I specifically started a new thread with a different title to the old, closed one in order to talk about this different question.
I think our ACLU interpretation of freedom and free speech is, in some cases, incompatible with democracy. It’s an extreme interpretation that promotes liberty without responsibility.
It’s our “freedom” to say and believe whatever the fuck we want that’s choking our democracy and all of the many important freedoms that come with it.
Start with these two posts:
That’s a perfectly reasonable stance that I might even agree with, except for the fact that the constitution, as currently interpreted by the Supes matches that extreme interpretation you mention. Might be a fun thread to participate in if you want to start one (I’m not particular crazy about Nazi flags flying around in public, but again, it’s currently allowed), but that doesn’t seem to me to be what this thread is supposed to be about.
What “different question”? If you’re just trying to argue that the ability of private entities to legally restrict the speech of users on platforms that they provide is a (legal and constitutional) limitation on free expression, well, yes it is. Also, water is wet.
What you haven’t done is to make any kind of convincing argument that it would be constitutional or beneficial to take away that ability from private entities. (The issue of whether there should be more and smaller private entities controlling such platforms rather than a very few very big ones is a separate, although related, matter.)
Yeah, both of those are about the oligopoly issue, not the core issue of whether private entities are entitled to restrict speech on their platforms.
A question that might help clarify:
If you believe that Twitter is abridging freedom of expression by selectively enforcing its terms of service, what legislative (or executive, or judicial) remedy would you apply to alleviate that issue?
And would you be comfortable with those remedies if their enforcement and regulation were in the hands of the outgoing Administration’s appointees?
I don’t know what the best solution is. This was Navalny’s suggestion:
If @twitter and @jack want to do things right, they need to create some sort of a committee that can make such decisions. We need to know the names of the members of this committee, understand how it works, how its members vote and how we can appeal against their decisions.
Other people suggested ending/reducing the monopolies would solve the problem by creating a variety of platforms. That should at least help.
Those aren’t your posts, they’re certainly not the OP, and I’ve already responded to them. Do you have any rebuttal to my responses or anything that hasn’t been covered?
We’re just going to have to agree to disagree. I don’t see any overt double standard, at least by Twitter (I assume that’s what you’re getting at). If there is a double standard, it was in favor of Trump; if he had been a normal user he would have been banned long ago.
I like you, you asked a very specific question.
My answer: “None.”
I look forward to being able to edit Conservapedia articles at my discretion and not being banned when I edit articles so that they actually reflect reality
What? We’re only concerned that Twitter and FaceBook aren’t being fair? Hmm, I can’t imagine why some people seem to be IOKWACDI…
In other words, he is advocating for a voluntary change in the way a private company handles the process of determining and enforcing its terms of service (including public identification of the individuals tasked with that process).
Great, I’m sure Twitter will give his suggestion all due consideration. But that’s not a legislative, or executive, or judicial remedy. If some Twitter users want it implemented, their only recourse is to try to exert market power to influence Twitter’s decision.
Or, and I know this will sound crazy, they could start their own social media network and have all the rules they want!
That this will not in any way solve the actual problem should be seen as a feature and not a bug.
No, but they explain it better. I’m not going to hunt out your responses, I don’t have enough time or energy to respond to everyone individually.
My bad. Sometimes I forget that Great Debates is not just for debates, but for witnessing as well. Carry on, soldier!
While they are reducing the audience, they are not doing so the way a publisher might, by using their right to simply not publish (i.e. echo) your speech. They are doing so by reducing the amount of speech the publisher is allowed to have, by preventing them from sending that speech out to as many people. It’s an artificial limit, rather than one that naturally arises from the publisher relationship.
Someone not hosting your content does not reduce your speech. Someone restricting your ability to host your own content does reduce your speech. If places like Facebook were the only place to host your content, we’d have a much better argument for the lack of freedom of expression.
That said, there in fact is relevance to whether the above is done by a private entity or some sort of ruling authority–and whether the private entity is a monopoly and thus functions like a ruling authority. As long as it is merely a private entity, that entity itself has freedom of expression, and is not required to support your expression. You are always free to use another private entity or become your own private entity.
