←back to thread

707 points patd | 3 comments | | HN request time: 1.894s | source
Show context
Traster ◴[] No.23322571[source]
I think this is going to be a discussion thread that is almost inevitably going to be a shitshow, but anyway:

There are people who advocate the idea that private companies should be compelled to distribute hate speech, dangerously factually incorrect information and harassment under the concept that free speech is should be applied universally rather than just to government. I don't agree, I think it's a vast over-reach and almost unachievable to have both perfect free speech on these platforms and actually run them as a viable business.

But let's lay that aside, those people who make the argument claim to be adhering to an even stronger dedication to free speech. Surely, it's clear here that having the actual head of the US government threatening to shut down private companies for how they choose to manage their platforms is a far more disturbing and direct threat against free speech even in the narrowest sense.

replies(42): >>23322601 #>>23322660 #>>23322889 #>>23322983 #>>23323095 #>>23323271 #>>23325355 #>>23327443 #>>23327459 #>>23327625 #>>23327899 #>>23327986 #>>23328982 #>>23329094 #>>23329143 #>>23329230 #>>23329237 #>>23329375 #>>23329616 #>>23329658 #>>23329911 #>>23330257 #>>23330267 #>>23330422 #>>23330438 #>>23330441 #>>23331115 #>>23331430 #>>23331436 #>>23331462 #>>23331469 #>>23331944 #>>23332090 #>>23332213 #>>23332505 #>>23332858 #>>23332905 #>>23332934 #>>23332983 #>>23333360 #>>23341099 #>>23346876 #
kgin ◴[] No.23328982[source]
I think it's even more concerning than that.

Threatening to shut down private companies -- not for limiting speech, not for refusing to distribute speech -- but for exercising their own right to free speech alongside the free speech of others (in this case the president).

There is no right to unchallenged or un-responded-to speech, regardless of how you interpret the right to free speech.

replies(4): >>23329367 #>>23329735 #>>23331811 #>>23333632 #
prox[dead post] ◴[] No.23329367[source]
Because that would be the territory of authoritarian kings, the ideological reason the US was founded. Trump sees himself king, not president.
briefcomment ◴[] No.23329540[source]
Can you read his mind? If not, how can you tell the difference between a tyrant and a troll (and even a savvy negotiator)? One way is to see what actually happens. My bet is that no social media company will be shut down because of this.
replies(5): >>23329603 #>>23329617 #>>23330548 #>>23330889 #>>23332398 #
paulgb ◴[] No.23329603[source]
Making threats to use your power as commander-in-chief against the free speech of a private company is not "trolling" or "negotiation", it's creating a chilling effect on speech whether he goes through with it or not.

I doubt he would shut Twitter down (if only because he needs it more than it needs him), but I don't doubt for a second that he would use the executive branch to retaliate against them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

replies(4): >>23329785 #>>23330075 #>>23330720 #>>23332620 #
nwienert ◴[] No.23330075[source]
I don’t see a chilling effect. If anything it’s a heating and dividing effect, but certainly this isn’t making people quieter about the debate.. see this comment thread for proof.
replies(2): >>23330338 #>>23330468 #
1. bananabreakfast ◴[] No.23330468[source]
This has nothing to do with people and their debate. This is a direct threat to a company to violate their free speech which, in itself, is a crime not unlike directly threatening violence against a person.
replies(1): >>23340082 #
2. nwienert ◴[] No.23340082[source]
It’s a threat to regulate them as a public utility certainly, but that’s been done before to phone companies (by the left) in the past.

It’s definitely a threat. But I don’t see any people backing down, and using “chilling” to me is just pathos to try and make one side seem right. It’s a disagreement on what to do and how to run our big platforms.

replies(1): >>23346045 #
3. Nevermark ◴[] No.23346045[source]
Trump didn’t just disagree with Twitter’s opinion of his tweets, or how Twitter operates.

He made threats to retaliate, clearly to chill speech he disagrees with.

They are not the same thing. Not even close. And businesses will have to take his behavior into account, especially if some people give him a pass for this.

Trump keeps moving the bar, or trying to, in terms of pushing back against any organizational or legal limits on himself.

It has been both amazing and depressing to see how quickly people start making excuses for him, and declaring his behavior acceptable when it is clearly corruption.