Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

thefire.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 428 posts

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#31

Post by Amezarak »

glyphosate wrote: post #18

"I cannot contemplate human affairs, without laughing or crying. I choose to laugh. When People talk of the Freedom of Writing Speaking or thinking, I cannot choose but laugh. No such thing ever existed. No such thing now exists: but I hope it will exist, But it must be hundreds of years after you and I Shall write and Speak no more." -John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1817 https://founders.archives.gov/documen…

This is particularly ironic since Adams famously was responsible for the Alien and Sedition Acts and had people imprisoned for criticizing him.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#32

Post by ceejayoz »

zmgsabst wrote: post #30
ceejayoz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn’t Twitter, one of your “private parties”, also get to pick “who they don't want to do anything with”?

We view certain companies that provide essential services as “common carriers” — who aren’t allowed to discriminate based on how you use their product. Common carrier status for essential services is one of the ways we protect freedoms in the US. Examples: power company, phone company, ISP. People are starting to view Twitter et al as similar to phone companies — and hence think they should be bound by common carrier…

Twitter is not a common carrier, and has significant differences from phone companies.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#33

Post by Amezarak »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #9

Quoted post unavailable.

The alternative is well-funded and well-connected institutions like the Cato Institute and other think-tanks being treated as authorities that the media and government can launder "the truth" through, and anonymous Internet commenters proving them wrong being censored.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#34

Post by biophysboy »

Posting online consists of an individual speaking and a platform publishing it. Social media is not a passive medium like a telephone; it acts as an editor, albeit algorithmically.

In my opinion, the fact that speech online has this dual nature is why there is so much debate about it. Here's a mock interaction...

Individual: "You shadowbanned me. Why?"

Platform: "We don't want to publish you 1 billion times on the internet"

Individual: "Then don't be an editor. Don't give people special treatment."

Platform: "We tried that at first; it did not go well. I can make my platform however I want to."

Individual: "But there are only handful of people making choices that affect billions."

Platform: "The vast majority of these people are not banned or censored"

Etc etc, the debate never ends, because the two sides have opposing financial interests and political opinions/values.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#35

Post by anonyme-honteux »

Freedom of speech exists in dozen of countries but "Free Speech (TM)" is a very US specific thing that seemingly generate an infinite amount of non-sense. People get lost in abstraction and start to think that giving a megaphone to fascists like Twitter did even before Musk is somehow good because the best way to defeat fascism, when you live on planet Mars, is on the "marketplace of ideas". On planet Earth this is not at all how it works, the rise of fascists correlates directly with diminishing freedoms, and to defeat fascists you need the Red Army.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#36

Post by guelo »

autoexec wrote: post #29
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #9

Quoted post unavailable.

> I think he and the Cato Institute want to create a world where their funders can tell lies with impunity. Free speech only makes it harder for people to tell lies with impunity since people are then free to discuss your lies and call them out for what they are. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant". By all means, get those lies out in the open so we can publicly tear them to shreds, even better when online platforms…

The problem is the DOS attack on culture where bad actors flood the zone with bullshit.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#37

Post by macintux »

autoexec wrote: post #29
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #9

Quoted post unavailable.

> I think he and the Cato Institute want to create a world where their funders can tell lies with impunity. Free speech only makes it harder for people to tell lies with impunity since people are then free to discuss your lies and call them out for what they are. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant". By all means, get those lies out in the open so we can publicly tear them to shreds, even better when online platforms…

When everyone’s shouting disinformation, fact checking often falls on deaf ears. There’s no evidence that sunlight is actually the best disinfectant; if anything, making it easier for conspiracy theorists to find each other has just expanded their echo chamber.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#38

Post by throwawaydad12 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #11
throwawaydad12 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Again, it’s not about whether or not he wants the stuff on Twitter. If you fire all the staff who find it, handle user reports of it, and remove it, the end result is the same.

It doesn't matter how many flunkies you have on staff. What matters is whether the stuff is effectively caught and removed (and probably reported to the authorities).

Time will tell on this, but currently Musk looks a lot _more_ credible on this than Twitter 1.0. They seemed to have been a lot more focused on repressing wrong-think than dealing with actual criminal behavior. And this isn't just abstract--they helped ruin countless lives.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#39

Post by autoexec »

pixl97 wrote: post #15
autoexec wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! I should be able to join or leave groups discussing any sort of topic or view point I like on social media platforms without having my options limited or my views censored. If I don't want to associate with someone I can unfollow them, unsubscribe from their subreddit, block them etc. What matters is that it's my choice to do that. We shouldn't have that choice made for us by the people running online platfo…

Um what? So me and my buddy Tim are going to come to your house and talk about how much you suck. Autoexec: But this is MY private property. So yes, So are online platforms. They can kick you out at any time they want and you can pound sand. If you don't like it set up own server online to freely associate. You don't get to demand their resources. You don't get access to their network.

> So me and my buddy Tim are going to come to your house and talk about how much you suck.

My house isn't a global social media platform. It's a private residence. Different rules. It's not that small private online groups shouldn't exist either, but we absolutely should expect major social media platforms to uphold free speech ideals and allow people to speak without excessive censorship. We should seek out and support platforms that do this and shun those that do not.

I have no need for another gatekeeper deciding for me what I'm allowed to see and hear based on their personal ideology. A platform like that isn't serving me. If someone wants to create platform as a service for others, that platform should empower the users it serves to find and engage with the content they want and block/ignore what they aren't interested in.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#40

Post by asdff »

Amezarak wrote: post #33
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #9

Quoted post unavailable.

The alternative is well-funded and well-connected institutions like the Cato Institute and other think-tanks being treated as authorities that the media and government can launder "the truth" through, and anonymous Internet commenters proving them wrong being censored.

Alternative? This is how it is today, only the anonymous internet commenters are just ignored rather than censored. Plenty of good and extremely popular arguments are made on internet forums, few see the light of day because internet commenters have no agency and people are unwant to engage in widespread labor strikes to enact change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

Post reply on HN