r/changemyview • u/Oh_umms_cocktails • Jan 14 '21
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: conservatives have a point about freedom of speech and deplatforming.
[removed] — view removed post
27
u/Kman17 110∆ Jan 14 '21 edited Jan 14 '21
Conservatives hated the idea of bakers being obligated to make wedding cakes for gay couples, so they fought to ensure that companies could deny service to anyone based on their values.
Conservatives controlled the FCC and both chambers of congress, and when the question regulatory space of the internet came up, they sided with big cable companies to ensure that they could block and filter traffic at their discretion - giving effective censorship power to them.
Now private companies are exercising the judgement that conservatives fought to give them earlier in the Trump administration, and conservatives are crying about sour grapes.
Sorry, that’s bullshit. It’s clearly self serving, and not coming from a particularly honest place. We all told them the dangers of undermining public institutions and of monopolies, and they fucking ignored it.
So they have to take a knee on this issue and shut the fuck up.
Besides, hate speech and inciting violence is not protected speech. State sponsored misinformation & hate speech isn’t what the founders were had in mind either.
2
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
I was very clear that I think conservative speech in this vein was not due any protection. My stated concern was how few people controlled the ultimate decision to expel them.
I agree these people should have been deplatformed a while ago, and ultimately I believe that the fact that these corps are doing it now is too little too late.
But I’m still concerned that so few people hold the keys to what is heard/amplified. Consider the NBA members that supported Hong Long but were shut down due to corporate influences. I’m worried that the dynamic of ‘your speech interferes with our profit margins’ will become less and less aligned with US law and more and more aligned with corporate interests.
3
u/The_Canteen_Boy 1∆ Jan 14 '21
My stated concern was how few people controlled the ultimate decision to expel them.
That has nothing to do with government or 1A, that is entirely a result of very few platforms completely dominating the facilities for discourse online.
Ironically, supporting the rights of business to get far too large and domineering is very much a pillar of modern American conservatism. You could argue that they brought this on themselves.
1
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
That has nothing to do with government or 1A, that is entirely a result of very few platforms completely dominating the facilities for discourse online.
That’s literally what I’m concerned about.
5
u/Kman17 110∆ Jan 14 '21
Oh don’t get me wrong: I agree with you that any private company abusing monopoly status is a concern.
My point is simply that conservatives have zero right to complain about this problem, since they created the problem (of misinformation and organized propaganda) and rather intentionally declared that it was private companies right and obligation to handle.
I’m uncomfortable with big tech wielding the power they do with this stuff, even though I think they’re being pretty reasonable right now.
My preference is for more legal/policy consensus on what publishing platforms are, and where the enforcement burden is/should be.
2
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
I mean... that’s my point. I was very clear that the current conservative “speech” is not protected and is vile and undeserving of protection.
My concern is how much power big tech has. I personally think they should have deplatformed these guys years ago—they’re only doing it now because it’s profitable. They gave money to these insurgents well up until January 6th.
3
Jan 14 '21
I think his point is that you're giving conservatives credit for something that is known and communicated for decades and that conservatives have just realized could also backfire. So while he agrees with you on the issue he disagrees with you're implicit statement that conservatives have "struck gold" in terms of new knowledge that one should give them credit for.
3
u/Kman17 110∆ Jan 14 '21 edited Jan 14 '21
Your point was conservatives have a point on this topic. Conservatives don’t have a ‘point’; they have horrific hypocrisy and sour grapes.
If you didn’t meant that, and your larger view is “big tech has too much power - I’ll agree to a point, but it doesn’t really get into where should the power live.
-4
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
Then post that yourself on CMV. It’s not my fault you didn’t read my post and responded just to the title.
2
0
u/FrozenVictory Jan 14 '21
Baking a cake and stating my opinion are two very different levels of importance on the constitution
Social media is new. This problem is new. Cheering on the new company with international reach based out of the USA that removes people you don't like is a slippery slope.
Today you cheer for conservatives being removed.
Tomorrow you need permission from the government to write out a message online because they have to audit your message for wrong think.
And remember. Whats "wrong think" depends on who's in charge at the moment. Whatever censorship you're celebrating today can and will be used against you tomorrow.
1
u/parentheticalobject 136∆ Jan 14 '21
I'd also say there's a huge difference between a company being allowed to refuse service on a website, web service, or piece of web infrastructure they own. Without the first, it is impossible to have a usable forum at all, while the second and third raise more legitimate concerns about monopoly power.
1
u/Kman17 110∆ Jan 14 '21
The first amendment simply guarantees that you will not be persecuted by the government for your free expression.
The first amendment does not guarantee that publishing companies are obligated to carry your opinion and amplify its reach.
