When radio was king, many outlets chose to stop broadcasting Father Coughlin(theconversation.com)
theconversation.com
When radio was king, many outlets chose to stop broadcasting Father Coughlin
https://theconversation.com/that-time-private-us-media-companies-stepped-in-to-silence-the-falsehoods-and-incitements-of-a-major-public-figure-in-1938-153157
209 comments
It could never be written into the constitution, but it's still there as an essential element of making decisions together.
The concept you're looking for is "good faith". And faith is what it is, you can't have evidence for what went on in the inspector's mind.
Good faith is basically the goodwill be give each other that we're deciding things according to what we say we're deciding things by. If you're judging a figureskating contest, you are supposed to do it based on the desire to promote good technique and artistry. If you do it based on who you think looks good, nobody will ever know, they can only suspect it after you've given full marks to a few good looking people with bad technique.
Once that is undermined in a society, we end up with a mess, because just about every decision can be questioned as a political move, which is what is happening in the US.
Take that appointment of Merrick Garland. How many people now think that it was a good faith decision to not hold a hearing for him? Is it believable that people opposed the hearing for non-partisan reasons? I think it's hard.
The concept you're looking for is "good faith". And faith is what it is, you can't have evidence for what went on in the inspector's mind.
Good faith is basically the goodwill be give each other that we're deciding things according to what we say we're deciding things by. If you're judging a figureskating contest, you are supposed to do it based on the desire to promote good technique and artistry. If you do it based on who you think looks good, nobody will ever know, they can only suspect it after you've given full marks to a few good looking people with bad technique.
Once that is undermined in a society, we end up with a mess, because just about every decision can be questioned as a political move, which is what is happening in the US.
Take that appointment of Merrick Garland. How many people now think that it was a good faith decision to not hold a hearing for him? Is it believable that people opposed the hearing for non-partisan reasons? I think it's hard.
This "good faith" issue is written into many contracts, and a lot of rules just collapse without a basis in shared principle. What I see is a kind of moral legalism, where people essentially litigate their positions to greater and greater powers as a means to wield their dominion, and this is the very essence of faithlessness.
Whether it is a constitutional appeal to freedom of speech, or political "ratfucking," by people who hide behind societal penalties for any violence, the spirit of mendacity and sadistic antagonism is the same. That good faith principle is the only thing that enables societies to be governed with consent instead of just ruled over as interchangeable subjects.
When we dispense with principles and their honourable spirit, we dispense with the only meaningful thing separating people from animals.
Whether it is a constitutional appeal to freedom of speech, or political "ratfucking," by people who hide behind societal penalties for any violence, the spirit of mendacity and sadistic antagonism is the same. That good faith principle is the only thing that enables societies to be governed with consent instead of just ruled over as interchangeable subjects.
When we dispense with principles and their honourable spirit, we dispense with the only meaningful thing separating people from animals.
I don't think anyone seriously questions whether the non-approval of Merrick Garland was done in good faith or not. Rather, the phraseology used is whether it was constitutional. McConnell didn't use a pretext, he flat out acknowledged what he was doing, and that it was constitutionally his prerogative.
But much of government and society runs on precedent and tradition. What mcconnel did was constitutional, but the reasons he gave were not authentic, or he would not have approved Amy Coney Barrett for the same reasons he gave for not approving Merrick Garland. Those reasons matter. I.e. if a cop lets you off with a warning because “you were only going 10 over the speed limit”, and then gives someone else a ticket for going 9 over the limit, yes both people broke the law, but that is likely corrupt behavior to punish or excuse one of those speeders, or to meet a secret quota
If I understand correctly, the precedent actually is to go ahead with a Supreme Court nomination if the President and Senate majority are of the same party, and not if they are of different parties. Barrett and Garland are both following precedent.
Mcconnell’s statement (february 2016) was:
> The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president
On September 26, 2020 Amy Coney Barrett was nominated and confirmed a month later - barely over a week before the election.
> The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president
On September 26, 2020 Amy Coney Barrett was nominated and confirmed a month later - barely over a week before the election.
[deleted]
> The mere accusation of being an infidel is enough to taint the perception of the person in question.
Not that we need more reminders of this fact, but here's another recent one that everyone should read: Alex Morse committed the mortal sin of trying to unseat an incumbent Democrat in Massachusetts. The Democratic party used false accusations of inappropriate sexual behavior to successfully smear him and destroy his campaign. Even after their "investigation" turned up nothing they still continued to attack him: https://theintercept.com/2021/01/18/alex-morse-umass-amherst...
