271–280 of 486 posts
It's pretty simple really: prove that you've resisted CCP censorship instead of rolling over. Not hard.
Your police shoot unarmed black people and your president defends them. Free world my ass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sick of this response. These social media companies individually can reach billions of people with the ability (proven) to sway their thoughts and emotions (see Facebook, WHO, Reddit). Free speech must apply to public forums like this
I'm sorry you're sick of the First Amendment. Private companies have it just like you do. The remedy is to break up the big forums, not to take away the rights of their owners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hate to say it, but the terrific first amendment in the US only applies to the government. Companies and individuals can kick you out for saying things they dont like. There are laws against certain kinds of discrimination by companies, but those are not the first amendment. Just wanted to clarify that so we dont pretend companies are upholding constitutional rights on a regional basis. They are not accountable to it…
I'm sick of this response. These social media companies individually can reach billions of people with the ability (proven) to sway their thoughts and emotions (see Facebook, WHO, Reddit). Free speech must apply to public forums like this
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Freedom of speech is not the same in the rest of the world outside of America. Lots of European countries have hate speech laws in place where you can be convicted of crimes for speaking your mind if it's hateful. The EU has been pressuring large tech companies into self complying https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/28/16380526/eu-hate-speech-l... But just the other day, there was a huge post with lots of uproar about ho…
don't you realize that you are comparing that "hate speech" at EU level of "hate speech" with the possibility of saying free tibet? those are the same thing for you ? why I'm still replying here.. I think that I'm fighting the 50 cent party .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's clear what parent commenter is suggesting. And that no medium if privately owned has the right to moderate itself and must carry any and all speech and productions. Just because it's unreasonable and makes no sense doesn't mean people don't want it or widely support it on HN.
I think the difference is mediums that have reached a certain size and cultural influence that they are effectively modern public forums. If all public discussion is on happening on these private platforms then they a civic duty to not suppress speech. What's happening is people conflate "not suppressing speech" with "supporting hate speech." They don't support anything. They're nothing more at this point than a publ…
Primarily, you are arguing for compelling corporation to expend effort and expense to carry content deemed objectionable by officers of that company, and I'm not sure you've thought that through. You might think politically-[whatever] voices are being silenced--absent evidence--but if the US government decides to violate hundreds of years of established norms and force websites to cease censoring content, it won't be just content you favor that explodes. And if the US government can force Facebook and Twitter to carry content they don't like, then what legal standard separates them from Hacker News, for example?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The person you are responding to didn’t make a first amendment argument, or say anything about the US. They are saying that people outside of China should take a stand against China’s lack of respect for speech rights, rather than playing along with it for profit.
The USG doesn't respect speech rights of it's citizens either so idk where this grandstanding keeps coming from that we're still the champion of free speech when every night police beat and pepper spray people for exercising those rights.
All of the western world has a significantly better respect for speech rights than the CCP does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sick of this response. These social media companies individually can reach billions of people with the ability (proven) to sway their thoughts and emotions (see Facebook, WHO, Reddit). Free speech must apply to public forums like this
I'm sorry you're sick of the First Amendment. Private companies have it just like you do. The remedy is to break up the big forums, not to take away the rights of their owners.
Why not? We have granted ourselves the right to limit the rights of corporations.
The individual owners can keep their individual rights.
I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship, here we are not talking about something like explicit content, or violence censorship which belong to cultural differences, here we are talking about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free. or because you try to report abuse and suppression of the ruling class this type of free speech should be guaran…
Hate to say it, but the terrific first amendment in the US only applies to the government. Companies and individuals can kick you out for saying things they dont like. There are laws against certain kinds of discrimination by companies, but those are not the first amendment. Just wanted to clarify that so we dont pretend companies are upholding constitutional rights on a regional basis. They are not accountable to it…
It is only in response to someone mistakenly arguing to assert their 1st amendment rights in a context where it isn't applicable that this rebuttal even makes any sort of sense--which is not the case for the OP, who didn't mention the 1st amendment or even the US at all. Even here, it is a pedantic argument, such a declaration is a mere technical mistake. In liberal democracies we value freedom of expression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. The writers of the constitution understood that if you didn't like doing business with a company you could just take your business to their competitor. If you don't like your bridge club or church, pick a different one. But if your government is infringing your rights, it's very difficult for most people to pick a different government.
But when the private companies overshadow government, there is no competition to take your business to. If Facebook has all my friends, I have to choose my principles or my friends. So far principles won for me but not many can do that offering. And my friends are slowly coming around again :)