100% agree. Freedom of speech protects you _from_ government. The idea that government should compel commercial or private entities to give all voices a megaphone is misguided.
>> Now if you're not on the big platforms your opinion may as well not exist.
Before global social networks your opinion didn’t matter either. And that was probably a good thing. People are entitled to their opinions but most peoples opinions are idiotic and shouldn’t be broadcast around the world to be picked up and amplified by other idiots.
>>> Now if you're not on the big platforms your opinion may as well not exist.
> Before global social networks your opinion didn’t matter either. And that was probably a good thing. People are entitled to their opinions but most peoples opinions are idiotic and shouldn’t be broadcast around the world to be picked up and amplified by other idiots.
Oh but who decides what opinions are idiotic? This is how the idea of free speech emerged :)
This is a valid question. The answer is clearly not a firehose—free speech absolutist forums are selected against by users for the toxic pits they devolve into.
Multiple forums and the gating mechanisms of wealth and literacy were the Enlightenment era’s filters. We don’t want nor have those any more.
I'll gladly clear this one up for you. It is: whoever decided the T&Cs of the platform you're using - the ones you agreed to when you signed up.
If you're banned from Twitter for posting white supremacist hate speech, paedophilia, for organizing targetted harrassment or anything else Twitter deems contrary to their T&Cs remember that (depending on where you live) while you may have the right to express yourself, I have the right as the operator of a platform not to listen to you or have you on my platform.
What most of the people whining about being booted from Twitter are upset about is that they aren't able to annoy the people they want to anymore. I'm fine with this.
What a stupid and idiotic question! Why would you even think to ask such a thing?! I'll have you know that my understanding of the situation is so much more evolved than yours, because I saw a headline referring to an article on another site that said that my assumption with no data is correct, as dictated by my emotions being reinforced with the multitude of soundbites affirming my smugness in my perceived expertise based on my OWN research!
Do both democratic and meritocratic methods of polling suggest the opinion is harmful? Delete.
Otherwise it stays until consensus.
The edge cases pale in comparison to the broadly accepted manipulation of a near-majority. And furthermore compared to the point-of-no-return where the majority is sufficiently manipulated.
Edit: downstream comments emphasizing the edge cases must've missed my last paragraph. The improvement only has to be better than doing nothing. Right now doing nothing is arguably acutely affecting almost 50% of the US population. No way the edge cases add up to that.
> democratic and meritocratic methods of polling suggest the opinion is harmful? Delete.
This is, in essence, selecting for experts spouting popular opinions. That’s a dangerous incentive model. (All before we even get to the question of delineating the experts.)
Except that in the last 12 months, people have literally died because they believed non-experts creating and amplifying anti-vaccine conspiracy theories.
Should the majority be able to suppress the speech of minorities when they express unpopular opinions on, let's say, civil rights and equality? What is meritocratic polling and who specifically gets to evaluate merit?
If I were to get on twitter right now and start posting my opinions, no one would give a shit. There's something else going on that is promoting polarizing opinions and making these forums devolve.
I think it's monetisation. In the past, monetising your opinion was difficult. It was limited to a select few who could get on the TV or in the print media. Now, people are incentivised to say things which will generate controversy because eyeballs == money. If you got on Twitter and started posting polarising opinions and worked on promoting those eventually the engagement will (possibly) reach a point where you can gain financially from it and you're now incentivised to continue posting polarising content. The content doesn't even need to be ethically right/wrong, it just needs to make one group of people angry and another defensive. There are plenty of things we need to have a debate about as a society (because they are not black/white and require nuance to solve) but they will never get solved properly because both sides refuse to discuss the issue.
> Now if you're not on the big platforms your opinion may as well not exist.
I'm no so sure about that. Since leaving social media, I've become quite involved in local politics. I now know some state legislators on a first-name basis and multiple directors of state departments in multiple states. I can call up people I've helped get elected and get my thoughts right to them. I find my opinion to effect much more change than it did when I was shouting into the digital void.
> I can call up people I've helped get elected and get my thoughts right to them.
How about regular citizens who voted for those people but didn't "help them get elected"? Do they get to voice their opinions? Or what you're saying is that your politicians only serve those who directly donated resources (time is a resource) to them? Even though they should theoretically serve their whole constituency?
They absolutely do. The vast majority of the events I interact with these people at are open to the public with announcements in local news papers. They have dedicated communication channels. The last person I helped spent every Saturday for two months hanging out at the town dump to meet people and hear their concerns. He is planning on making it a monthly event going forward. It can be amazing how empty town, village, and county board meetings are. Show up, state your opinion in a respectful manner, come prepared with an informed argument, and take the time to chat with people afterwards. They'll remember you and if you have a consistent track record of being level-headed and productive, you can start to carry some real influence.
Like much in life, half the battle is just showing up.
If you can't be bothered to contact your representative, how does your representative know your opinion?
You don't need social media to inform your representative of your opinions--and quite frankly, more direct communication is probably more effective in informing your representative of your opinions than social media.
TIL that, despite the fact that I vote and write and discuss things with my friends, my opinion doesn't exist because I don't share it on Twitter or Facebook.
>Now if you're not on the big platforms your opinion may as well not exist.
This view somewhat misses the point. If you get on the big platforms and become famous, TODAY, you might have an opinion that matters to quite a few people. What about BEFORE? What platform were the big youtubers using in 2002? The big instagram influencers, where were their voices being heard in 1998? Paraphrasing you, "their opinions didn't exist".
