There's a fine line between not amplifying someone and silencing them, and when the choices of very few privately run websites affect who gets heard and who not then we should be wary about them amplifying harmful speech and equally wary about them silencing speech harmfully.
I'm also quite skeptical of the "slippery slope"-style argument regarding IP connectivity. The number of available ISPs, web hosts, domain registrars, etc is pretty large. There are even web hosts that have an explicit policy of letting you host _any_ content you want as long as it's not against the law in their jurisdiction[0]. And they'll even host it on a subdomain of theirs, if for some reason you have trouble getting a hostname for your hateful or crazy (but legally protected from censorship by the government) blog. And if laws are ever made restricting what those web hosts can do, then we're getting into the realm of the government restricting free speech, which is a different conversation entirely.
Regarding your second paragraph, the right to "get heard" is not a right guaranteed to anyone, at least not in the US. If you are spewing garbage, no one should be forced to hear it.
(caveat: I'm in the US, so my opinions are US-centric)
[0] for example, https://nearlyfreespeech.net
We've already seen the goalposts move when AWS and CDNs were dropping politically unpopular clients.
If it helps, we're already pretty close to the end of the slope. There's a very limited number of last-mile ISPs, so we're only one Twitter mob / protest away from Comcast / Verizon / Cox / AT&T holding press conferences about how they're blocking politically problematic domains and IP addresses. Then it'll only be tech-savvy users with VPNs that can access "free speech," at least until those become the target of the mob, too.
I'm not a libertarian by any means but I do have some amount of faith that if what you're describing comes to pass, the free market will provide alternatives, if demand exists. VPNs are one such alternative.
I truly believe that it's harmful to society to guarantee free reach to everyone. It's kind of like the paradox of tolerance, if you've heard of that -- if private entities are barred from moderating content on their systems, the discourse will devolve more than it already has into conspiracy, hate, and other forms of unwanted content.
The argument is that moderation should be done by publishing companies and who face liability for their content. It should not be done poorly, en-mass by platform companies who do it at scale using automation and don't face legal liability when they mess up.
The only exception I see to this is to allow community organized and run moderation for noncommercial communities.
They would - and and they are. That's why it's easier to publish fanfic on the internet than with an actual publisher. Tumblr is not on the hook for unauthorized titillating usage of copyrighted Disney characters, but HarperCollins would get sued to bankruptcy if they attempted the same. This is why the calls to repeal section 319 is idiotic - it will lead to more "censorship"
The argument is that, instead, these other, non-publishing, major communication platforms should be treated how we run other major communication platforms in the past, such as the telephone network.
We have existing laws, that could be extend to cover other communication platforms.
Telephone companies have been required to do certain things for decades, and the world hasn't collapsed because of it.
citation needed
> There are even web hosts that have an explicit policy of letting you host _any_ content you want as long as it's not against the law in their jurisdiction
perhaps, but how much pressure do you think they could take, if pressured to take down your content by other private individuals & corporations?
> the right to "get heard" is not a right guaranteed to anyone, at least not in the US. If you are spewing garbage, no one should be forced to hear it.
i don't think anyone is claiming that there is or should be a right to be heard. this is an issue of control over who can be heard, and the distinction is important.
for example, in a "free" twitter, i could post some racist tirade, and expect it to gain no traction/retweets from my followers & some random others. people might see it, but it is principally no different to making the same speech in the city center: i'm going to be heard, but no one is going to listen.
we're all talking in extremes here too, which really isn't helping. yes, moderated platforms can remove racism, abusive content, etc., but they can (and do) also remove regular speech: more realistically, above, i would have been more likely tweeting about the lab-leak hypothesis of covid, back in the time where any proposed cause other than the wet-market exposure hypothesis was being labeled as racist. do you think people that have been deplatformed/decried/cancelled for opinions like that were retroactively recognized as being legitimate? if so, where's the profit motivation in that?
Uh, the US constitution and a few centuries of case law?
> perhaps, but how much pressure do you think they could take, if pressured to take down your content by other private individuals & corporations?
The one example host I gave has been around 20 years. I trust that they have a good legal team and have faced mobs of angry people before, and that they'll continue to be around for a while longer.