Not that we need more reminders of this fact, but here's another recent one that everyone should read: Alex Morse committed the mortal sin of trying to unseat an incumbent Democrat in Massachusetts. The Democratic party used false accusations of inappropriate sexual behavior to successfully smear him and destroy his campaign. Even after their "investigation" turned up nothing they still continued to attack him: https://theintercept.com/2021/01/18/alex-morse-umass-amherst...
not 100%. There's a jewish law concept of an eruv. without getting into the nitty gritty of it, many places that have them, make use of existing utility poles (with permission of the utility companies that own them). Many municipalities have laws that are really unenforced that things can't be posted to them. Sometimes when building an eruv, they will post a strip to the pole (again, don't have to get into the details as to why, unimportant for this discussion). Cities that want to make life difficult for the people building the eruv try to enforce the law against them.
the city general loses in court
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%9318_Bergen_County_...
just because the law defines something, we are also equal in the eyes of the law and if a law is not equally enforced and is viewed as being used by the government as a bludgeon against the practice of protected rights, then the government has a difficult case to defend.
the city general loses in court
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%9318_Bergen_County_...
just because the law defines something, we are also equal in the eyes of the law and if a law is not equally enforced and is viewed as being used by the government as a bludgeon against the practice of protected rights, then the government has a difficult case to defend.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is misinformation -- not "allegedly," it is a straight up lie that was intended to stir up antisemitic hatred. The man in question used his print publication to propagate that pamphlet. That same man spent years using his radio program to promote the falsehood that the Russian Revolution was sponsored by "Jewish bankers" and the conspiracy theory that "Jews" were behind Bolshevism. In response to Kristalnacht he said that the persecution of Jews by the Nazis "followed" the persecution of Christians by the Bolsheviks, as if Kristalnacht was a response to what happened in the USSR. When he was challenged on his antisemitism he declared that he wanted the "Good Jews" on his side and that he was only taking a stand against the persecution of people generally (never mind his comments on Kristalnacht and support for the Nazi Party and the Bund).
So no, this is not an example of out of control censorship or a witch hunt or even a "mere accusation" ruining someone's life, nor was it simply that he was an opponent of Roosevelt (who, like every US president, had many political opponents). This is an example of someone who was fomenting religious and ethnic divisions by spreading the propaganda of one of America's adversaries -- while also being indirectly funded by that adversary.
So no, this is not an example of out of control censorship or a witch hunt or even a "mere accusation" ruining someone's life, nor was it simply that he was an opponent of Roosevelt (who, like every US president, had many political opponents). This is an example of someone who was fomenting religious and ethnic divisions by spreading the propaganda of one of America's adversaries -- while also being indirectly funded by that adversary.
Fr. Caughlin's anti-Semitism was reprehensible, but given the pervasive atmosphere of anti-Semitism at the time, was it actually the distinguishing feature that caused him to be singled out?
On a historical note, the 'Protocols' was originally intended as racist satire, based on the unlikely premise of a leak from the key plotters in a conspiracy. It was immediately received as if it were genuine.
On a historical note, the 'Protocols' was originally intended as racist satire, based on the unlikely premise of a leak from the key plotters in a conspiracy. It was immediately received as if it were genuine.
> the conspiracy theory that "Jews" were behind Bolshevism
10 of the 15 leaders of the Russian-supported socialist revolution in Germany were Jewish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%8...
It would be interesting to compare that to the percentage of the German population that was Jewish at the time.
10 of the 15 leaders of the Russian-supported socialist revolution in Germany were Jewish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%8...
It would be interesting to compare that to the percentage of the German population that was Jewish at the time.
That's not surprising. Jews have traditionally been overrepresented in intellectual circles in Europe around that time. One of the major reasons for this is the antisemitism of preindustrial times: Jews had a hard time entering guilds, and they didn't own any land, so the only viable career paths for them were as merchants or scholars. Their success in these fields then triggered the next level of antisemitism, the 20th-century and contemporary alleged Jewish World Conspiracy.
As another example of how Jews were overrepresented in intellectual fields, the German science community, which had up to this point been among the leading ones in the world, took a serious blow in the 1930s and 1940s because all the Jewish scientists had to emigrate. It can be argued that Germany never quite recovered from that brain drain.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a historian. However, I'm German myself and have studied my country's history to a certain degree.)
