(August 13, 2018 at 10:33 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:That's true. I guess there could be more parallels than people think. But that doesn't magically mean we should hand over our free speech on the internet to corporations and billionaires. It's strange that people who distrust them so much are okay with their dictating speech.

On their own service what can one do really .I distrust them but on this point it really does not matter .

Well we could do a lot of things, legislatively, through the courts, etc. Esspecially as more of our speech comes under control of billionaires and mega corps.

Free speech is more than a restrively interpreted law, it's a principle. Regardless of the law I'm in favor of free speech.

Plus I think that this will not be effective anyway. The truly nutty Alex jones followers who are harrassing Sandy Hook families just think this proves their point. It's counter productive to push them underground.

Quote:Well we could do a lot of things, legislatively, through the courts, etc. Esspecially as more of our speech comes under control of billionaires and mega corps. 

Yes but the question is is that not just as oppressive 

Quote:Free speech is more than a restrively interpreted law, it's a principle. Regardless of the law I'm in favor of free speech.

True but there is also the principle of autonomy over ones own publication or network 

Quote:Plus I think that this will not be effective anyway. The truly nutty Alex jones followers who are harrassing Sandy Hook families just think this proves their point. It's counter productive to push them underground.

1.Effective maybe not 
2.There points are divorced from reality anyway 
3.Given time they would push themselves underground

Alex Jones is far from the only person tech companies are silencing, Washington Post

Quote:Internet companies have removed millions of posts and images over the past decade and suspended hundreds, perhaps thousands, of user accounts. These silenced voices span the political spectrum and the globe: Moroccan atheists, women discussing online harassment, ads featuring crucifixes, black and Muslim activists reposting racist messages they received, trans models, drag performers, indigenous women, childbirth images, photos of breast-feeding. Platforms have taken down documentation of war crimes in Syria, Myanmar and Kashmir, arrests in North Dakota and police brutality across the United States.

We should be extremely careful before rushing to embrace an Internet that is moderated by a few private companies by default, one where the platforms that control so much public discourse routinely remove posts and deactivate accounts because of objections to the content. Once systems like content moderation become the norm, those in power inevitably exploit them. Time and time again, platforms have capitulated to censorship demands from authoritarian regimes, and powerful actors have manipulated flagging procedures to effectively censor their political opponents. Given this practical reality, and the sad history of political censorship in the United States, let's not cheer one decision that we might agree with.

Theres the trouble, Cap.  We don't actually have any right to free speech "on the internet".  No more so than we have some right to free speech in another persons house.  The right to free speech is not a right to another's platform.  That would be an abrogation of their rights to their property.  

I also think that it would be counterproductive to drive lunatic views underground..but banning a pill salesman from social media isn't going to do that.  That particular type of lunatic is still so free to speak and so well represented that some of them are serving at the highest levels of our government and use -that- platform to spread bullshit all over the place, lol.

There's been an incredible dilution of the concept of free speech. It's become a proposed right of consequence free speech. A proposed right of platform for speech, and perhaps worst of all..a way to legitimize loons who have no grievance and who shouldn't even be connected to a discussion of free speech. That's before we even get into the whole money-as-speech shit. It's becoming a canard for people who desperately want others to be forced to listen to them..for whatever reason. In Jone's case, it's commercial. The longer people linger in the aisle the more likely they are to buy his merch.

@Jorm, content moderation has always been the norm..before the internet was even invented. Editors have been doing it for centuries.

The only problem I can see is if people are getting banned without breaking the TOS. I don't know how that works legally.

I understand how it can be worrying if you're a full/part time content creator who has come to rely on the income. Having the rug pulled from under you, if you've done nothing wrong, could be really bad. But does this actually happen? I'm aware that some people do get bullied by getting their videos falsely flagged, and not everyone has the resources to legally fight it. I followed Hugo and Jake in their court case against one of those fucking Christian film companies who tried to shut them down unfairly, and they won it. It set a great precedent regarding fair use.

(August 13, 2018 at 11:45 am)Khemikal Wrote: @Jorm, content moderation has always been the norm..before the internet was even invented.  Editors have been doing it for centuries.

This does nothing to answer the points I have raised.

The point that..when those editors or moderators are complicit with a governing body to silence those things the governing body flags that this is a problem?  OFC it is.

I'm merely stressing that one of these things is not like the other, and that we can and do moderate content without even approaching a free speech crisis..we've done so for a long time.

The way I look at it, anything you get to say via someone else's media is in addition to your free speech.

You would only be in peril if companies had the power to censor you outside of the things they host, such as messing with your personal websites, your emails, your post, speaking in the street, or whatever.

I am all for the government making sure huge companies with massive influence are behaving themselves. But unless their services become public ones, I don't see how anyone has any right to speak through their medium unless they grant it. And if you break their TOS, they are legally and ethically entitled to react accordingly. If they're banning people who don't do this, then clearly that's a problem that I'd support investigating. This fuck-potato of a man doesn't seem to be one of them.

Whether we are in danger of social media "taking over the world" in some sense is another issue entirely. If so, the the law needs to change accordingly. But right now, I see some people conflating their right to free speech with their right to speak on every (big) private platform.

Alex Jones banned from Twitter.

---

I was thinking about this a while back. We regulate both monopolies and effective monopolies. And that they're private businesses is no defense against such regulation. Would it really be that unusual or inappropriate to regulate these social media platforms?

Oh Noeeeeees!  Does this mean that he'll have to advertise Ultimate Bone Broth solely on his own website now?  

---

(September 7, 2018 at 7:17 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I was thinking about this a while back.  We regulate both monopolies and effective monopolies.  And that they're private businesses is no defense against such regulation.  Would it really be that unusual or inappropriate to regulate these social media platforms?

Yes, in that we actually would be abrogating free speech and property rights all at once, so that some loon could sell pills.  For this same reason, we can't force a newspaper to carry content. There are other social media apps he could use, in any case.  Having a better product is not a monopoly or effective monopoly in any actionable sense.

It might also be useful to point out that some portion of the rationale for ditching jones is due to regulation in the first place. Specifically, regulations that may not be in effect here..but, as a global enterprise, could harm twitter (or anyone elses) bottom line through official action, wholly aside from and in addition to consumer/user blowback.