←back to thread

707 points patd | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.231s | 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 #
throwanem ◴[] No.23322660[source]
Why should that be clear? Judging them by their actions rather than their words, it's quite plain that "free speech extremists" are no such thing, except inasmuch as it applies to them. They demand to be free to say whatever they like, and they demand everyone else be required to listen while they do it.
replies(1): >>23323131 #
Cthulhu_ ◴[] No.23323131[source]
They ARE free to say whatever they like; their problem is that they then have to face the consequences.

I mean I can say whatever I want on this platform as well, but if I cross a line my posts will be hidden and eventually my account blocked. And that is fair, it's what I agreed to, and not only that but it's morally just.

The free speech extremists confuse freedom of speech with protection from consequences.

Interestingly, Trump and some other celebrities on Twitter have had special protection from said consequences.

replies(4): >>23323687 #>>23325524 #>>23325939 #>>23328077 #
a0zU ◴[] No.23328077[source]
I mean by that logic you could say that China has free speech but anyone who speaks out against the government just has to 'face the consequences' of being put in prison.
replies(1): >>23329194 #
anthony_romeo ◴[] No.23329194[source]
The obvious difference is that Twitter isn't the government.
replies(1): >>23329275 #
bredren ◴[] No.23329275[source]
It is not, though this gets at the subtext of this whole thing: companies with greater power than many national governments.

Tech CEOs can now influence the public as much or more so than any politicians. So this is fundamentally about power to influence.

Trump is mad because he thinks he is and should be the most powerful person on the planet. This action stands in contrast to that.

replies(2): >>23330534 #>>23332540 #
bananabreakfast ◴[] No.23330534[source]
Companies do not have the power to throw people in jail or legally kill with a military.
replies(2): >>23330735 #>>23330765 #
1. vageli ◴[] No.23330735[source]
> Companies do not have the power to throw people in jail or legally kill with a military.

Blackwater is a private enterprise and arguably is able to legally kill (and is in a sense a form of private military). Beyond that obvious example, private police agencies have existed in the US for some time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_police_in_the_United...