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

61–70 of 428 posts

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

#61

Post by throwawaydad12 »

whateveracct wrote: post #49
throwawaydad12 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

No abuse that I've heard of. But very offensive. Look further (not at work). It's too gross to describe on HN.

I'm pretty strong on free speech myself. But if you want to repress awful stuff, Musk is not the place to start. And the narrative that he's somehow lowering the level of discourse on Twitter is absurd.

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

#62

Post by pixl97 »

autoexec wrote: post #39
pixl97 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 supp…

Please show me where these different rules are codified? It's a bullshit argument and you know it. Social media does not make sense globally. You cannot appease both the US government, conglomerate of EU governments, and the Chinese government without being in conflict of what one of them wants. 'free speech' cannot exist with current national laws in most places and would be banned at DNS level, with the more authoritarian governments banning it at the transit level.

You again want access to someone else's network and software you have absolutely zero right to. You use these services under surveillance capitalism without paying directly yourself and make demands of them. Their platform owes you less than nothing and we see this codified in the TOS's that state exactly that.

Disconnect from them completely and take their power away. Run your own services and control what is said on your own network. Demanding that someone else do it is insanity.

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

#63

Post by someNameIG »

Amezarak wrote: post #23
ceejayoz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That thread is debunked in the comments; the CSAM report option predates Musk. https://twitter.com/ChronicBabak/status/1594762640357982208

Thanks, I will remove that part of the comment. Assuming good faith from someone who appears to be extremely active in this area, perhaps this was an A/B tested feature and she didn't have it. What I find more concerning about this is the way media attention is used offensively. Clearly CSAM has been a problem on Twitter for some time. But only post-Musk is CSAM on Twitter becoming a focus of attention in the media .…

I've been following her for a few weeks now. I think she is coming at it from a good position but she also seems to be a very big Musk fan, and takes what he says at face value. And many of the replies to her tweets come from very Qanon people.

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

#64

Post by autoexec »

mistermann wrote: post #47
autoexec wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There's some truth to this, but what's the alternative? Do we design communication systems with the assumption that all people are incapable of telling fact from fiction just to make it easier for those who can't?

I think it's far better to give people the tools to work out what is true/false and to debate difficult topics (even those without a clear answer) in a transparent manner.

I'd agree that both governments and corporations would be thrilled at the idea of a population that has no choice but to accept whatever they are told, but I think that as a people we're better served when we have the option to develop the skills to think critically and online platforms can play an important role in that.

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

#65

Post by savingsPossible »

jmyeet wrote: post #50

> 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-…

You might have misunderstood Section 230(c)(2)

Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the good faith removal or moderation of third-party material they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."

I.e.: you can remove some content without being considered an editor reponsible for all content

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

#66

Post by zmgsabst »

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.

Perhaps you could state what you think those differences are.

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

#67

Post by pixl97 »

woooooo wrote: post #28
pixl97 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The undersea cables are private property, also. What if all of the layer 3 networks got together and decided to not allow you in particular to demand their resources?

Then I would assume that you're screwed. With that said, there's a regulator on IP allocations and their may be something doable on the governance level to revoke said IPs if you're not playing nice with the rest of the world.

As for the actual server resources, you have not established where you have any legal right to them.

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

#68

Post by User23 »

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.

Twitter recently shut down several child exploitation hash tags that had been ignored until Musk took over.

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

#69

Post by savingsPossible »

jmyeet wrote: post #50

> 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-…

Is it transphobia to argue if children should have access to surgery? To argue about puberty blockers? To argue about therapies different than transition for dysphoria?

Society is changing, and people want to discuss it. To be heard. Yes, that makes change harder and slower. But you absolutely do not get to choose the "right" solution and call everyone that is concerned and unconvinced "transphobic"

Eg: https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/oklahoma-lawmaker-files...

Pretty weird if something can be discussed in legislature, but not on twitter

I don't know that I agree with him. I'd need epidemiological data. But that is not the point. The point is that we, as a society, need to discuss.

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

#70

Post by autoexec »

guelo wrote: post #36
autoexec wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's tempting to think that preventing an idea from being discussed online means it will go away, but that's never been the case. It's much better to have it be challenged and corrected publicly.

It really can be difficult to keep up with all the lies being told, but automated fact checking can be a great help here, and the more a lie is seen the greater the odds it will be challenged (provided we have the freedom to challenge it)

Post reply on HN