Google censors or not, nor what it censors, but the very fact that its decision on this matter is so impactful.
  - mulmen 1y ago
    If you want to debate anti trust and regulation then let’s do it. Google’s dominance is bad for our society, culture, and our economy but it’s not a reason to erode our fundamental rights. Compelling free speech will do nothing to erode Google’s market share or encourage competition. In fact it will further entrench Google’s dominance.
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      How is compelling google to censor less going to entrench their dominance? If it's purely by making them suck less, I'm okay with that risk. And I don't think it erodes any fundamental rights to put restrictions on huge monopolies.
      - mulmen 1y ago
        > How is compelling google to censor less going to entrench their dominance? If you force Google alone to amplify certain speech then what competitive advantage does a less censorious service provide? > If it's purely by making them suck less, I'm okay with that risk. Define “suck less”. Now ask yourself if you are comfortable with someone you completely disagree with defining what sucks less. > And I don't think it erodes any fundamental rights to put restrictions on huge monopolies. You’re talking about antitrust, not free expression. Compelled speech is an erosion of the first amendment. You may think that erosion is acceptable but you can’t deny it exists.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        > If you force Google alone to amplify certain speech then what competitive advantage does a less censorious service provide? If that's the only "advantage" another service has, I don't care if it has no competitive advantage. If it offers anything else then that's the advantage. Seriously this idea is super weird to me. There are plenty of reasons to avoid too much regulation. But "don't force company X to make their users happier because happy users won't leave" is a terrible reason. >Define “suck less”. Now ask yourself if you are comfortable with someone you completely disagree with defining what sucks less. A big part of the "if" is that people are making their own evaluations. > You’re talking about antitrust I am not talking about antitrust. I'm saying that the bigger and more powerful a corporation gets the further it is from a human and human rights. > Compelled speech is an erosion of the first amendment. You may think that erosion is acceptable but you can’t deny it exists. In this case, barely at all, and it's the same one we already have for common carriers.
        deleted 1y ago
- themaninthedark 1y ago
  Just to split hairs here, as I do not think that a company should be forced to host content. Hosting content is not giving someone an audience. If I take my stool into the main square and stand on it, giving a speech about the evils of canned spinach. People pass by but no-one stops and listens(or not for long), I did not have an audience. If I record the same thing and put it up on Youtube and the same reaction happens. I only get 5~10 views, Youtube is not giving me an audience. They are hosting the video, just like they do for many other videos that are uploaded everyday. If Youtube suddenly starts pushing my video onto everyone's "Home", "Recommended " or whatever; then that would be them giving me an audience. If the Big Spinach Canners find my video and ask Youtube to take it down, that is censorship.
  - mulmen 1y ago
    > Hosting content is not giving someone an audience. Yes, it is. > If I take my stool into the main square and stand on it, giving a speech about the evils of canned spinach. People pass by but no-one stops and listens(or not for long), I did not have an audience. Well, yes, you did. They are free to cheer, boo, or leave. YouTube is more like an open mic night. I reject the idea that it is a public space like a main square. > If I record the same thing and put it up on Youtube and the same reaction happens. I only get 5~10 views, Youtube is not giving me an audience. They are hosting the video, just like they do for many other videos that are uploaded everyday. I am lucky to have never worked in content moderation but I’m certain YouTube refuses or removes submissions every day. So while your spinach speech may survive there are many other videos that don’t. > If Youtube suddenly starts pushing my video onto everyone's "Home", "Recommended " or whatever; then that would be them giving me an audience. Being on YouTube at all is YouTube giving you an audience. Their recommendation algorithm is the value proposition of their product to consumers whose attention is the product sold to advertisers. > If the Big Spinach Canners find my video and ask Youtube to take it down, that is censorship. Perhaps in the strictest dictionary sense it is censorship but it is not censorship in a first amendment sense. This is a private business decision. You’re free to submit your video as an ad and pay Google directly for eyeballs. And they can still say no. The only problem here is the size of YouTube relative to competitors. The fix there is antitrust, not erosion of civil liberties. Consider the landscape that evolves in a post-YouTube environment with an eroded first amendment and without section 230 protections. Those protections are critical for innovation and free expression.

AfterHIA 1y ago

If the furry smut people became the dominant force in literature and your company was driven out of business fairly for not producing enough furry smut would that too constitute censorship? I want to see how steep this hill you're willing to die on is. What's that old saying-- that thing about the shoe being on the other foot?