I do not agree that Facebook et al have an actual monopoly. They’re popular, but they’re not the only game in town, and there’s little barrier of entry to make your own social media network or just your own host. That said, you could argue that the ISPs do function as local monopolies, as there is often no competition for broadband speeds, and often deliberate barriers of entry that the local ISP did not have but that any others would have. Hence the argument for net neutrality to affect them.
ISPs are not supposed to be speaking–they’re just your connection to the Internet But platforms like Facebook are. They’re websites with a point of view. They just happen to allow their users the right to post mostly what they want to post, but with stated restrictions in their terms of service. (Same as any site that hosts user-created content, really, including the SDMB.)
And, even then, we get into whether the expression getting banned should even be free. I have long argued that deliberately false information does not actually warrant freedom of expression. It’s tricky actually making lying illegal, but that’s not an issue with the moral concept of freedom of expression. I can say that stopping you from spreading falsehoods should not count as a freedom of expression issue.
I’m actually more hesitant to say all calls for violence don’t count as freedom of expression. Sure, if the violence is predicated on falsehoods, then that’s obviously not right. But I’m not the type who thinks that violence can never be the answer. Sometimes it becomes the only way to fight an oppressor who has stripped your other non-violent rights. That said, I do think there is an argument that violent speech should enjoy less protection.
Then again, I’m also the type who thinks racist speech should enjoy less protection. I think, like all moral issues, freedom of expression can be overridden by other moral issues. I hate the attitude that it is the be-all end-all of morality.
No one seems to really think that, even, as even the most stalwart defenders of freedom of expression seem to have limits–@DemonTree is against death threats and harassment, as well she should be.
Wow, that spiraled a bit. Thinking about one part of what I was saying led to thinking about another part, so I decided to leave it all here, even though not all of it is relevant to the post I quoted.
Actually the first was one of the OPs. Two threads were combined. Clearly the discussion is explicitly NOT asking if there is a 1A issue at stake.
This position makes sense. I could be convinced of several versions of it as well. Merely some minimal standards for Navalny’s proposed committees, to some truly independent body, to a variety of other approaches.
This thread has become less than debate and more of several repeating assertions and opinions. To me it is clear that there is oligopoly level power. To others here it is clear there is not. Following from my belief is the belief that such power needs to be constrained or minimally limited in ways that serve the public goods (inclusive of both avoiding disinformation and hate speech and having a wide variety of viewpoints allowed).
Repeating these points serves nothing though.
Pretty much correct. The lack of any consistently applied standard is shown clearly by how Trump was allowed to be above the rules until the political tides were such that culling favor was served by applying rules more severely.
First thank you for the kind appraisal. Second the response was #153. Essentially a private company like Twitter or the lot of them blocking say AOC, or by extension the entire Progressive wing, or all BLM posts, or I’d assume allowing harmful disinformation, in order to gain favor with a group in control, would be of no concern to them. Because they are private and can do whatever they want. Not 1A so no worries. And those of us who perceive excessive oligopolic power are simply wrong. An assertion that I disagree with personally but so be it.
Just because we say it’s not a freedom of expression issue doesn’t mean we believe there are no potential problems. You’re bringing up a completely different scenario than the one that is occurring now, and thus bringing up different issues.
The reason what you describe would be wrong would be that they were pushing misinformation, and because presumably AOC was not in fact violating the rules of the site, spreading conspiracy theories, or supporting the violent overthrow of our government. While Twitter would have the right to do this as part of their freedom of expression, it would still be wrong and we’d still oppose it. We could disagree with Twitter’s speech.
What is going on is an attempt by those who oppose the bannings to reframe the situation. Rather than discuss whether spreading fake news, pushing conspiracy theories, supporting violence, and inciting sedition are valid reasons to ban someone, they’re reframing the conversation to steer people away from the actual issue at hand towards ground they think they can win on.
But that isn’t the issue. It’s not a freedom of expression issue. It’s not a monopoly/oligopoly issue. It’s an issue of people violating the rules of Twitter and the rules of society. And it’s an issue of us agreeing that the rules are just, and thus the bannings were the correct course of action. Your hypothetical would be unjust rules and we would oppose them.
At least, that’s what I mean when I say that this is not a freedom of expression issue.