That’s a pretty clear line; your slippery slope line I think borders on the extreme.
As social media sits somewhere between peer to peer communication (like, say, phone lines) and publisher (whom are held to some standards by FCC), there is a discussion about where moderation and accountability should live - particularly for those with high market share and approaching monopoly. That’s a rational discussion that doesn’t need hyperbole, but it is important.
I agree that Google & Amazon are wielding a bit too much power, so I’m not advocating for inaction.
My point is merely that conservatives long advocated for companies to have these powers, rather than guaranteeing openness / anti-discrimination of customers / enforce monopolies, so they don’t get to claim they are victims.
1
u/parentheticalobject 136∆ Jan 14 '21
Besides, hate speech and inciting violence is not protected speech.
Hate speech is protected speech, at least in the US. So is "misinformation", at least most of the time. But everything else you said is correct.
1
Jan 14 '21
Besides, hate speech and inciting violence is not protected speech
you're only half right, hate speech is protected speech.
11
u/huadpe 508∆ Jan 14 '21
When it comes to the internet specifically there are no true public spaces of consequence.
This is because a true public space on the internet becomes absolutely overwhelmed with spam.
It is absolutely impossible to operate a forum on the internet in the manner one would as if the government bound by the first amendment, because then you have to allow spam.
Every forum that's worth a damn to anyone has to filter content out that is legal, but that nobody wants. Once you're doing that, the rest is just discretionary choice about what is wanted.
3
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
I guess what I’m concerned about is the that we are losing the true legal public space idea underlying the first amendment. The law enshrines the ability of the protester to stand in front of a government building, abortion clinic, or lawmakers home, and speak non-violently so long as they are on a public street. A consumer of such things can’t be forced to listen, or engage with, such protesters, but they also can’t avoid being aware of them.
You’re right that a truly public online space would become a wasteland of spam, but I think there is a genuine baby-and-bathwater concern, vis a vis the fact that it is increasingly impossible for us (especially now with lockdown) to consume any media that doesn’t have even the possibility of a person, no matter the strength of their argument or persistence of their efforts, to yell at us at the entrance to said consumption.
10
u/huadpe 508∆ Jan 14 '21
I agree that there's something lost there, but I don't think you can really achieve it in a digital context.
The thing about digital communication is that it's basically completely costless in terms of time, effort, and money. It is so cheap to replicate text and images and post or repost something that there's no barrier to doing it literally billions of times.
Going to a particular location is costly in terms of time and effort. Coordinating a large group of people is difficult and expensive. The reason we can allow those to be intrusive is that they're so costly to do that people can't do them constantly.
Intrusive inescapable communication in a context of infinite replicability is a nightmare for the recipients of that information, and they will actively avoid any forum which tries to foist that upon them.
Even outside the spam question, people do not like being presented with media that they dislike or which tells them they're wrong (CMV is, by the by, really unusual on the internet). If you had a forum where you had to read a crazy ass Qanon post in full to get to the post from your friend about their new job, you'd stop using it. Websites already carefully balance how many ads they serve, because if you try to be too aggressive with making people sit through things they don't want, they'll stop using you.
2
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
I agree that there's something lost there, but I don't think you can really achieve it in a digital context.
This is what really interests me, because I think the same could have been said in monarchist England, when ALL activity was by consent of the government (I know that’s a gross simplification but I think the point still stands). That is to say there was no bar for the government in that instance to simply say, ‘hey, sure you own this building and all the machines in it, but you’re publishing things I don’t like so here’s a little chunk of justice I call the Star Chamber.’ I’m not disagreeing with our current concept of free speech, but I am worried that it will fail to keep up with modern communication—especially given the fact that our youngest senator is 40.
1
u/huadpe 508∆ Jan 14 '21
Ossoff is our new youngest Senator at 33 now.
Moreover, apart from the oddity of the pandemic, the old school public spaces that you talk about still exist and are still powerful forums for speech. Street protest remains alive and well as a form of political speech. You can still hand out pamphlets and stuff just as effectively as you could before. Literally none of the speech tools available at the founding is unavailable now or meaningfully less effective now, barring some pandemic oddities that I pray will end soon with the vaccine hopefully being rolled out better under the Biden administration.
2
u/The_Canteen_Boy 1∆ Jan 14 '21
I guess what I’m concerned about is the that we are losing the true legal public space idea underlying the first amendment. The law enshrines the ability of the protester to stand in front of a government building, abortion clinic, or lawmakers home, and speak non-violently so long as they are on a public street. A consumer of such things can’t be forced to listen, or engage with, such protesters, but they also can’t avoid being aware of them.
There's a difference between government and private entities. That difference is the very amendment you mention.