As another example of how Jews were overrepresented in intellectual fields, the German science community, which had up to this point been among the leading ones in the world, took a serious blow in the 1930s and 1940s because all the Jewish scientists had to emigrate. It can be argued that Germany never quite recovered from that brain drain.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a historian. However, I'm German myself and have studied my country's history to a certain degree.)
> That's not surprising.
If it's so unsurprising, why does it keep being disparagingly referred to as a conspiracy theory?
> the only viable career paths for them were as merchants or scholars
Does instigating a civil war/revolution/coup fall under trade, or academia?
If it's so unsurprising, why does it keep being disparagingly referred to as a conspiracy theory?
> the only viable career paths for them were as merchants or scholars
Does instigating a civil war/revolution/coup fall under trade, or academia?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Father Caughlin was not a plucky underdog speaking truth to power when he downplayed Kristallnacht and blamed the Jews for their own persecution. The "alledged misinformation" was in fact, genuine misinformation. And the vetting process was immediate global condemnation.
I wouldn't necessarily call it "alleged misinformation".
"In the wake of [blaming "Jews for their own persecution and [claiming...] that the Nazis had actually been lenient. Only a few synagogues were burned, he lied, adding: “German citizen Jews were not molested officially in the conduct of their business.”], a New York radio station decided to break with Coughlin. “Your broadcast last Sunday was calculated to incite religious and racial strife in America,” said a letter from WMCA radio. “When this was called to your attention in advance of your broadcast, you agreed to delete those misrepresentations which undeniably had this effect. You did not do so.”"
Coughlin broke an agreement not to "incite religious and racial strife". Emphasis on "broke an agreement".
"In the wake of [blaming "Jews for their own persecution and [claiming...] that the Nazis had actually been lenient. Only a few synagogues were burned, he lied, adding: “German citizen Jews were not molested officially in the conduct of their business.”], a New York radio station decided to break with Coughlin. “Your broadcast last Sunday was calculated to incite religious and racial strife in America,” said a letter from WMCA radio. “When this was called to your attention in advance of your broadcast, you agreed to delete those misrepresentations which undeniably had this effect. You did not do so.”"
Coughlin broke an agreement not to "incite religious and racial strife". Emphasis on "broke an agreement".
Perhaps you should be more specific instead of resorting to vague insinuations, which can lead to all sorts of misunderstandings.
> What's the vetting process?
You either don't care and make damn sure that the communication channel has a lot of competition over the public mindshare, or you make it completely formal with democratically created rules with last appeals in the government judiciary.
Both of those are fine. Not perfect, but fine. None is dangerous. The first option is the default, for obvious reasons.
I don't know how it was at the time, but our current situation with social media is neither of those options, and not fine at all. Anyway, any comparison or decision based only on the ruleset is misleading.
You either don't care and make damn sure that the communication channel has a lot of competition over the public mindshare, or you make it completely formal with democratically created rules with last appeals in the government judiciary.
Both of those are fine. Not perfect, but fine. None is dangerous. The first option is the default, for obvious reasons.
I don't know how it was at the time, but our current situation with social media is neither of those options, and not fine at all. Anyway, any comparison or decision based only on the ruleset is misleading.
From the article:
> Coughlin saw things differently. He blamed Jews for their own persecution and claimed in the sermon that the Nazis had actually been lenient. Only a few synagogues were burned, he lied, adding: “German citizen Jews were not molested officially in the conduct of their business.” And communists, not Jews, were the real targets of the Nazi mobs, according to Coughlin.
Can you clarify, do you suspect this information is not accurate? Or you think it's not sufficient to judge the effect of Coughlin's broadcast and the matter needs to be "pursued further"? (How, what sort of pursuit, what would we be looking to find?) Or something else?
Coughlin wasn't secretive about what he believed, and he was banned from certain stations for exactly what he said on the radio, I think? I'm confused what sort of additional vetting you are suggesting should have happened, by whom. I could respect better an argument that it's worrisome when large corporations can ban people for their political views... but you are arguing that Coughlin's political views were misunderstood? Really? How so?
Or wait, from the first paragraph, that Coughlin wasn't really banned for what he said on the radio, but for... critisizing the local government? With what sort of critisism? You realize it wasn't actually the government that banned him, it was a choice of individual broadcasters not to broadcast him?