What about the people that get pushed off those large platforms through constant abuse, threats and trolling? Do their opinions not matter? Or more general: at what point does an utterance stop being an opinion and start being assault?
What about cases where the defendant can’t pony up the money to sue? What about cases where the defendant has no viable way to sue in the US, where the social media networks mostly reside?
Well, then, it's interesting that Spike Lee's comments were judged to be threatening harassment (he settled after legal action was taken against him and a judge ruled the case could proceed), yet he was never banned or removed from twitter.
Let me be clear, this isn't about the Martin case -- this is about an uninvolved person who had nothing to do with the case at all being singled out for harassment by Spike Lee. And @Jack thought it was just fine. This isn't about supporting some stealth agenda; it's about not telling a posse to attack some innocent old man.
> Now if you're not on the big platforms your opinion may as well not exist.
As someone who lives in a deep red state, I can tell you that the banning of various alt-right voices from mainstream social media has amplified their appeal among those inclined to listen, not eliminated it. There are plenty of channels for sharing your ideas besides Facebook and Twitter, and they use them.
Before global social media there were newspapers, TV networks, and books. If you weren't on them, which was much harder to get on, your opinion didn't matter
But we live in a Meta-gopoly. Basically a control system by pseudo-chosen monopolies in various verticals that are all run by NGOs, but in bed with GOs.... with a revolving door of influence.
Look at the revolving door between FB and the NSA, or the fact that Amazon is building, running GovCloud, or that the CEO owns one of the big media firms, and that he is able to get clearance for satellites and rocket launches...
The non-existent lines between global corporate influence and which governments either benefit or suffer from the tech reach is quite disturbing.
Free speech is a cultural phenomenon in addition to a constitutional policy.
Everyone wants to reduce everything to laws for some reason when the whole reason they are laws is because we value them culturally. The law is a last resort. We shouldn't be setting societal boundaries merely on extreme limits of law.
Trying to fix these cultural issues at gunpoint via courts is no better than trying to fix culture via censorship and social isolation.
There is this constant borrowing of justification from the constitutional/legal side to argue that companies should moderate their platforms in a particular way.
Then there is just a marketing angle of saying you're free speech to pull users from the platform that you think is against free speech.
The whole thing feels really shaky as a genuine movement and feels more like regulating companies they don't like.
I don't. I agree approximately 60-85%. The reality is that big media companies can shape information. This has been going on for years and arguably had a role in getting us into the war in Iraq.
Either way, we are shaping the landscape of free speech, when that's how the vast majority of communication, discussion and organizing happens.
That said, I don't know how someone looks at the history of reddit and still wants uncheck free speech.
> Biden administration ‘flagging problematic posts for Facebook,’ Psaki says
If you think that social medias speech policies are developed in a vacuum from influence from politicians, then you're mistaken. How could it be? Imagine being a CEO and getting dragged in front of Congress every 6 months to explain yourself. Or politicians calling your platform a threat to democracy and threatening to break you up. You think that would have no impact on your speech policies?
What would government restriction on speech look like if not soft (effective) influence on big media companies?
> if you think that social medias speech policies are developed in a vacuum from influence from politicians
Moving the goalpost. Nobody claimed private companies should ignore government sources.
You asked about “the government tell[ing] private platforms what speech is acceptable.” That would be a First Amendment violation.
> What would government restriction on speech look like if not soft (effective) influence on big media companies?
Flippantly: Russia.
Less flippantly: freedoms exist in balance. Taking an absolutist stance on individual speech curtails freedom of association. In practice, I suspect it will make most social media unusable in its current form. (Which may be for the worst.)
> Moving the goalpost. Nobody claimed private companies should ignore government sources.
You asked about “the government tell[ing] private platforms what speech is acceptable.” That would be a First Amendment violation.
You saw the parent's linked article about the White House flagging posts for Facebook, right? Are you trying to make the argument that it's OK if the government "suggests" what Facebook/Twitter should do with posts on their platform, but they're only crossing the line if they _make_ Facebook/Twitter flag certain posts? I think it's a distinction without difference. The usual scenario I give people in this situation is, how would your view on this change if Trump "suggested" how Facebook could flag certain posts and then Facebook followed through with it. No demands, just "suggestions." Still OK with this relationship between the government and a private company?
> Are you trying to make the argument that it's OK if the government "suggests" what Facebook/Twitter should do with posts on their platform, but they're only crossing the line if they _make_ Facebook/Twitter flag certain posts?
No. Nobody was. That’s why it was moving the goalpost [1].
This (the Musk thing) isn't about that though, right? It's just him wanting the platform to be more open, not wanting the government to require that any particular platform be open.
>This (the Musk thing) isn't about that though, right? It's just him wanting the platform to be more open, not wanting the government to require that any particular platform be open.
What is Musk's definition of open? How is that any better than the status quo? Because your bias happens to overlap with Musk's? Given his treatment of whistleblowers and employees at his current companies it's not at all clear that he actually values openness and free speech.
The complete merger of the 'private economy' and the 'state government' is a defining feature of both fascism and communism across the 20th century. Such relationships already exist to a large extent across the USA and Europe, notably defense contractors and their government partners, but also increasingly you see corporate media intertwined with state power as well.
The government grants charters to corporations. Corporations are thus franchisees of the state. The idea that corporations are sovereign rule makers for society and not bound to the laws of the land is misguided.
If the government charters corporations that suppress free speech, then they are effectively making a law that abridges free speech.