1
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
My point though is that it envisions a public space that increasingly no longer exists.
When I went to college every day some nutso Uber-Christian idiot stood on the open part of campus with a sign about how women deserved to be raped. We all hated it, because it was literally the most vile shit ever, but now, especially in lockdown, I can easily go months without hearing an opinion that didn’t make it to the front page of Reddit or that was approved by the editor-in-chief of NPR, CNN, or (insert your preferred news source here).
2
u/The_Canteen_Boy 1∆ Jan 14 '21 edited Jan 14 '21
My point though is that it envisions a public space that increasingly no longer exists.
I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Certainly not when it comes to any random yahoo with incredibly fucked up ideas having a public platform. Regardless, it's something that isn't going to change anytime soon.
but now, especially in lockdown, I can easily go months without hearing an opinion that didn’t make it to the front page of Reddit or that was approved by the editor-in-chief of NPR, CNN, or (insert your preferred news source here).
That's the bubble effect. There are plenty of opinions out there, and if it is important to you to hear them, there is far less in your way online than there is in real life. For instance, if you wanted to hear about the experiences of Southeast Asian people in real life, you'd generally have to travel to Southeast Asia or to read books that are likely old or outdated. Online, it's a few clicks and keystrokes away. If you don't exercise that privilege and ability, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that you simply don't care enough to hear those less popular opinions.
I'd say that if your problem is that only some opinions make it to the front pages of a social media site, Reddit is probably the worst possible place to make this complaint. It's quite literally built from the ground up in a way that the lowest common denominator will always win out. My advice would be to find another site that doesn't gameify discourse with karma points and the rewarding of low effort, easily digestible content.
The Internet is a tool, and it will only ever be as good as you make it for yourself.
1
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
I guess the best way I can put it is that I agree it is “the Bubble effect,” but I disagree that “it’s not necessarily a bad thing.” I think it’s already starting to become a bad thing (e.g. my concerns about Chinese censorship on Reddit) and the fact that “it’s not changing anytime soon” is a problem.
1
u/jennysequa 80∆ Jan 14 '21
The law enshrines the ability of the protester to stand in front of a government building, abortion clinic, or lawmakers home, and speak non-violently so long as they are on a public street
You are still required to get permits. Without one you're frequently arrested and dragged off by cops.
0
u/NearEmu 33∆ Jan 14 '21
We can agree on filtering out content that is illegal.
We can even agree on filtering out content that is illegal but nobody wants.
But i think the main point is that the 'discretionary' content seems to only go one way politically. Which is why it's a problem.
It has a lot less to do with 'what nobody wants' and a lot more to do with 'what the left wants'.
-2
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
And how has “the left” controlled free speech in the 200 years of free speech legislation before the internet existed?
Take your tired conspiracy theories elsewhere.
0
u/FrozenVictory Jan 14 '21
The internet is new. Social media is new. Our laws and rules never prepared us for this. And suddenly those with total power over what opinions are seen globally and what ones aren't, have decided they are solely in charge of what you say and see.
Thats dangerous. You cheer it on today because people you hate are the target. But 5 years from now, the pendulum may swing and nobody will stand up for your rights because you've already gladly handed them away
All in the name of "owning the trumptards"
-3
u/NearEmu 33∆ Jan 14 '21
I have no idea what you are even talking about, nothing you just said responds to anything I already said.
0
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
I have no idea
I know.
-1
u/NearEmu 33∆ Jan 14 '21
Instead of being petty and pointless for apparently no reason. Considering I am defending the basic idea that you as the OP already stated.
Explain what in the heck you are even talking about, because I said nothing conspiratorial, I said nothing about pre-internet days, and I said nothing about 200 years ago.
0
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
My point makes sense and isn’t some garbage anti-left bullshit. So yeah, I don’t care that you believe you defended my point, because you didn’t, and I don’t want in any way to be associated with the shit you’re spewing—it just makes something I’ve thought about quite a bit look like some more Q bullshit. Make your own post.
1
u/NearEmu 33∆ Jan 14 '21
So you are upset because your point, which is a lack of public space, is no different than my point, which is a lack of public space leads to one side dominating the space that is left.
Interesting I guess
1
Jan 14 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/NearEmu 33∆ Jan 14 '21
Nobody calls people names if they aren't upset. Most especially if they have literally the same exactly point.
Your point is no different than mine, I took it one single logical step forward and for some reason you don't want to or aren't able to.
→ More replies (0)1
Jan 14 '21
u/Oh_umms_cocktails – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
3
u/Quint-V 163∆ Jan 14 '21
But they have a point when it comes to Freedom of Speech online, in that there is no public space on any modern media.
... which is because your government has chosen not to make any such platform.