One problem that I didn't bring up in my original post is that as soon as someone can be heard on twitter, their content is subject to algorithmic manipulation. So someone's fringe opinion could be broadcast to thousands or millions of eyeballs and made to seem like much more of a mainstream opinion like than it actually is.
In a perfect world, where no manipulation is possible, I do agree with you that making sure people can be heard is the correct solution. But until or unless we get there, my opinion is that letting the platform have leeway to moderate content is the best path forward. If people tweeting about covid lab leaks (which I'm still not sure would be considered a non-fringe opinion in 2022) get caught up in that, then that sucks for them, but the alternative is worse. They are still free to set up their own site to discuss their theories.
i'm sorry, i interpreted your point to broadly be "free speech with limits", which i understand to be at-odds with the constitutional definition.
> The one example host I gave has been around 20 years.
no offense intended to them when i say i don't recall ever hearing about them in any setting, controversial or otherwise, which would lead me to believe they haven't experienced significant pressure to remove anything.
> [...] their content is subject to algorithmic manipulation
yes, i agree. "the algorithm" makes astroturfing much easier to perform and be effective.
> In a perfect world [...]
well then there's a bit of a bootstrapping problem here, no? principles like free-speech were idealized and create in order to make the perfect world (for some values of "perfect"). hell, in the "perfect" world, free-speech wouldn't even need protection. i don't think it's sensible to mandate a principle after the fact.
> which I'm still not sure would be considered a non-fringe opinion in 2022
there is no scientific consensus yet - surprise surprise - but we are at least now talking about it[1].
> but the alternative is worse
i'm not sure i agree with you here.
[1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/another-potential-covid-19-lab-...
Ugh, my main point is that the concept of "free speech" in the US is not relevant at all to the question of whether a private entity can remove you from their platform for saying something they don't like.
You can claim that in the colloquial sense, the phrase is used more liberally to mean any censorship whatsoever, and that may be true. But in my opinion that is conflating two concepts, and those doing so are either 1) confused or 2) being deliberately dishonest by trying to smuggle some sense of constitutional/government mandate into the conversation.
and i'm saying that you appear to treat social media and digital identity as some superfluous luxury that can be revoked without consequence from an individual as punishment (or for more dubious reasons), much like how republicans view health care and social welfare: with the notable exception of the US and one or two others, every country recognizes that private corporations must provide health care (or the means to it - i'm talking about the equipment, education, etc. being provided largely by non-governmental institutions), and citizens must be allowed to access to it regardless of who they are and what they've said, or even done.
yes, you are correct that the constitution does not prevent private corporations from removing content that they do not like, that is the point here. there is no question over the legality of such removals, and i don't think anyone here has tried to raise one.
i'm not trying to smuggle constitutional/government mandate, i'm explicitly trying to discuss the notion of whether or not it should exist.
You seem to be confusing "free speech", the concept, with "free speech", the legal right.
Most codifications of the legal right limit themselves to protecting against certain types of government interference.
However, the concept itself is absolutely not limited to contexts where censorship is imposed by a government. To try to impose this limitation is 1984-style thought policing that tries to remove existing language to control what can be said.
I'm not talking about some colloquial meaning, but the core meaning of the concept of "freedom of speech".
My point is that in the US, the narrower legal/constitutional concept of free speech is often implied, inadvertently or deliberately, when people are actually only referring to it in the broader sense that you describe. For example, a banned Twitter user might say things like "Twitter is a disgrace to democracy"[0] which confuses others into thinking there is some constitutional or legal harm being done when in fact there is none.
I have no problem with having a debate about whether the core concept of free speech is a universal right that should be guaranteed everywhere (surprise: I don't think it should be a universal right and I think it's downright dangerous to society to force all private entities to respect it). But I see the two meanings get confused so much that I felt a need to call it out.
[0] https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-news-twitter-marjorie-...
I would whole heartdly agree with that, but only because you added "all".
I think just as there is a balance in placing limitations of corporate freedom of association just like placing limits on free speech.
I do think that free speech is valuable enough that we should carefully consider placing restrictions on how and why large, oligopolistic corporations can exercise their right to freedom of association.
I think a lot of this can be solved with a "user's bill of rights" that protects users from arbitrary and capricious enforcement of nebulous terms by service providers.