> Coughlin saw things differently. He blamed Jews for their own persecution and claimed in the sermon that the Nazis had actually been lenient. Only a few synagogues were burned, he lied, adding: “German citizen Jews were not molested officially in the conduct of their business.” And communists, not Jews, were the real targets of the Nazi mobs, according to Coughlin.
Can you clarify, do you suspect this information is not accurate? Or you think it's not sufficient to judge the effect of Coughlin's broadcast and the matter needs to be "pursued further"? (How, what sort of pursuit, what would we be looking to find?) Or something else?
Coughlin wasn't secretive about what he believed, and he was banned from certain stations for exactly what he said on the radio, I think? I'm confused what sort of additional vetting you are suggesting should have happened, by whom. I could respect better an argument that it's worrisome when large corporations can ban people for their political views... but you are arguing that Coughlin's political views were misunderstood? Really? How so?
Or wait, from the first paragraph, that Coughlin wasn't really banned for what he said on the radio, but for... critisizing the local government? With what sort of critisism? You realize it wasn't actually the government that banned him, it was a choice of individual broadcasters not to broadcast him?
Parent commenter's comment intentionally avoids mentioning the comments that lead to the ban. Pretty much all of the people who scream "slippery slope" and cry for Parler will follow a similar pattern. So instead, the argument trends towards concern-trolling about "vetting" and such.
An accusation today can ruin a person, more so than ever before.
> more so than ever before
This is ahistorical. In many societies throughout history, an accusation of heresy was a mortal threat, or worse.
This is ahistorical. In many societies throughout history, an accusation of heresy was a mortal threat, or worse.
However, unlike today with social media, mass communication, and the internet, one could pick up and move to another city and essentially "start fresh" with their reputation.
Today, there is no hiding - forever - even if you've atoned your mistakes.
Today, there is no hiding - forever - even if you've atoned your mistakes.
> one could pick up and move to another city and essentially "start fresh" with their reputation
From the wikipedia article on exile: "In Roman law, exsilium denoted both voluntary exile and banishment as a capital punishment alternative to death."
When something is an alternative to death, I think it's fair to say that it was not a trivial event. "Just" moving somewhere wasn't easy, historically.
From the wikipedia article on exile: "In Roman law, exsilium denoted both voluntary exile and banishment as a capital punishment alternative to death."
When something is an alternative to death, I think it's fair to say that it was not a trivial event. "Just" moving somewhere wasn't easy, historically.
Easy has nothing to do with it. It was possible to move cities/towns/state/country, start fresh and have people judge you by your current actions and things you say... not something you said 10 years ago late one night on twitter after a few beers.
Unless you were dead, which was a distinct possibility throughout most of history for one accused of heresy (political or religious).
> An accusation today can ruin a person, more so than ever before
It probably can, but unfortunately the people usually held up as examples of this generally haven't actually been ruined. I mean, what are some actual examples of people who have been ruined by accusation?
It probably can, but unfortunately the people usually held up as examples of this generally haven't actually been ruined. I mean, what are some actual examples of people who have been ruined by accusation?
George Zimmerman, for instance. The guy still receives death threats and worse, even though he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers.
Social Media continues to perpetuate falsehoods about the case, trial and outcome. There is no safe place for Zimmerman in America today... and regardless of what you think of him as an individual, that's a problem.
Social Media continues to perpetuate falsehoods about the case, trial and outcome. There is no safe place for Zimmerman in America today... and regardless of what you think of him as an individual, that's a problem.
I'm not sure if he's the best example. He wasn't ruined by accusation—whether or not he killed Trayvon Martin was never in question. The question was if it was justified.
The big problem here is that writing a regulation that decides what's okay / not okay on a platform (either by the platform itself or by a govt) is basically impossible.
Any sort of you-shalt-not-serve-this-content type of rulebook won't stand up to real world use and you need a team of lawyers to exercise judgement on if content is allowed or not allowed on a platform.
A couple of examples to de-politicize this:
- FB says gore / violence is not allowed. There was a Facebook post on how one of Mexico's most violet cartel members was killed that circulated on FB [1], received a lot of attention, and popped up in people's feeds leading to cries to take down the post (won't someone think of the kids!). They did take it down and then the Boston marathon bombing happened. Similar pictures of blood / gore circulated but this time FB was forced to keep the pictures up in "public interest".