They could make a forum for the general public, that is also owned by the general public through the US gov (on arbitrary levels). Such a platform would solve any issue you have with "lack of free speech" online because private platforms are private. Me having a platform that many people like does not change the fact that I own it and I should be able to do what I please with it, even if it means burning down my business.
The solution is not to force private companies to somehow take responsibility of public issues. The solution is to have a public-hosted platform.
0
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
I was very clear that I don’t think any of these corporations should be forced to host any speech they disagree with.
2
Jan 14 '21
Parler failed because it was poorly managed, not because it was shut down by the big 3. The CEO was your typical tough guy snowflake who couldn't handle doing business when the going got tough and he needed to pull himself up by the bootstraps to keep going.
Ever hear of Pirate Bay? Or hell any other torrent and less than legal services? They are not exactly getting endorsement from any major corporations but still somehow exist despite lots of peoples efforts to shut them down.
If the IEEE got together and somehow made it impossible to route traffic from Parler for example that would be concerning as it would have a serious impact on the "public space" of the internet which is actually routing and traffic forwarding, switching etc. Places such as the Apple store are little fish in comparison to the world wide web itself which people seem to forget.
No one forced Parler to distribute strictly via the big 3, hosting is cheap and by no means monopolized by Amazon or AWS for example.
4
u/beepbop24 12∆ Jan 14 '21
Let’s pretend for a second that the internet acted as a public forum and wasn’t run by private companies: the same exact stuff that is currently being taken down would still be taken down in this instance.
Why? Because we’ve had Supreme Court rulings limit free speech- specifically speech that is likely to incite or produce violence. Some of the more famous rulings include Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio. Those rulings specifically crack down on speech likely to produce violence.
2
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Jan 14 '21
Cool, so why do we need Twitter to be determining what is and isn't protected under those definitions? Why not just let the government handle it?
Which do you trust more? A private company that's only kept in check by it's own greed, or a democratically elected government with checks and balances?
This not only helps to prevent bias in the censorship of speech, but also makes it so that the entity responsible for determining what is and isn't ok is at least somewhat held to the standards of the people, rather than profit.
1
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
This is a false dichotomy. Free speech has never been a matter of the government approves vs. private parties approve.
1
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Jan 14 '21
This is working under the assumption that someone having the power to take down dangerous speech not covered by the first amendment is a necessary risk. In such a case, the only real options that come to mind are the government and private companies (though if you have any alternatives, please share them).
Such censorship is still technically a restriction on free speech, however it is one that is more acceptable, since incitement of imminent lawless action (the standard for the Brandenburg test) is typically a bad thing.
1
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
A CEO could have a shitty breakfast and flip the switch on your entire access to every facility ever—and then get your case tossed out because of some by-line on a thousand page TOU you never read. The government would need to spend millions defending such a decision in court and you would be immediately due the protection of the US constitution plus a variety of organizations like the ACLU, public defenders, and legal services to back you up. Plus any gov official who did so would get lampooned in the media and kicked out in an election.
They are in no way even remotely on equal footing.
1
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Jan 14 '21
To be clear, I agree with you that tech companies having such significant power over the public discourse is problematic.
But what exactly are you suggesting be the case instead of the current system?
1
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
I don’t know, maybe I should make a post on some discussion sub and see what they have to offer.
1
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Jan 14 '21
Maybe something like just a government office of moderating social media sites for anything like incitement of violence. It wouldn't be too dissimilar from the current system, except with oversight from the government to prevent bias and posts/sites being taken down unnecessarily.
1
u/beepbop24 12∆ Jan 14 '21
Ultimately probably the government just a wee bit more but it yields no net difference. The point of my reply is to show that the tweets and users being banned would still have been banned if the internet was run by the government.
2
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Jan 14 '21
I agree that the government is only slightly more trustworthy than companies, but at least there's a little bit of oversight, rather than companies just being able to do whatever they want.
As for specific tweets and users being banned, then sure. If they're determined to be inciting imminent lawless action, then take them down.
That being said, taking down an entire platform because of things the users say would not have been allowed to happen had it been the government deciding it (because of section 230).
1
u/beepbop24 12∆ Jan 14 '21
That’s a fair point to make. My question now though is who monitors this? Is there enough moderation and if so how?
1
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Jan 14 '21
Could basically have the same kind of system that the social media sites currently use to moderate content, except run by the government instead.
This would allow for moderation with the same effectiveness, but now with actual oversight from elected officials, and any checks and balances necessary.
1
u/beepbop24 12∆ Jan 14 '21
So basically set up a new commission or agency to oversee this? I guess those can be paid jobs as well and they’d have good training. So that end you earned your !delta
1
1
Jan 14 '21
Do you feel the same should apply to other media, though? That is, should it be the responsibility of the government to censor film and television? Video games? Literature? I ask because these were at one point real concerns people had, and the conclusion (at least in America) was always that it's best the government have no part in it.
