Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Egan_BW]

Free speech is the government giving up their right to censor things. This is a good idea because the government is so powerful and widespread, that you're almost certain to run into it at some point. If you want to be able to say what you want, you need a promise that the government will not stop you.
Sufficiently powerful corporations might be able to reach an equivalent level of power and unavoidability, so if we like the government offering free speech, we might also want large corporations to have a similar policy.

Because it's possible that we end up in a place where the government promises free speech, but it doesn't even matter in practice because all communication is controlled by companies which have made no such promise.


Arguments that the owner of the house is free to not invite you in if you're rude could apply just as well to the government having the right to kick you out of the country if you disagree with them. The only reason why the (USA) government doesn't have that right is because they took it away from themselves. This is generally regarded as a good thing, so the suggestion is that internet based companies do something equivalent.

[Max™]

First they came for the nazis and I laughed for I've no problem with jews.
Then they came for tumblrporn and I laughed again as I've no love of tumblr.
Then they came for mah dorfs and I laughed as they tried to figure out what was going on and gave up after a werebeast wiped them out.

[Loud Whispers]

A blacklist is exactly what happened with Alex Jones, though. All the major tech companies dropped him. It isn't like he lost one major platform but still had several others he could take in new viewers through. Now he can only attract new viewers through obscure, little-known and little-visited websites that can't hope to keep a major platform running. As for his own website, remember the thing about Google dropping page ranks? You don't think they could do it again, to anyone they wanted to?

And freight vs. information is not all that valid of an analogy. Freedom of speech and freedom to spread information is protected by the Constitution. Freedom to send freight is not. This is because the ability for a handful of powerful people to censor nearly all information (since, as I said before, nearly all the information that is consumed is consumed on the Internet) is hundreds of times more harmful than banning certain material goods. It's very important that we stop this from happening.

The way things are going gives me depression

Not only will future information be curated on a level never before achieved by elite society, but it will be celebrated as an accomplishment. The same skepticism applied to a state disappears when conducted by a monopoly, where a flag is held in disdain, a brand is held in praise
Benjamin Franklin's commercial purpose was the proliferation of the printing press across the 13 states so that not only could free thought be made, it could be disseminated, without constraint from the consent of a small clique of publishers. How now that the American public would be the ones to give private corporations free reign to leverage their dominance kills my meagre hope left for the future

Free speech is the government giving up their right to censor things. This is a good idea because the government is so powerful and widespread, that you're almost certain to run into it at some point. If you want to be able to say what you want, you need a promise that the government will not stop you.
Sufficiently powerful corporations might be able to reach an equivalent level of power and unavoidability, so if we like the government offering free speech, we might also want large corporations to have a similar policy.

Because it's possible that we end up in a place where the government promises free speech, but it doesn't even matter in practice because all communication is controlled by companies which have made no such promise.
Arguments that the owner of the house is free to not invite you in if you're rude could apply just as well to the government having the right to kick you out of the country if you disagree with them. The only reason why the (USA) government doesn't have that right is because they took it away from themselves. This is generally regarded as a good thing, so the suggestion is that internet based companies do something equivalent.

This is a complete reversal of the status of people in relation to state upon which the American nation was founded: that the rights of man are inherent, that the authority of the state is bestowed. If the state is inherently an institution with total authority over every aspect of its subjects, and the state is merely an entity which relinquishes elements of its authority at its own decision, the rights of man have no inherent existence - they exist only on the promise provided by a state which all believe is the commander of men. Now I have my issues with the philosophical basis upon which the USA was founded but by God, a theory was there, and if it's not going to be turned into a Parliamentary democracy it certainly shouldn't be turned into this Frankenstein Republic whose liberty is a gift given by government - rescinded at will. Whether by a corporation or state, your society and your rights are not a thing to be given, they are a thing to be defended! What sanity exists in allowing Google to hold people to blame for not stopping them?

First they came for the nazis and I laughed for I've no problem with jews.
Then they came for tumblrporn and I laughed again as I've no love of tumblr.
Then they came for mah dorfs and I laughed as they tried to figure out what was going on and gave up after a werebeast wiped them out.