- Nudity is not allowed on the platform. As part of their nudity filtering, they kicked off a group on breastfeeding from FB which again lead to protest and FB allowing it and modifying their policy to specifically make an exception for breastfeeding. YT and Amazon suffer from this as well (though we haven't had a big PR bust up yet). Amazon algorithms for instance recommend "adult" fiction (with provocative cover art) along with children's books. Beyond just playing whack-a-mole with these products, and some half assed attempts to detect nudity in book covers, I don't think a lot of progress has been made.
So yeah, I think Zuck will be more than happy to say, please tell us what to allow on the platform and we'll follow it to the letter and deflect the blame to the regulators.
It's not even clear that there's a solution here beyond let the platforms exercise their best judgement and sort of muddle along.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2014/4/1/5569878/the-dark-side-of-t...
Any sort of you-shalt-not-serve-this-content type of rulebook won't stand up to real world use and you need a team of lawyers to exercise judgement on if content is allowed or not allowed on a platform.
A couple of examples to de-politicize this:
- FB says gore / violence is not allowed. There was a Facebook post on how one of Mexico's most violet cartel members was killed that circulated on FB [1], received a lot of attention, and popped up in people's feeds leading to cries to take down the post (won't someone think of the kids!). They did take it down and then the Boston marathon bombing happened. Similar pictures of blood / gore circulated but this time FB was forced to keep the pictures up in "public interest".
- Nudity is not allowed on the platform. As part of their nudity filtering, they kicked off a group on breastfeeding from FB which again lead to protest and FB allowing it and modifying their policy to specifically make an exception for breastfeeding. YT and Amazon suffer from this as well (though we haven't had a big PR bust up yet). Amazon algorithms for instance recommend "adult" fiction (with provocative cover art) along with children's books. Beyond just playing whack-a-mole with these products, and some half assed attempts to detect nudity in book covers, I don't think a lot of progress has been made.
So yeah, I think Zuck will be more than happy to say, please tell us what to allow on the platform and we'll follow it to the letter and deflect the blame to the regulators.
It's not even clear that there's a solution here beyond let the platforms exercise their best judgement and sort of muddle along.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2014/4/1/5569878/the-dark-side-of-t...
It's not even clear that there's a solution here beyond let the platforms exercise their best judgement and sort of muddle along.
Ensuring a diversity of platforms with no one/two/three platforms controlling the vast majority of interaction would probably help.
Ensuring a diversity of platforms with no one/two/three platforms controlling the vast majority of interaction would probably help.
People are free to use whatever platforms they want, you can't force the masses to use alternative platforms. Besides, the landscape is already very diverse, but the most popular platforms will always get the most media attention, it's not like using FB precludes the use of any other platform, most people who are active on social media are active on multiple sites. This just isn't a problem.
> People are free to use whatever platforms they want
8.1 million people wanted to use Parler. Obviously to me they can get a GNU-powered phone and Parler could get ported and they’d be free to use it. >999‰ of them probably have no idea those exist. >99‰ of them probably don’t even know what “jailbreak” means or that it’s legal, and ~900‰ probably don’t know how to do it or that they have the ability to learn it.
8.1 million people wanted to use Parler. Obviously to me they can get a GNU-powered phone and Parler could get ported and they’d be free to use it. >999‰ of them probably have no idea those exist. >99‰ of them probably don’t even know what “jailbreak” means or that it’s legal, and ~900‰ probably don’t know how to do it or that they have the ability to learn it.
I have a Parler account.
I've known about PinePhone, Librem 5, and other variants since their inceptions.
I've jailbroken myriad devices for years.
I don't know where this idea you have that there aren't technical people - extremely technical people - across the political spectrum comes from, but you should probably disabuse yourself of that notion immediately.
What people want is 1) fair treatment regardless of political affiliation or belief and 2) ease of idea transmission.
There's nothing stopping people from spinning up a VM across the thousands of cloud service providers and creating their own little corner of the web, but that doesn't give you nearly the engagement of YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. In fact, I'm willing to bet even the most trafficked personal websites don't get one-tenth of their associated YouTube / Snapchat / TikTok accounts.
How many people go to TaylorSwift.com versus her YouTube channel? Her TikTok channel? Her Twitter page?
I've known about PinePhone, Librem 5, and other variants since their inceptions.
I've jailbroken myriad devices for years.
I don't know where this idea you have that there aren't technical people - extremely technical people - across the political spectrum comes from, but you should probably disabuse yourself of that notion immediately.
What people want is 1) fair treatment regardless of political affiliation or belief and 2) ease of idea transmission.