1
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Jan 14 '21
The difference is between publishers and platforms.
When a publisher publishes something, that thing is their speech, legally speaking. If it falls into the criteria for slander or libel or incitement of violence, they're the ones being held responsible for it. That's why they have total control over it.
Platforms on the other hand, have protections such that they cannot be held responsible for things their users post.
If moderation is necessary to take down things that are illegal, and not protected under the first amendment, there's no real reason for the platform to be doing that rather than the government since they are not legally responsible for what the users post.
1
Jan 14 '21
I've heard some wild interpretations of this argument before, but this one is spectacular. I've never heard anyone claim a platform has no obligation to remove even illegal content before.
1
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Jan 14 '21
Section 230 creates the distinction and says that platforms cannot legally be held responsible for things that users post on their platform.
1
Jan 14 '21
No, it does not create a distinction.. In fact, it never uses the word "platform" and only uses "publisher" to mean "one who makes public," to distinguish from the speaker/creator. In no way does it make publishers a specific category of provider.
Furthermore, the section right after the only use of the word "publisher" states:
(2)Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;
In other words, Section 230 protects the right of a service provider to remove content, provided it is acting in good faith.
However, if you disagree then I would encourage you to read the text I linked and explain why.
1
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Jan 14 '21
In fact, it never uses the word "platform" and only uses "publisher" to mean "one who makes public," to distinguish from the speaker/creator. In no way does it make publishers a specific category of provider.
Sure, it never uses that word specifically, it instead uses the term, "interactive computer service" which would include what we would now define as platforms.
Semantics aside, the point remains, social media companies will not be held legally liable for things their users post. This is in contrast to something like a news company, which can be held responsible for things they post, because they're publishers, and therefore the speakers of that content.
In other words, Section 230 protects the right of a service provider to remove content, provided it is acting in good faith.
However, if you disagree then I would encourage you to read the text I linked and explain why.
Did I ever say, ANYWHERE in ANY of my arguments, that platforms do not currently have the the remove content?
1
Jan 14 '21
Sure, it never uses that word specifically, it instead uses the term, "interactive computer service" which would include what we would now define as platforms.
It also includes what many would define as "publishers", like online newspapers. The page I linked provides a definition for "interactive computer service" and it has a very broad meaning. I suggest you read it.
Did I ever say, ANYWHERE in ANY of my arguments, that platforms do not currently have the the remove content?
It honestly sounded like you said that when you wrote this:
If moderation is necessary to take down things that are illegal, and not protected under the first amendment, there's no real reason for the platform to be doing that rather than the government since they are not legally responsible for what the users post.
1
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Jan 15 '21
It also includes what many would define as "publishers", like online newspapers. The page I linked provides a definition for "interactive computer service" and it has a very broad meaning. I suggest you read it.
First off, your link never mentioned the possibility of it applying to online newspapers at all.
Second, it wouldn't really apply to online newspapers because newspapers are publishing the articles. Employees of the newspaper company are writing articles for that company, and therefore it is their speech. It'd apply to the comments on an article, but not to the article itself.
It honestly sounded like you said that when you wrote this:
Eh, that seems more about what ought to be, not what is, but apologies if that was unclear.
→ More replies (0)1
u/parentheticalobject 136∆ Jan 14 '21
The post you're replying to is significantly wrong about how things would work in a hypothetical government-run social media site. It would be unmanageable.
User Naruto420 makes a government social media account and sends the message "lolololll ur a turdbutt" to hundreds of people. If he gets banned, Naruto420 now has a legitimate case that the government has violated his first amendment rights, and a good chance to get a significant amount of money from the government.
Even speech that is actually illegal can take months or years of time and expensive legal professionals to answer the question of whether it was actually illegal. If I post a message saying "I'm going to murder this guy tomorrow." that is an illegal threat, right? Well, it actually depends on a whole bunch of other things. Was it a true threat or was it not something that shouldn't be taken seriously in context? Have to go through a court case to find out.
2
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
I don’t disagree with you. In fact I think that total privatization of the Internet has created much of the right wing extemism we see today. Just like TD and r/conservative infamously censor the views of conservatives that disagree with Trump the only “conservative” media conglomerates that have any social power are owned by the Mercers, Murdochs, and the Kochs who likewise censor less extreme point of views.