Enter the shallow net
No controversy
Just ads and information mining

[Starver]

For those not in the know, the IPFS (InterPlanetary File System) operates much like torrents. The web content is stored initially on the uploader's machine but then spreads out to other machines that are interested in that content. It's a bit limited for dynamic content at the moment, hence why I used "IPFS-esque". So pretty much "run it yourself", just without the huge server costs.

NNTP.!

[Max™]

The hell is an ad? Those things ublock or umatrix prevent?

[Dunamisdeos]

I mean look, we are in agreement that censoring as a rule is bad. For the same reason I was against Trump's travel ban and subsequent preferential treatment to Christians, I am wholeheartedly against it. Today we censor Alex Jones, tomorrow we censor human rights organizations, I get it. I agree.

But you can't force private companies to espouse your views. To use the freight company analogy, they ABSOLUTELY DO need to know what they are shipping. No, they will not read the data on the HD's you are sending. But they absolutely need to know that there are HD's in those boxes. If I want to distribute a copy of Alex Jones podcast or whatever the hell he does these days to every door in your neighborhood, and you have the only bicycle, you are obligated to do it for me under your logic. You have to do your own goddam work and create a platform if the thing you need to promote is so important. You don't deserve one made by anyone else.

And no, he is NOT blacklisted. He's not banned from the internet, or banned from speaking, and he won't be arrested for spreading his evil crap around in whatever stupid way he chooses. He simply does not have access to the most convenient means. He can run a radio station. He can walk door to door and creepily sweat at people while spouting hateful gibberish. It's inconvenient that NSFW artists have to use other means than they were previously used to. Nothing more. If it's such an artistic tragedy, they can band together and create a platform the same way every single other platform began.

[Loud Whispers]

The hell is an ad? Those things ublock or umatrix prevent?

They will do nothing to block adverts embedded in content, or content commissioned for the purpose of advertising

I mean look, we are in agreement that censoring as a rule is bad. For the same reason I was against Trump's travel ban and subsequent preferential treatment to Christians, I am wholeheartedly against it. Today we censor Alex Jones, tomorrow we censor human rights organizations, I get it. I agree.

But you can't force private companies to espouse your views. To use the freight company analogy, they ABSOLUTELY DO need to know what they are shipping. No, they will not read the data on the HD's you are sending. But they absolutely need to know that there are HD's in those boxes. If I want to distribute a copy of Alex Jones podcast or whatever the hell he does these days to every door in your neighborhood, and you have the only bicycle, you are obligated to do it for me under your logic. You have to do your own goddam work and create a platform if the thing you need to promote is so important. You don't deserve one made by anyone else.

And no, he is NOT blacklisted. He's not banned from the internet, or banned from speaking, and he won't be arrested for spreading his evil crap around in whatever stupid way he chooses. He simply does not have access to the most convenient means. He can run a radio station. He can walk door to door and creepily sweat at people while spouting hateful gibberish. It's inconvenient that NSFW artists have to use other means than they were previously used to. Nothing more. If it's such an artistic tragedy, they can band together and create a platform the same way every single other platform began.

Arresting and banning are too crude of tools to be useful. Manipulation of what information is conveniently available to the public is much more effective, and for companies with such insurmountable control over the information the majority of people will see or how they will form online social networks, saying disaffected groups should just go and form their own rival Google or Facebook is not a realistic option for anyone currently alive. We are fools, if our common ancestors recognised the danger in regulating monopolies in mediums of print, news and entertainment, only to decide at the most important junction that all mediums may be manipulated at will by private monopolies. And the great argument in favour will just be: Go make your own Disney. Go make your own Google. Like a private bookstore in Kuala Lumpur that refuses to publish the Origin of Species in Malay because they disagree with its theological implications: As a result, rendering all reliant on the bookstore for such knowledge ignorant of its existence. The greater the stranglehold on information a private entity has, the greater the need to regulate arises - lest we find that a monopolistic publisher is not fine, but the far vaster audiences of the internet or social media are free reign for a handful of people to master. It does not compute.