There's nothing stopping people from spinning up a VM across the thousands of cloud service providers and creating their own little corner of the web, but that doesn't give you nearly the engagement of YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. In fact, I'm willing to bet even the most trafficked personal websites don't get one-tenth of their associated YouTube / Snapchat / TikTok accounts.
How many people go to TaylorSwift.com versus her YouTube channel? Her TikTok channel? Her Twitter page?
> How many people go to TaylorSwift.com versus her YouTube channel? Her TikTok channel? Her Twitter page?
Is this something we should care about though? I understand why individuals care about engagement, but why should society care that Taylor Swift gets more views on TikTok vs her personal website? If you think we should care about it, what about all the people that get essentially zero engagement despite having access to those platforms and having something worthwhile to share?
Is this something we should care about though? I understand why individuals care about engagement, but why should society care that Taylor Swift gets more views on TikTok vs her personal website? If you think we should care about it, what about all the people that get essentially zero engagement despite having access to those platforms and having something worthwhile to share?
>> why should society care that Taylor Swift gets more views on TikTok vs her personal website?
Because I know what the motive of TaylorSwift.com is. Its to promote Taylor Swift. I don't have to question it, I don't have to ask myself, "Are they promoting Taylor Swift because they like her political ideology, or because she makes a lot of money for TaylorSwift.com, or <insert a million other questions that I haven't asked and a million more I'm not smart enough to think of>?"
Sure, an argument could be made that visitors of root_axis.com aren't being exposed solely to what root_axis has to say, that in fact, root_axis.com is a Latvian honeypot designed to capture users information for the express purpose of Latvian national security interests. But that's a crackpot argument that is far less likely than say, TikTok's purpose is not just to generate money but to gather data about users for the CCP. You'd be more insane not to see that as a byproduct of TikTok, given ByteDance literally has CCP ties through and through.
>> what about all the people that get essentially zero engagement despite having access to those platforms and having something worthwhile to share?
This actually makes my case against the dominance of a platform or monopoly. Why are these people getting zero engagement? Are they bad at SEO? Did they not pay the Google tax? Are they being unfairly targeted because of <insert any potential reason>? Hard to say, nowadays.
>> Is this something we should care about though?
To answer your last question, I don't know. Maybe we shouldn't. I think these are serious problems though, and they're going to require serious thought. Or hey, maybe VisageTome, Honker, PopTalk, DingDong, and Immediapost overtake FaceBook, Twitter, SnapChat, TikTok, and Instagram and it all sorts itself out... who knows?
Because I know what the motive of TaylorSwift.com is. Its to promote Taylor Swift. I don't have to question it, I don't have to ask myself, "Are they promoting Taylor Swift because they like her political ideology, or because she makes a lot of money for TaylorSwift.com, or <insert a million other questions that I haven't asked and a million more I'm not smart enough to think of>?"
Sure, an argument could be made that visitors of root_axis.com aren't being exposed solely to what root_axis has to say, that in fact, root_axis.com is a Latvian honeypot designed to capture users information for the express purpose of Latvian national security interests. But that's a crackpot argument that is far less likely than say, TikTok's purpose is not just to generate money but to gather data about users for the CCP. You'd be more insane not to see that as a byproduct of TikTok, given ByteDance literally has CCP ties through and through.
>> what about all the people that get essentially zero engagement despite having access to those platforms and having something worthwhile to share?
This actually makes my case against the dominance of a platform or monopoly. Why are these people getting zero engagement? Are they bad at SEO? Did they not pay the Google tax? Are they being unfairly targeted because of <insert any potential reason>? Hard to say, nowadays.
>> Is this something we should care about though?
To answer your last question, I don't know. Maybe we shouldn't. I think these are serious problems though, and they're going to require serious thought. Or hey, maybe VisageTome, Honker, PopTalk, DingDong, and Immediapost overtake FaceBook, Twitter, SnapChat, TikTok, and Instagram and it all sorts itself out... who knows?
> Because I know what the motive of TaylorSwift.com is...
For what it's worth, I don't disagree with anything in those two paragraphs, but that's not what I meant. To be more clear, does it really matter if taylor swift has to settle for the engagement afforded her by taylorswift.com or should society view it as a problem that somethingpopular.com has the power to prevent her from engaging on that platform?
> This actually makes my case against the dominance of a platform or monopoly.