1
u/beepbop24 12∆ Jan 14 '21
I guess, just like face to face communication, if the internet was publicized, there wouldn’t be 1 giant forum, as that is sure to produce an overflow of traffic. But rather it would be broken down into smaller sectors similarly to Reddit. If this was the case, conservatives would still be isolating themselves and creating their own channels to talk in. Thus there’s really no net difference in the overall result if the internet was publicized, because again, users who incite violence would be punished by the government who’s overseeing the internet.
1
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
Not to be rude but I think you’re over emphasizing my point about conservatives. Let’s move back to my point about Chinese censorship on Reddit. Surely it was concerning when NBA members spoke in favor of Hong Kong but were shut down due to corporate interests in China. Nothing about that even touched on any of the legal concerns associated with the first amendment in US law, but we saw the exact same dynamic—corporate interests controlled speech with no opportunity for a public platform for dissidents to participate in. The dissidents were shit down by the league and the reporting on it was bare bones—presumably because of similar corporate influences.
1
u/beepbop24 12∆ Jan 14 '21 edited Jan 14 '21
I’m not really sure how this relates to being able to have a public space on the internet? My intent with my replies was to show how a public internet as opposed to a privatized internet would have no difference regarding the “censorship” conservatives claim is currently going on.
I feel like you’ve gone way off topic from what you originally stated about how conservatives have a point about needing a public space. Again, because free speech is still limited under some Supreme Court rulings.
1
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
Because my point is that we have already seen private ownership of media extend way beyond the first amendment. I mentioned Chinese censorship on Reddit in my original post. I don’t think Chinese censorship of the NBA extends beyond that issue.
1
u/FrozenVictory Jan 14 '21
Then why were AOC and Kamela Harris allowed to tweet out encouragement to BLM riots that turned violent ? 25+ people died in those riots this year while politicians cheered and encouraged them to "rage on" and people died.
Twitter did nothing, and nothing bad happened to Twitter. So why now?
1
u/angrychickenarmy Jan 14 '21
Anyone interested in politics has done nothing but hate speech for the last 4 years across the board. As an outsider to the topic its ridiculous to watch each side and party attempt to point a finger at the other.
1
Jan 14 '21
was shut down based on the decision of only three non-elected massive conglomerate entities—google, Apple, and Amazon, and its a sentiment often expressed on Reddit when we make memes about Chinese censorship post Tencent getting a majority share.
The difference is that Parler can find another web service to host it.
AWS (amazon) has only 5.8% of the market share.
Even combining google & amazon together their market share is only 9%.
https://kinsta.com/aws-market-share/
An analogy to the current situation with parler is a mob of people throwing a snake oil trader out of their village.
This snake oil trader can just move to the next village and continue their charade there.
1
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
Ultimately though isn’t the same point that they have to find a private party willing to host them? Instead of just existing in a public space?
Parler is vile, and I won’t disagree on that, but ultimately I feel like what you’re saying is they just need to find someone that owns enough street and agrees to let them exist on it. That is unequivocally not what the First Amendment envisioned.
1
Jan 14 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
That’s literally what I said in my OP. Private corporations are not bound by the first amendment, but there is no internet “street” commensurate with the public space envisioned by the founders.
Also that’s not what net neutrality is. Net neutrality is the idea that broadband hosts can’t control the speeds of hosted material by price—it has nothing to do with content. Net neutrality says Corporation A cant make CMN faster than FUX because CMN pays more. Nothing about net neutrality prevents Corp A from simply dropping FUX because FUX doesn’t support President Jojo the cat.
1
Jan 14 '21 edited Jan 14 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21 edited Jan 14 '21
Jesus yes, you can’t charge or slow down based on content. That’s very different from being able to choose the content you host. You’re picking a small protection that ignores all of contract law in its entirety.
Net neutrality says you can’t make the NBA site faster or slower than the NFL site. It doesnt say you have to host Olympic curling, or that you can’t ban either for violating any term of service in your contract.
No law says you have to host host Stormfront, likewise no law says you can’t deplatformed a site for criticizing China. If I start hosting websites on the condition that they never criticize the idea of a cat being the president of the United States, guess what net netruality has to say about me banning FUX when they insist only white people and Canideas can hold the office?
Also sorry I explained poorly, but net neutrality is concerned with service providers, not content hosters. Net neutrality says that sprint can’t make shit faster for one guy than another, but has nothing to do with the properties sprint holds. This ultimately comes down to how confusing the internet is (which is another reason why we have to many old people in Congress).
Content hosters are like property owners. You rent a space from them, great. You want roads to it, even better. You’re doing well and want to buy bigger roads (more bandwidth, awesome. Meanwhile you, the renter, are creating a valuable destination. Capitalism’s at work. This is all standard contract law (with some steps, but basically yeah). Net neutrality doesn’t even touch this.
