3 ms·

Private companies try to maximize profits, but that doesn't necessarily mean they do what's best for their users. Fast-food stores encouraging people to eat the

Private companies try to maximize profits, but that doesn't necessarily mean they do what's best for their users. Fast-food stores encouraging people to eat there often are a good example. Apple refusing certain apps is another one: it's not in my advantage, nor in that of most of my peers, that they limit my choice. Furthermore, not everything can be left to companies. Public utilities like the police and water are supplied/regulated by the government for all the usual reasons. Knowledge is also a public utility. We cannot leave the protection of free speech to companies, or other groups of citizens: they would inevitably suppress certain bits of knowledge from becoming publicly known. Isn't the knowledge of 'where to find what' exactly that kind of knowledge? A near monopoly on search results grants a company great power. In a possible near future, wouldn't it be in Google's best interests to suppress the information of where to find competitors? Not blatantly of course, but when done is subtle ways, will anyone notice? Will anyone believe those who cry wolf? And how devastating it would be to the competition!

anamax 17y ago
> Public utilities like the police and water Lots of places get water from private suppliers. And, you might notice a lot of private security. They don't have extraordinary arrest powers, but .... > We cannot leave the protection of free speech to companies, or other groups of citizens: they would inevitably suppress certain bits of knowledge from becoming publicly known. How does a private entity suppress what I want to say? (They may refuse to pay me to say something, refuse to help me say something, or refuse to say something themselves, but that's no suppression.)
- Confusion 17y ago
  Governments must force companies to publish all kinds of information about their practices, such as a yearly financial report. Without that obligation, that information would never be made public, because the company would force individuals that wanted to publish the data to keep their mouth shut (that follows from the fact that many companies do their best to get an exemption from publishing all kinds of data). Free speech includes the freedom to publish information that has been decided to be 'public information'.
  - anamax 17y ago
    Actually, no, that's not free speech. (BTW - That's not the employee's data, so it isn't their call.) As to financial information, if a company doesn't provide the information that you want, don't do whatever it is that you're considering doing with them. You're free to not deal with a company for any reason that you please, including lack of info, bad info, dice rolls, or even no reason. Same with people. I have no "free speech" right to information about you but I'm also not obligated to deal with you if I don't like what I hear or don't hear.
    - Confusion 17y ago
      Do you agree that there is a difference between what the government stipulates you are free to say and what a company would like you to be free to say, if they had their way? If so, then isn't the difference between the two covered by the protection of free speech? The company would like you to shut up, like pressure groups would like you to shut up about certain things, but they can't make you shut up, because Big Brother is protecting you, because it has decided that this is a kind of information that you are allowed to publish. Isn't that protection of free speech?
      - anamax 17y ago
        > Do you agree that there is a difference between what the government stipulates you are free to say and what a company would like you to be free to say, if they had their way? The question doesn't make any sense. Free speech is a right of "owners". I'm free to blather on and on about MY stuff. Companies have no way to intefere in that because they don't have police and stuff. Governments do. I don't have any free speech rights WRT stuff owned by other people. Suppose that I worked at Google. It's not a violation of my "free speech" rights for Google to refuse to publish Google's stuff, whether or not I produced said stuff for them.

anamax 17y ago

> Public utilities like the police and water Lots of places get water from private suppliers. And, you might notice a lot of private security. They don't have extraordinary arrest powers, but .... > We cannot leave the protection of free speech to companies, or other groups of citizens: they would inevitably suppress certain bits of knowledge from becoming publicly known. How does a private entity suppress what I want to say? (They may refuse to pay me to say something, refuse to help me say something, or refuse to say something themselves, but that's no suppression.)

Confusion 17y ago
Governments must force companies to publish all kinds of information about their practices, such as a yearly financial report. Without that obligation, that information would never be made public, because the company would force individuals that wanted to publish the data to keep their mouth shut (that follows from the fact that many companies do their best to get an exemption from publishing all kinds of data). Free speech includes the freedom to publish information that has been decided to be 'public information'.
- anamax 17y ago
  Actually, no, that's not free speech. (BTW - That's not the employee's data, so it isn't their call.) As to financial information, if a company doesn't provide the information that you want, don't do whatever it is that you're considering doing with them. You're free to not deal with a company for any reason that you please, including lack of info, bad info, dice rolls, or even no reason. Same with people. I have no "free speech" right to information about you but I'm also not obligated to deal with you if I don't like what I hear or don't hear.
  - Confusion 17y ago
    Do you agree that there is a difference between what the government stipulates you are free to say and what a company would like you to be free to say, if they had their way? If so, then isn't the difference between the two covered by the protection of free speech? The company would like you to shut up, like pressure groups would like you to shut up about certain things, but they can't make you shut up, because Big Brother is protecting you, because it has decided that this is a kind of information that you are allowed to publish. Isn't that protection of free speech?
    - anamax 17y ago
      > Do you agree that there is a difference between what the government stipulates you are free to say and what a company would like you to be free to say, if they had their way? The question doesn't make any sense. Free speech is a right of "owners". I'm free to blather on and on about MY stuff. Companies have no way to intefere in that because they don't have police and stuff. Governments do. I don't have any free speech rights WRT stuff owned by other people. Suppose that I worked at Google. It's not a violation of my "free speech" rights for Google to refuse to publish Google's stuff, whether or not I produced said stuff for them.