←back to thread

707 points patd | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
falcolas ◴[] No.23322696[source]
Free speech is not just an American constitutional right; many countries throughout the world consider free speech to be a human right.

So, yeah, many of us get a bit worked up when people are kicked off platforms, because they are being silenced, sometimes to the point of being shut out of the modern internet entirely (when their rights to a DNS address are comprehensively removed).

Hate speech and lies are terrible, but they’re not the only thing being silenced.

replies(5): >>23322837 #>>23322861 #>>23322910 #>>23327959 #>>23329690 #
Traster ◴[] No.23322910[source]
Okay, so I think there's some nuance there, I think there's a pragmatic line to draw - I don't think someone has a right to say anything on twitter, I just don't think that's twitters role is to be neutral. But I think there's a line where we go from a product that's curated and moderated - something like twitter, to something that is truly infrastructure. The DNS example is great, I don't think a DNS company should be able to refuse to service based on the content that's being served because the role of the DNS is simply to resolve a name to an address. What's served on that address is immaterial. I think we draw a bright line between those two types of things, although I'm sure it's more difficult than that when we're trying to design a law.
replies(4): >>23323827 #>>23324451 #>>23327978 #>>23328614 #
falcolas ◴[] No.23324451[source]
If Twitter wants control over what's published on their site, then they give up their rights (their 'free harbor'-alike protections) to not be held responsible for the content they censor and let through.

Twitter et al. are where modern speech happens. They pushed themselves into this position, and thus upholding the human right to free speech also falls upon them.

So long as Twitter is not shut down, then perhaps some government oversight (to the limit of holding Twitter responsible for what and who they censor) is appropriate.

Free speech, in this case, trumps my intense dislike of our current administration.

replies(2): >>23328566 #>>23329684 #
ChrisLomont ◴[] No.23328566{3}[source]
>If Twitter wants control over what's published on their site, then they give up their rights (their 'free harbor'-alike protections) to not be held responsible for the content they censor and let through.

Where is this in US law? Are you confusing DMCA safe harbor issues with speech?

All platforms take control over content - otherwise they could not remove child porn, PII, etc., and they don't lose DMCA safe harbor exemptions, which only applies to copyrighted items posted by users.

replies(1): >>23329350 #
1. falcolas ◴[] No.23329350{4}[source]
It appears like you are conflating the removal of illegal content with the censorship of legal content. Two very different concepts.
replies(1): >>23330141 #
2. ChrisLomont ◴[] No.23330141[source]
I didn't conflate anything. You claimed Twitter loses "rights" by exercising control over content, and I asked where you got that idea. Where is the law that backs your claim? Do you have one?