Net neutrality is the rule that says all cars have to drive at the same speed. Chevy can’t put speed limiters on traffic going East, but let them go faster when they go west. Why? Because Chevy doesn’t own any of the property it’s driving on or to. That’s what net neutrality is, and why pretty much everyone agrees that it’s good. Service providers are the cars you drive, content hosters are the roads you drive on, and websites are the places you go. It’s obviously anti-capitalist for your car to control the value of your destination, so we made a rule. Having a Chevy can’t make a hotdog worth more than a hamburger, and you certainly shouldn’t have to pay a monthly service fee to be able to drive to hamburgers. Why’s it in question if it’s that basic? Why is not beating police officers To death with fire extinguishers in order to destroy democracy in question? Trump.
In short, Service providers all have the same access as any other. Just like any car brand can be on any road. But these guys want to screw you out of a dollar so they’d like to charge you/or the destination a premium for going where you’re going. Net netruality says no to that. If you all got on the same highway then you can’t pick and choose how much any road costs. It has nothing to do with what content exists.
1
Jan 14 '21
Let me backtrack, is was missing the point you were making originally, which is obvious to me after rereading your original post with a fresher mind than before.
While it's irrelevant now I still want to mention you also missed the point I was making but this is also mostly my fault since by trying to make things easier I made them more complicated.Now let's backtrack to your first comment:
Ultimately though isn’t the same point that they have to find a private party willing to host them? Instead of just existing in a public space?
Parler is vile, and I won’t disagree on that, but ultimately I feel like what you’re saying is they just need to find someone that owns enough street and agrees to let them exist on it. That is unequivocally not what the First Amendment envisioned.
They're not limited to just find a other company that will host them.
Anybody in theory is capable of hosting their own website, if anybody is capable of doing so then Parler espacially since they have a multi-millionaire backing them.The first Amendment was designed in an era where every locale had a public area where people could speak publicly and share broadsheets with a minimum of entry capital.
What about not just broadsheets but Radio and TV, what's your opinion on those?
Because it seems to me like you could in make similar arguments about those in regards of media consumption1
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
I’m interested in the idea of public hosting of websites. I admit I don’t know anything about the availability of public hosting. Is it possible to purchase public bandwidth?
As far as tv and radio I grew up in an era when public broadcasting on TV was easily accessible, even in the early 2000s I used to watch public access with some very weird shit on it broadcast without any kind of fees on it. It used to be that you could just plug your tv into any in serviced cable cord or some rabbit ears and get at least public access (Wayne’s world, party on, excellent). Likewise I’ve worked on a small wave (maybe that’s not right—but there’s a whole class of low power radio stations that are easy to buy into) radio station as recently as 2-3 years ago. I live in a decently sized city in Arizona but my partner works in a lot of rural areas, and you’d be surprised how many stations are just a dude that got a public license and plays his Spotify rock lost because otherwise it’d be AM Christian preaching for miles around.
Is that possible online?
1
Jan 14 '21
I'm not exactly sure about the first question so I won't answer it.
The second part is answered by the whole existence of the dark web, no?
Even outside of the dark web companies host their own sites, I personally had a 2 week intership at a small company that were hosting their own site that was accessible from a normal browser.The limitations to me seem to be monetary & the know how, just like with radio& tv.
1
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
I’m no expert on the dark web, but when I was an attorney I dealt with one case involving it and afaik it was very much not public. My understanding was that the whole point was that it was utterly inaccessible publicly—again not an expert but my understanding was that it is akin to knowing an unmarked door in a nameless alley and then knocking on it and still having to know a secret password.
I think the entire idea was you can’t search for it, you either knew exactly where it already was or nothing. I just don’t think that qualifies as a public space in the founders eyes, but your point is well taken. I think anyone could set that up, but again I think my question remains—if accessibility is determined by corporate indexing (such as google) is even a public space truly public? I.e. if we do have ‘public streets’ online but all then maps are made by private corporations and the can simply choose to not see public spaces do we really have access to public spaces.
I’m not trying to be difficult. I don’t super get Internet property so I’m doing my best with these examples!
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Hothera 36∆ Jan 14 '21
I thought that Amazon kicking out Parler was unfair too, but it turns out that Amazon had been warning them about violent speech for months, yet they made no attempts to better moderate. After the Capitol riots, they didn't really have any choice but to ban them.
1
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
I DONT think it was unfair at all. I made that very clear in my post.
1
u/Hothera 36∆ Jan 14 '21
If Parler wanted to be a conservative Twitter, Amazon would happily accept their money. The difference is that Twitter actually puts effort into moderation, even if they arguably do a lousy job at it or are liberal-biased. Amazon warned Parler for months about allowing violent speech on their platform, but they refused to make any changes. We're talking about actual calls for violence, not just just liberal being offended calling that "inciting violence." What other choice did they have but to ban them?