[McTraveller]

Also, to be blunt: freedom of speech is freedom from government censorship. A private business is not, by the very definition of the term, capable of infringing freedom of speech. Public institutions? Sure, though it can get complicated. Private business? Nope. Even then, freedom of speech doesn't override other peoples freedoms. So you can be fired from a public institution or arrested for inciting others to violence (for example), and that still isn't a freedom of speech violation.

And that's a sad thing - freedom of speech should go beyond government censorship.  Also turn it on its head - even if the government doesn't censor you, but every corporation does, including every employer, so for instance you become "unemployable" because of something you might have said a decade ago, do you have rights at that point?

I mean, for an extreme argument, look at slavery: the government didn't employ slaves, private organizations and individuals did.  I'd love to see for some targeted Supreme Court cases that work to strengthen freedom of speech rights, say, in the workplace.

Take the stuff about something as mundane as the nonsense surrounding Kevin Hart (I'm too lazy to even look up spelling) and the Oscars or whatever because of some jokes he made.  Look at all the other media figures who have had their livelihoods destroyed because of something they said.  Look at all the nonsense about codes of conduct for computer source code, because heaven forbid it might have swear words or derogatory comments in it.

Now, I'm not condoning any of the things that might have been said, but it's the complete erosion of due process or even reasonable consideration.  Yeah it was all done by "private industry", but it's becoming just as bad as if it was the government: people are getting more and more restricted in their behavior - and even so fearful and over-stressed because of it that it's starting to manifest in public health issues (extreme increases in social anxiety disorders, especially in teens).

POST PREVIEW ADDITION

Regarding platforms: I think the issue is that most "platforms" like Youtube or whatever hosting site, are there for people to express themselves.  You aren't forcing YouTube to "distribute your message" by posting there - YouTube is already distributing messages. I agree that YouTube doesn't have to monetize every video though - they should only monetize the ones that make them money with enough views.

"Not having access to the most convenient means" is an interesting phrase too - consider if instead we said "not having access to the most convenient voting booths" or "not having access to the most convenient schools."

[Loud Whispers]

And that's a sad thing - freedom of speech should go beyond government censorship.  Also turn it on its head - even if the government doesn't censor you, but every corporation does, including every employer, so for instance you become "unemployable" because of something you might have said a decade ago, do you have rights at that point?

It's all so tiring. People pushing for the technical allowance of a thing; whilst pushing for the actual destruction of a thing. As if a private mechanism of control is above a state mechanism of control. That this continues long after the state and the private have struck common accord confuses me: The politicians work for the private corporations at the "end" of their political careers, the private corporations have political ambitions, manipulating their own services and spend millions lobbying politicians, but because it is done under the brand and not under the flag we are supposed to submit. Did I forget the East India Company died or does it seem to be that tyranny is yet again fine if you do it for cash? One of the men who ran my nation in the coalition government now works for Facebook. He is now more powerful as a private worker than he was in government. STILL SO, how can it then be asked for people to tolerate the intolerable because it is done by a private monopoly, and not by the state? Whether a man is fucked by a government minister, a mafia boss or an executive officer, is his arse not sore?

I have not heard anyone here dispute the value of information when it comes to educating, informing and manipulating the masses. We have all seen how the tools of social media ran riots from London to the Yellow Jackets, or toppled regimes throughout the Middle East. How this can be reconciled with a willingness to give free reign to operate politically, really just activates my almonds. What a pity; it is no evil to decide what information your people receive, it is only evil for the state to do so in the open. What you say McTraveller resonates with me. Men and women will be told when to go home by their boss, but not by the state. Yet the executive is beyond questioning? Neoliberalism will have this effect on a society

[MorleyDev]

Except the issue of slavery is that it broke the 'human rights' of the slaves. That it was done by private individuals doesn't matter there any more than a theft being done by private individuals and not the government.

And if you're going to going to paint an extreme picture, also consider that by the same logic a shop window would be *required* to show an advert in it's window that says...let's go with "GOD HATES FAGS" but imagine whatever horrible thing you want, simply because the creator of the advert was willing to pay for it and the window is there for them to share their messages so what right does the shop have to deny them?

