3 ms·

The article critique Facebook on free speech grounds, and yet when people on the political right bring up free speech, they are direct to this [0] cartoon. So

The article critique Facebook on free speech grounds, and yet when people on the political right bring up free speech, they are direct to this [0] cartoon. So which is it? Are big companies going to be bound be free speech requirements that allow right wing free speech, or are we going to define a new notion of freedom that includes the right to be transgender but excludes the right to express right wing opinions. [0] https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

cactusface 11y ago
If I understand what you're saying, that's an interesting point. With a smaller government and less regulation, corporations tend to have more influence over your day to day freedoms. When there isn't much choice or variety when it comes to picking corporations - such as your choice of online social network - then sometimes it doesn't mean very much that in theory the governments grant you much more freedom.
- JesperRavn 11y ago
  Yes, that was one part of the point I was making. The other is that the left want to have it both ways. They want to argue that because of the point you made, corporations have a duty to provide the same kind of freedoms that governments are required to allow in public forums. On the other hand, when right wingers are censored by corporations, they deny that there is any duty for a private corporation to provide a venue for people to express speech that the corporation doesn't allow. EDIT: e.g. jjaredsimpson's downvoted comment would probably not be downvoted if this article was about a "racist" post being removed from facebook.
  - cactusface 11y ago
    I don't really think "the left" and "the right" are useful categories, unless you want to talk about people who don't think for themselves, which granted is a lot of people. I think it's perfectly acceptable to demand that some kinds of speech be allowed on Facebook and the rest prohibited - Hacker News functions well enough with restrictions on speech - but it's a total misunderstanding of the legal system in the US to demand it under the first amendment. And to say that the first amendment applies in one case but not the other is hypocritical, yes.
beedogs 11y ago
If you're trying to equate "right wing opinions" with "things assholes say", as the comic implies, then I agree with you there. If you're trying to say that there should be no consequences to expressing awful ideas or opinions, I couldn't disagree more.
- quanticle 11y ago
  But how do you define awful? That's what the parent is asking. Is Rush Limbaugh "awful"? Should you be banned from Facebook for quoting him? What about Marx? Am I supposed to be banned for advocating the violent overthrow of an "unjust" capitalistic system? I agree that Facebook isn't the government. Facebook can't throw me in jail. But the internet is supposed to be more than that. The promise of the internet was that anyone, no matter how crazy their opinion, would have a relatively equal voice and could publish their opinions using the same tools as thosed used by the powerful. With Facebook's policies, we're going back to the old pre-Internet media landscape, where a small cloistered elite gets to decide whose voice gets amplified and whose fades into silence. Meet the new media elite, the same as the old media elite.

cactusface 11y ago

If I understand what you're saying, that's an interesting point. With a smaller government and less regulation, corporations tend to have more influence over your day to day freedoms. When there isn't much choice or variety when it comes to picking corporations - such as your choice of online social network - then sometimes it doesn't mean very much that in theory the governments grant you much more freedom.

JesperRavn 11y ago
Yes, that was one part of the point I was making. The other is that the left want to have it both ways. They want to argue that because of the point you made, corporations have a duty to provide the same kind of freedoms that governments are required to allow in public forums. On the other hand, when right wingers are censored by corporations, they deny that there is any duty for a private corporation to provide a venue for people to express speech that the corporation doesn't allow. EDIT: e.g. jjaredsimpson's downvoted comment would probably not be downvoted if this article was about a "racist" post being removed from facebook.
- cactusface 11y ago
  I don't really think "the left" and "the right" are useful categories, unless you want to talk about people who don't think for themselves, which granted is a lot of people. I think it's perfectly acceptable to demand that some kinds of speech be allowed on Facebook and the rest prohibited - Hacker News functions well enough with restrictions on speech - but it's a total misunderstanding of the legal system in the US to demand it under the first amendment. And to say that the first amendment applies in one case but not the other is hypocritical, yes.

beedogs 11y ago

If you're trying to equate "right wing opinions" with "things assholes say", as the comic implies, then I agree with you there. If you're trying to say that there should be no consequences to expressing awful ideas or opinions, I couldn't disagree more.

quanticle 11y ago
But how do you define awful? That's what the parent is asking. Is Rush Limbaugh "awful"? Should you be banned from Facebook for quoting him? What about Marx? Am I supposed to be banned for advocating the violent overthrow of an "unjust" capitalistic system? I agree that Facebook isn't the government. Facebook can't throw me in jail. But the internet is supposed to be more than that. The promise of the internet was that anyone, no matter how crazy their opinion, would have a relatively equal voice and could publish their opinions using the same tools as thosed used by the powerful. With Facebook's policies, we're going back to the old pre-Internet media landscape, where a small cloistered elite gets to decide whose voice gets amplified and whose fades into silence. Meet the new media elite, the same as the old media elite.