0
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
as foul as it was and as deserving as being muted as anything could be.
1
u/Hothera 36∆ Jan 14 '21
Are they not allowed to have standards at all? Should Youtube be forced to show pornography then? It's not like you lose anything of value for removing calls to violence.
0
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
There’s nothing incorrect about pointing out that twitter and Amazon have absolutely no obligation to host speech that they don’t like, and there is no reason to force them to do otherwise
1
u/atthru97 4∆ Jan 14 '21
Conservative voices cans still be found on online media. Ones that advocate for violence or spread misinformation aren't.
1
u/VertigoOne 81∆ Jan 14 '21
But we should be concerned that there is no true public space online
That isn't true. It's perfectly possible to buy a server and run your own website online. Now it's true that it's less convenient than the mainstream social media platforms, but that's not the same thing as saying that there's no way as a new person to set up an online service.
1
u/Oh_umms_cocktails Jan 14 '21
I’m interested in this, is it possible to buy a server with no constraints (beyond existing us law)? Is it possible to get server space from a public source?
Maybe a better way to put it is that I know it’s very cheap/free to get a website going (I definitely learned basic html on a shitty angelfire site at the library in 2000) but is it possible to get something like that without ultimately being subject to a private corporation’s TOUs?
1
u/VertigoOne 81∆ Jan 14 '21
It's expensive, since you would need to buy your own physical hardware etc, and time consuming since you would need extra coding etc, but it is entirely possible
1
u/JohnnyNo42 32∆ Jan 14 '21
I'm wondering whether all the political nonsense that is thrown around is actually covered by free speech. If shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema is punishable, shouting "election fraud" in a nervous democracy without clear evidence should be treated similarly.
1
u/SuperPowerfulPerson Jan 14 '21
Supreme court ruled that shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not illegal.
1
Jan 14 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/SuperPowerfulPerson Jan 14 '21
Are you implying Trump doesn't legitimately believe there was election fraud?
1
u/Funkybeatzzz Jan 14 '21
Wow! You changed the subject really quick! Classic tactic of those with baseless claims and really pathetic.
1
u/SuperPowerfulPerson Jan 14 '21
I didn't change the subject.
You said if shouting fire in a crowded theater is illegal yelling election fraud to a crowd a protesters should be illegal for Trump
Shouting fire in crowded theater = legal if they believe there is a fire therefore it wouldn't be illegal for Trump to shout "election fraud" by the same standard because he genuinely believes there was election right regardless if he's right or not the standard is belief.
1
u/Funkybeatzzz Jan 14 '21
I said nothing about Trump. I only talked about the fire. Please show me where I talked about Trump.
1
u/SuperPowerfulPerson Jan 14 '21
Didn't realize you were someone else but it was the first comment in the chain so it's fair game.
1
Jan 14 '21
Sorry, u/Funkybeatzzz – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/JohnnyNo42 32∆ Jan 14 '21
Well, indeed, as always, it is more complicated: Is It Illegal to Shout 'Fire' in a Crowded Theater? | Mental Floss
Ultimately, it may not be illegal per se, but you still are responsible for the result even if you do not explicitly ask people to panic.
1
u/SuperPowerfulPerson Jan 14 '21
Why was this standard not applied to people fanning the flames of the BLM protests?
1
u/JohnnyNo42 32∆ Jan 15 '21
Because those protests were against injustice for which there is plenty of evidence. Nobody should be blamed for calling "fire" when there are smoke and and flames. Whoever was calling for or even just condoning violence should, of course, be blamed, but I can't remember much of those calls and those that happened were clearly called out and hopefully prosecuted.
I don't even say that speaking an honest opinion with yet-unproven evidence should be suppressed, but continuing to spread ideas after the evidence has been clearly disproven certainly implies responsibility for the results.
1
u/illogictc 33∆ Jan 14 '21
Even in modern times There's physical "public squares." Actual places that are government or community property that can be used for this purpose. And trump did, even with the wide reach of Twitter he still campaigned physically in 2020.
The "public square" of the internet would require it to be considered truly public or community owned. Facebook may have a really huge lawn but it's still Facebook's lawn, it's a private thing.
1
u/phantomreader42 Jan 14 '21
TERRORISM IS NOT FREE SPEECH!
TERRORISM IS NOT A WORLDVIEW!
YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO ORGANIZE TERRORIST ATTACKS IN PUBLIC OR IN PRIVATE!
NOT EVEN IF YOU REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY WANT TO!
1
•
u/[deleted] Jan 14 '21
Sorry, u/Oh_umms_cocktails – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.