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

41–50 of 428 posts

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

#41

Post by gd1 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #32
zmgsabst wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No post body was provided.

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

#42

Post by gnicholas »

biophysboy wrote: post #34

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 in…

This is perhaps true for social media in general, but less so for twitter. For example, twitter doesn't "publish you 1 billion times on the internet" unless you have a million followers. It's less convincing to say "because we don't want to transmit your message to the 1 billion people who actively chose to follow you".

How does this argument fare when it comes to email? Should I expect gmail to inspect my messages and not deliver them if they don't like what I'm talking about?

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

#44

Post by actionfromafar »

anonyme-honteux wrote: post #35

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 n…

And to defeat the Red Army you need lizards, to defeat the lizards you need Chinese needle snakes, to defeat those you need gorillas, and when winter comes around, those freeze to death!

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

#45

Post by bcrosby95 »

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.

> If you don't like it set up own server online to freely associate.

How exactly does your server get online without utilizing the private property of some entity?

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

#46

Post by flenserboy »

anonyme-honteux wrote: post #35

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 n…

This not only begs the question, it sets up a situation where expression is entirely controlled and curtailed by those at the levers of power. It is a recipe for an entirely unfree future, one where right and useful ideas will not be allowed to see the light of day because they will cost someone else money and/or power. That is not a future I would want to force on anyone. This is why so many oppose freedom — they're fearful of Bad Things, not realizing that while there will certainly be some negative consequences to freedom in speech or in living, squelching those will also destroy much more that is good and helpful.

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

#47

Post by mistermann »

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…

This has a dependency on the public's skills in distinguishing between True, False, and (rarely an option available to most) Unknown.

There is also reason to believe that governments and corporations may prefer that people aren't very capable in this area.

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

#48

Post by actionfromafar »

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…

Like HN without moderation!

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

#49

Post by whateveracct »

throwawaydad12 wrote: post #8
ceejayoz wrote: post #6

> The popular radio program “On the Media” feared Musk’s support for free speech would lead to a free-for-all environment rife with child pornography. But that’s a strawman: child pornography is illegal. This is itself a strawman. No one thinks Musk will permit it on Twitter. The gutting of the moderation teams who tackle it is the concern. An underenforced rule is often not a very effective one.

Quoted post unavailable.

Are you implying Balenciaga is .. trafficking children or making child porn or something? Not sure what you mean by "the person we should be worried about."

My understanding is they made an offensive photoshoot using children but I wasn't aware of any sexual abuse allegations. I'm aware of the court opinion on the blanket and the sexually suggestive stuffed animals. It's inflammatory, sure, but there's definitely a case that it's artistic as well.

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

#50

Post by jmyeet »

> The White House is free to make the argument that Twitter should police “misinformation” and “hate speech” on its platform. But it has no legal basis to say that Twitter must do so.

False. Or, rather, it's false if you want Twitter to maintain its liability shield in Section 230 of the Cojmunications Decency Act [1], specifically 230(c)(2). Without this, Twitter becomes liable for any content. This is of course US-centric. Different countries have other requirements.

> Musk may not be the best — or most consistent — messenger for free speech. And you may not agree with his interpretation of free speech.

We all know what Musk means when he says "free speech". It's the same as when any conservative says "free speech". It means "hate speech". It means not wanting to get banned for spouting transphobia (in particular), homophobia, racist screeds, misogyny, etc.

> If we care about an America whose support for free expression goes beyond the law, we must support a culture of free expression.

No, we shouldn't. Every time some variant of free speech absolutism has been tried, the results are always the same: it fills up with Nazis. Everyone else leaves. Even 4chan has a ToS (basically "no CP"). That's the place for unhinged hate speech and conspiracy theories.

Platforms don't want to be known as being a Nazi hotbed. Advertisers flee. Beyond that however platforms should consider what's best for the total user base. Allowing a few extremists to spew hate speech in the name of some ideal of free speech culture at the expense of everyone else is narcissism personified.

I'll close with noting the paradox of tolerance [2].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Post reply on HN