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

101–110 of 428 posts

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

#101

Post by ceejayoz »

pannSun wrote: post #75
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”?

You are being deliberately obtuse. No matter how one answers your question, most internet users still have unaccountable 3rd parties opaquely choosing who they communicate with [1]. Do you admit this is a problem, but you just don't see a solution compatible with the 1st amendment's freedom of association? Do you support the Civil Rights Act's restriction of freedom based on race and/or think it is constitutionally v…

> Do you support the Civil Rights Act's restriction of freedom based on race and/or think it is constitutionally valid?

Sure, just as common carrier regulation is constitutionally valid. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact; the Founding Fathers very clearly did not intend it to be one. We've accepted a non-literal wording of the First and other amendments since the beginning.

> Why would the same logic not hold for restricting companies such as Twitter then?

Because being kicked off Twitter is hardly the same as not being able to dial 911 or purchase critical services. We've passed laws to correct specific, significant harms that are nothing like being unable to tweet. We weighed First Amendment rights against the rights of those being harmed in these situations and had to decide which conflicting rights mattered more.

That same process happens here. Different situation, different consequences, different decision.

> Spare me rebuttals of "if they really wanted to communicate, they could do so by carrier pigeon!" - 99% of users won't go through with such effort, or even know who they are being herded away from.

No need for a rebuttal. That's fine.

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

#102

Post by ceejayoz »

zmgsabst wrote: post #66
ceejayoz wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Perhaps you could state what you think those differences are.

Sure. US law, particularly Section 230, makes it very clear that social networks are not common carriers. Section 230 indemnifies them for liability when moderating material that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected".

These actions that would be explicitly forbidden for a common carrier to perform; as such, we can pretty conclusively state Congress never intended to apply common carrier status to places like Twitter.

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

#103

Post by axlee »

User23 wrote: post #71
throwawaydad12 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For added weirdness “ba len ci aga” is Latin for “do what you want.” See for yourself with Google translate. It could also be translated as the more familiar “do what thou wilt,” a rather infamous occult credo.

The company was founded more than a century ago by a spanish prodigy named Cristobal Balenciaga...stop with the conspirationist nonsense. Not here.

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

#104

Post by autoexec »

MrMan wrote: post #98
autoexec wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s no evidence that sunlight is actually the best disinfectant; We've never found anything that works better. For any given idea discussing and examining the positions for and against it is still the best way to get to the truth. The more transparent that process is, the better. Conspiracy theorists don't care about facts or truth. They will act as they do regardless, but free speech ideals make it very diffic…

there were, numerically, basically no alt-right people 20 years ago. now regular assholes are being infected by this stuff and a huge percentage of the information storm coming at me every day is either angry, an outright lie, a reposting of something hateful or untrue, and "sunlight" isnt helping anything. we are creating an insane landscape of anger, loathing and unreality, and now more and more public figures are…

> there were, numerically, basically no alt-right people 20 years ago.

Although it's never had a good one, for any reasonable definition of "alt-right people" this isn't true at all. It's the same racist far-right folk as always, just now online (like we all are).

> now regular assholes are being infected by this stuff

Not really. The idea of racist ideology as an infection is dangerous and simply wrong. You could spend all day every day listening to racist propaganda and hate speech and you'll never suddenly wake up thinking some people are better than others because of race. If everyone who listened to hate speech became mind-controlled into being "radicalized" researchers and anti-racist activists who do follow that stuff would have a massive problem, but it doesn't happen. There are people who are vulnerable to falling in with that sort of crowd, but even then it's not the message that hooks them.

> a huge percentage of the information storm coming at me every day is either angry, an outright lie, a reposting of something hateful or untrue and "sunlight" isnt helping anything.

the internet has enabled easy global communication and some of what we get is malicious and manufactured to deceive, but mostly it's a distorted reflection of what people are feeling in real life. Social media platforms encourage the worst in us, and reward exaggerated anger and extreme inflexible positions. That's largely to do with how social media platforms are designed and the algorithms that drive engagement. We don't need massive amounts of censorship to solve that problem.

Sunlight is helping!

I've seen people (even on this site) post information only to be corrected by others. I've even seen some of those people acknowledge that they were wrong and start to question their sources!

Having hate groups in massive online communities made it easier than ever to keep an eye on them. It's enabled us to see what lies were being spread and get fact checks published to increase exposure to the truth before many people were exposed to the lies (research has shown it's far more effective to inoculate people with education before exposure to misinformation than it is to get them to change their mind on something after they've been misled).

Because many of the traitors planning to attack the capitol on Jan 6th were on well known social media platforms like Facebook and Parler police and researchers were able to use those posts to identify and prosecute people they wouldn't have been able to otherwise.

It all comes down to this: You can't fight against something you aren't allowed to see. As long as people are able to communicate (online or offline) they're going to spread misinformation. We shouldn't just sweep it under the rug so that we can pretend the problem is solved. We have to confront it directly and openly even when it's uncomfortable.

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

#105

Post by andsoitis »

gnicholas wrote: post #42
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 a…

> twitter doesn't "publish you

Worth noting that Twitter just announced that users will see more tweets from people they don’t follow: https://techcrunch.com/2022/11/30/twitter-recommended-tweets...

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

#106

Post by andsoitis »

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.

> tolerate child pornography (unlike the prior owners of Twitter)

Twitter previously tolerated this? That’s the first I hear of that. Do you have more info?

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

#107

Post by mk_stjames »

wutbrodo wrote: post #91
anotherevan wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding shadow banning: In just the last hour I came across the concept of "heaven banning" which tickles me. https://twitter.com/nearcyan/status/1532076277947330561 (Note: The article in the image is fake, hence the word "hypothetical" in the tweet.)

The first time I read about this, I got a strong feeling of Ellisonian existential dread.

Curious, when you say 'Ellisonian existential dread'.. are you referring to Ralph Ellison (Invisible Man) or to Harlan Ellision, the Scifi writer (e.g. I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream)? Because... it works for both in this case I think.

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

#108

Post by drewrv »

autoexec wrote: post #16
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.

All online platforms need to have moderators to prevent things like spam and illegal content. That doesn't mean that they can't also uphold the idea of free speech principles though. Musk really went crazy with cutting staff, but I'm not sure if it was because he wrongly thought he needed to cut the moderation teams in order to support free speech or if he just did it because moderation is expensive.

Why is spam always glossed over in these "principled defenses" of free speech? It's legal speech.

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

#109

Post by esparrohack »

whateveracct wrote: post #77
throwawaydad12 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've seen it. It's a child with one of their stuffed animal purses in BDSM gear. And there's some wine in a shot. And there's text for a SCOTUS ruling that child pornography is not protected speech. I'm honestly not seeing what's so grotesque about it all? Feels tame as far as fashion stuff goes. Wouldn't bat an eye in the '90s.

I think it's really creepy that you don't see anything wrong with a child in BDSM gear. And alcohol.

That's actually sadism.

I dunno, maybe you just don't get it. Do you know what sadism is?

On the other hand, I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it shouldn't bother me other than "oh just get over it it's not that bad", which isn't working with me, since I have no petty bourgeois sensibilities, and I know what I'm doing when it comes to art.

Why should I be cool with sadism?

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

#110

Post by andsoitis »

User23 wrote: post #68
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.

Such as?
Post reply on HN