I think most of the rest of this would be ideally solved by narrowing or eliminating the types of moderation a corporation can engage in while maintaining liability protection under section 230. Possibly with language giving special exemptions to community run moderation.
Nah, you'd get a whole bunch of followers who are happy to see someone say the quiet parts out loud and would retweet.
Without social media, overt racists have to meet in private and the effects are local. With social media, they get a microphone that reaches the world and it spreads worldwide.
I saw an interview where even infamous neo-Nazi Richard Spencer claimed to not be a racist, he just doesn't think races should intermingle, and that white neighborhoods should stay white.
This is the biggest misconception many proponents of absolute free speech have. Many movements, both good and bad, have begun in social media (Twitter / Facebook, etc.). Everything from the Arab Spring, to BLM, to Unite the Right in Charlottesville and January 6th, were at least in part organized on social media. Just because _you_ don't think an idea is worth listening to, does NOT mean that there aren't hundreds or thousands of people who disagree and will listen. I don't know what the solution to this problem is, but to assume it's not real is just plain wrong.
Calling a black person the N word or accusing that person of rape without evidence?
If removing racism is acceptable why not the latter?
No, you can not create your own website. Take this Parler debacle: booted off appstores, AWS, DNS providers, Cloudflare, etc.
Go build your own internet, we're in a free country? Not that I have sympathies for Parler folks, but I was horrified when people even here were cheering at Parler's demise. Don't you look somewhat ahead? Don't you see how many centralized gatekeepers are now everywhere? The potential of abuse to quash dissent is immense, and the possibility of all gatekeepers closely allying with the government is not alien to me. I have seen this happen right in front of me. When it will happen in your country, it'll be too late.
The reality is that some companies are so dominant in their respective fields, that it is in the interests of society they should not discriminate anyone if they don't like their views. Google and Apple should not be the ones to decide if the user can install the app on his device, even if this app is made by a militant far-right neo-nazi group. DNS providers should do their technical job and not engage in censoring websites spreading views they don't like.
Yes, in the US, you can. Giving me an example of one site that was booted off a small set of providers does not disprove that.
I do completely agree with you that having e.g. Apple be the sole gatekeeper of what users can install on their platform is problematic, but I view this as somewhat orthogonal to the Twitter censorship question. IMHO Apple should be required to allow users to install apps downloaded from alternative sources, however I still don't feel they should be compelled to host apps in their own store.
I'm not sure there's a great way to map the above opinion to Twitter -- maybe something like forcing twitter to become federated/decentralized would be the closest. But I am not convinced that Twitter is of the same size as Apple where we should mandate that. I don't regularly use twitter and I don't feel that we, as a society, are nearly as dependent on it as we are on phone manufacturers.
if Musk takes over Twitter, we'll be able to see how much 'freedom' he tolerates when the topics are things he has personal interests in.
Maybe nobody is entitled to book publishers providing "free reach" of publishing your book, especially in thousands of copies. Yet something went wrong there. I don't have a catchy slogan for it, but sometimes the decisions to prevent reach are functionally antithetical to the purpose of free press.
it seems that the majority of people grossly underestimate corporation's level of involvement in our every day lives: if i were to become a persona non grata to google, apple, HN, social media, etc., how would i talk to anyone? how could i do anything? isolation will cause more harm than incarceration, yet i am not recognized a right to trial. not that it would matter anyway, the decision would likely be made algorithmically, without any one human knowing why it's happened.
what i'm saying is: corporations have come to own the infrastructure of our modern society. the protections that freedom of speech gave were (and still are) valuable in the context in which they were made. they don't address the reality that communication is fundamentally different to how it was in the 19th century.
I honestly don't understand this argument at all.
To answer your question, you could:
- Use one of the thousands of other available email hosts/search engines/cloud providers/etc besides Google or Apple - Pick up the phone and talk to people to get things done - Leave your house to talk to people and do things - Find something enjoyable to do with all of the free time you've gained now that you're off of social media and HN
But more importantly, you're saying that without those companies you somehow can't live your life? In that case I just flat-out disagree. I believe that most people make social media out to be more important than it is, and this feels like the extreme of that style of argument.
when was the last time you sent (or received) an e-mail outside of the context of work, or to interact with a company?