There's a very strong philosophical distinction between allowing people to do their own thing, and mandating that private citizens *actively open up their platform to enable them* to do their own thing.

Society is still figuring out how to deal with the rapid spread of 'information', true or false, allowed by the internet. Cock up over conspiracy, whilst there may have been intentional bad actors involve in things like the riots they weren't the ones doing the majority of the work to share the information. Most of the shares were from people who didn't know better and that's, in many respects, an education issue.

[Baffler]

It less resembles hauling freight or store windows and more resembles this case.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/326us501

The court ruled that Marsh had no realistic alternative to exercise her 1st amendment rights (in this case free speech and exercise of religion) than to do it on company property, and so they were ordered to allow her to do her thing and pay her some remuneration. The court also made the critical statement that, in general, constitutional rights usually trump property rights, and that a space open to the public must conform to those standards. Until Google and Facebook and the rest of them start charging subscription fees (inimical to their business models) to use their services they really ought to be considered 'public' if they aren't already.

[McTraveller]

Except the issue of slavery is that it broke the 'human rights' of the slaves. That it was done by private individuals doesn't matter there any more than a theft being done by private individuals and not the government.

So free speech isn't a human right?

And if you're going to going to paint an extreme picture, also consider that by the same logic a shop window would be *required* to show an advert in it's window that says...let's go with "GOD HATES FAGS" but imagine whatever horrible thing you want, simply because the creator of the advert was willing to pay for it and the window is there for them to share their messages so what right does the shop have to deny them?

Bad analogy I think.  It's more like a billboard company who accepts money to display a message.  The company could refuse the business, but once the payment is accepted they should display it.

There is no expectation that a shopkeeper display anything in its window unless the shopkeeper bought it, or the shopkeeper is selling its window space as advertising.  No rational person would say a shopkeeper should be forced to accept money to post a sign in the window.

For advertising-funded media I admit it's a bit disconnected: the ad-funded site tells the people paying "I will take your money and let other people post stuff" and it tells the posters "you can post stuff because I need people to watch stuff".  But there is generally no direct link between the people paying and the people posting - that is, those paying don't know ahead of time exactly what content they'll get.

POST-PREVIEW EDIT:  I was looking for a case like the one Baffler just posted earlier, but my search-fu is weak.

[MorleyDev]

Not in terms of "saying whatever you want without consequence", no that is not a fundamental right. Again, freedom of speech is entirely about state-driven censorship limiting what information can be shared between people. Being arrested for talking about how the king is a fool and we should have a parliamentary democracy instead would be a violation of freedom of speech, being kicked out of your mates house because you called his cat ugly and that offended him would just be an overreaction. Getting kicked out of your mates house because you were incredibly homophobic is called reasonable.

Is this a thing in the USA? In the UK it used to be that many shop windows often contain adverts paid for, for cheap, by people from the local area. Used car for sale, lost dogs. That kind of thing.

As for: `Did Alabama violate Marsh's rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments by refusing to allow her to distribute religious material in the privately owned town of Chickasaw?`

Alabama. The state. Not "Did McDonalds violate Marsh's rights". Part of the reason the comparison it falls down is that a company town doesn't have to spend resources just keeping a person walking around it, they aren't being made to aid her. A website does have to spend resources to host that material, both in terms of the rack space for the HDDs and the bandwidth. Resources you'd be forcing a website to expend hosting content they didn't wish to.

[Dunamisdeos]

The difference with that situation and the current one is that the town was not being made to distribute the information for her. They were disallowing her from distributing it HERSELF altogether.

A better parallel to the current conversation would be if the court ruled that not only was Marsh allowed to distribute her pamphlets, but that the town was required to set aside a portion of their tax revenue in order to help her distribute them. You have a right to say what you want. You are not entitled to support by anyone, anywhere, at all.

[Dunamisdeos]

Is this a thing in the USA? In the UK it used to be that many shop windows often contain adverts paid for, for cheap, by people from the local area. Used car for sale, lost dogs. That kind of thing.

This is totally a thing, depending on where you live.

EDIT: Oops, double post, my bad.