> Pick up the phone
apple and google make the phones! my network provider is also a private company, too, they have no requirement to provide me a phone service.
> Leave your house to talk to people and do things
people no longer go to their friends front doors without calling ahead/planning first. millennials (my generation) aren't great at spontaneity in this regard. gen Z are even worse.
> Find something enjoyable to do with all of the free time you've gained now that you're off of social media and HN
i already don't use most social media. i don't go on facebook, twitter, tik tok, etc. i watch youtube videos and go on hacker news, and even then i rarely interact.
but if apple cut me off of icloud, facebook from whatsapp, etc. my life would be difficult enough. it would only take a couple of other companies to make it a nightmare. how many stories have landed on the HN front page about how a sudden dismissal from google has really screwed up someones online (and often real) life? and these are just the ones we here about..
private social media isn't the problem (although it is a problem). i'm saying that so much of our lives are very tightly embedded with a handful of private companies, and them having control over that isn't a great way to be.
This morning, a few hours ago.
> apple and google make the phones! my network provider is also a private company, too, they have no requirement to provide me a phone service.
No, there are plenty of other phone manufacturers besides Apple and Google. Just as there are plenty of phone service providers, both mobile and VoIP. If they are all blocking/refusing you service, that would be quite a story, and I might change my opinion, but I've never heard of that happening.
> millennials (my generation) aren't great at spontaneity in this regard. gen Z are even worse.
I'm a older/early millenial (Xennial to some people). I agree with you but I don't see how you'd ever be completely blocked from using a phone.
> private social media isn't the problem (although it is a problem). i'm saying that so much of our lives are very tightly embedded with a handful of private companies, and them having control over that isn't a great way to be.
I agree with you 100%. The way to regain control is not to use the government to force them to provide a platform to racists, it's to ensure that you disentangle yourself from their systems as much as you can. Make sure you have a plan for what to do if your Whatsapp or iCloud account is banned by an algorithm with no recourse.
Are irreversible algorithmic bans the best way for companies to operate? Clearly not, it sucks. And maybe there's room for legal solutions to mandate open appeals processes, etc. But the alternative of forcing companies to give everyone a platform is way worse, IMHO.
surely you must recognize that you are likely in the minority of e-mail users?
> Just as there are plenty of phone service providers
two or three, really. and many areas in the US are limited to one or two.
> If they are all blocking/refusing you service, that would be quite a story, and I might change my opinion, but I've never heard of that happening.
didn't trump's twitter platform get banned from all the common cloud providers? is it that much more ridiculous to think that they would be unable to colo with anyone?
to be clear, i'm personally happy that it doesn't exist, and this isn't the same thing. but just because i don't agree with it... i know it's not the same thing as what we're talking about, but i don't think you don't need to squint too hard to see the parallel and the precedent.
> but I don't see how you'd ever be completely blocked from using a phone
indeed, i'd still be able to use my nokia 3310, and predictive text my way around social life, but it would be an incomplete existence (these days).
in any case, you don't need to be blocked from using a phone. you need only be blocked from using the various platforms that people use today.
No, I don't recognize that. Citation needed.
> didn't trump's twitter platform get banned from all the common cloud providers? is it that much more ridiculous to think that they would be unable to colo with anyone?
I don't know, but as to your last question, yes, that's ridiculous, as there are thousands of datacenters out there.
Besides, Trump's twitter platform is not a person. It's a business with many more resources than the the vast majority of individuals have. It's dangerous to start from the principle that this organization should have the same rights as a natural person.
> two or three, really. and many areas in the US are limited to one or two.
You're talking about mobile providers. I specifically mentioned mobile and VoIP and you cut that part out. I'm done here as you don't seem to be willing to have an honest discussion.
fair enough. finding data wasn't easy. the best i could get that is somewhat related was this article from 2015 on teenage communication habits, which states that around 6% of teens use e-mail to communicate daily with their friends[1] (making it the least used form of communication). and this is pre-tiktok, so i'd expect this number to have decreased.
> Besides, Trump's twitter platform is not a person.
indeed, but the people using probably were. not that that's important: constitutionally, corporations have the same protections as people, indeed the US legal fiction of corporate personhood is practically a meme now. from [2]:
> Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, upholding the rights of corporations to make unlimited political expenditures under the First Amendment [...]
so it appears the supreme court agrees that free-speech protections apply to corporations.
> yes, that's ridiculous, as there are thousands of datacenters out there.
well then, where is the site now?
> I specifically mentioned mobile and VoIP and you cut that part out.
apologies, i presumed you understood that the IP in VoIP indicates that an internet connection is required for the voice to go over, and that without a mobile service provider, that could be.. logistically challenging :)
> I'm done here as you don't seem to be willing to have an honest discussion.
:/ ok then, i guess.
[1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/08/06/teens-techno...
of course not. if you choose to block me, i am not prevented from communicating with others.
> What about the algorithm, if Instagram's stories feature tries to show new videos based on people's interests, can I sue them for not showing my videos to other people?
the algorithm is the problem: if you subscribe/follow, you should see all the content (this is how facebook used to be).
When you sign up for a service that moderates content that's what happens.
The thing that has historically made a company bound to free speech is whether or not the government requires them to specifically search for certain types of infringing content. Coincidentally, this is the current legal framework that makes reporting images of child abuse legal: companies can voluntarily choose to to either not scan for CSAM, or can choose to scan for CSAM and must report it to NCMEC if they find any, and Apple is a prime example of a company that doesn't scan for it[0].
If the government is asking a company to go searching for specific otherwise legal content, that would be pretty good evidence for a court case to be made.
0: "Of all of the companies identified by NCMEC, I only saw one that had an unexpected decrease in reporting: Apple. According to NMEC, Apple submitted 205 reports in 2019 (a third my my reporting volume). Apple increased a little, to 265 in 2020, but then dropped in 2021 to only 160 reports. That's nearly a 22% decrease over two years!" https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/955-NC...
Try it. The DNS providers will delist you, cloudfare will ban you, AWS etc etc. You’ll lose your bank accounts too.
This isn’t a game to the other side, we have freedom in theory but little in practice.
You are unwilling to confront the idea of Twitter censoring true things that you agree with but by your own principles you'd find this agreeable.
Please don't presume what I am or am not willing to do.
I am perfectly willing to confront the idea that Twitter is censoring true things that I agree with: it's fine with me. I'm not sure if they're already doing that, but they have every right to, just as I have every right to use (or create) an alternative platform.
Compuserve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompuServe#Legal_cases
Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....
Legal Eagle video if you prefer his video format: https://youtu.be/eUWIi-Ppe5k?t=243
We choose moderation constantly in our lives, intentionally.
Interesting that you bring up that example, because private malls are absolutely required to follow certain public accommodations laws, depending on the jurisdiction.
So, just like private malls are forced to do certain things by the government, people are saying that a similar set of public accommodations, that we already force malls to do, should be extended to other platforms.
EX: https://www.aclusocal.org/en/know-your-rights/protesters
"Shopping malls must allow speech activity subject to reasonable time, place and manner rules— ask your local mall for their rules."
You can "choose moderation" by not viewing Twitter accounts and conversations you don't care about and muting words you dislike.
In that case however I would also like the possibility to turn off any algorithms that recommend stuff to me. I want to see only things i put on my whitelist, otherwise i will have to constantly moderate and it will take up loads of my time.
As long as that doesn't happen I am more than happy to let others do the moderation based on some frameworks that I agreed on (ToS in Twitters case).
But I'm not sure how it could work without having users agree to a new ToS frequently, due to things like the Euphemism Treadmill: https://www.cambridgeblog.org/2020/08/ableist-language-and-t...
That’s fair. Twitter is far from the public square. To lazy journalists and addicts, sure. But plenty of discourse manages just fine without it.
Are you claiming that the _government_ is censoring Twitter?
1. Newspapers and Twitter should be able to and often censor themselves 2. The government shouldn't censor newspapers or Twitter.
I guess a common answer would be “you can move off Twitter, but you can’t leave your country” which is odd two ways: first, if you say you want hate and misinfo banned from Twitter (whatever those mean) shouldn’t you want that for all other big platforms? And it’s very possible to move abroad while not spreading hate and fake facts in the meantime, isn’t it?
At least in the US, you have always had the right to create your own web site and say whatever you want. That right should never be taken away. However, another privately-run website should never be forced to broadcast anyone's content to hundreds of millions of other people.