It's important to distinguish popularity from "dominance" or "monopoly". If you're using anything akin to MAUs to define dominance then your case is hopeless because you're effectively in opposition to the concept of popularity. Social media users aren't being held at gunpoint, they capriciously engage in any platform that gives them what they want on the internet at a given moment, social media is just one slice of that and is generally regarded as the least productive way to spend your time online.
> Why are these people getting zero engagement? Are they bad at SEO? Did they not pay the Google tax?
It's just the nature of physics, regardless of the factors involved, there are only so many spots available on the front-page. The overwhelming majority of social media users are less than a rounding error in terms of the engagement they will ever receive except for a minuscule fraction that might end up going viral for some reason.
> To answer your last question, I don't know. Maybe we shouldn't. I think these are serious problems though, and they're going to require serious thought.
I don't think it's a problem, it's basically a fight over who should get to be in the popular club. Not that I think there aren't other problems, in my view the ad model is the only problem. If companies that collect PII and track users were forbidden from selling ad space and had to take on a subscription model like netflix, suddenly the incentives would shift and all the bad behavior would stop. For people concerned about deplatforming, these companies would actually lose money in the form of subscriptions when they ban people rather than earn money by purging toxic content to please advertisers.
For what it's worth, I don't disagree with anything in those two paragraphs, but that's not what I meant. To be more clear, does it really matter if taylor swift has to settle for the engagement afforded her by taylorswift.com or should society view it as a problem that somethingpopular.com has the power to prevent her from engaging on that platform?
> This actually makes my case against the dominance of a platform or monopoly.
It's important to distinguish popularity from "dominance" or "monopoly". If you're using anything akin to MAUs to define dominance then your case is hopeless because you're effectively in opposition to the concept of popularity. Social media users aren't being held at gunpoint, they capriciously engage in any platform that gives them what they want on the internet at a given moment, social media is just one slice of that and is generally regarded as the least productive way to spend your time online.
> Why are these people getting zero engagement? Are they bad at SEO? Did they not pay the Google tax?
It's just the nature of physics, regardless of the factors involved, there are only so many spots available on the front-page. The overwhelming majority of social media users are less than a rounding error in terms of the engagement they will ever receive except for a minuscule fraction that might end up going viral for some reason.
> To answer your last question, I don't know. Maybe we shouldn't. I think these are serious problems though, and they're going to require serious thought.
I don't think it's a problem, it's basically a fight over who should get to be in the popular club. Not that I think there aren't other problems, in my view the ad model is the only problem. If companies that collect PII and track users were forbidden from selling ad space and had to take on a subscription model like netflix, suddenly the incentives would shift and all the bad behavior would stop. For people concerned about deplatforming, these companies would actually lose money in the form of subscriptions when they ban people rather than earn money by purging toxic content to please advertisers.
Ah, I see your arguments a lot more clearly now, and I agree with many of the points you've made.
To address your final points, because I think they're the most salient, yes, we need to move away from "free" services, and the sooner the better I think. Gmail / Hotmail / Whatevermail people are using has perpetuated the idea that email has no real value, but I think that's easily disproven by simply locking someone's account for a month. I guarantee you anyone living in the modern world without email for a month would immediately see the monetary value. This is why I pay for ProtonMail, among other reasons (chiefly privacy).
I think people really need to get into the mindset of paying for social media services as well. I don't think anyone can argue that Facebook has real, tangible value. It not only connects you to your friends and family, but the storage of media (videos, pictures, etc.) is also useful. I know some people whose entire family photo albums exist only on Facebook's servers. I don't know what kind of pricing would be reasonable... maybe as little as $1 a month for basic services, and then you pay more to unlock more storage for your photo uploads or something, but its a model that I think a lot of people might be interested in, if Facebook respected your privacy, etc.
Once again, I don't claim to know the answers, but I do know that we need to move away from the "free" model. My older brother told me 20 years ago, "If you go to a website, and you can't tell what the product is - you're the product." Seems as true now as it was then.
To address your final points, because I think they're the most salient, yes, we need to move away from "free" services, and the sooner the better I think. Gmail / Hotmail / Whatevermail people are using has perpetuated the idea that email has no real value, but I think that's easily disproven by simply locking someone's account for a month. I guarantee you anyone living in the modern world without email for a month would immediately see the monetary value. This is why I pay for ProtonMail, among other reasons (chiefly privacy).
I think people really need to get into the mindset of paying for social media services as well. I don't think anyone can argue that Facebook has real, tangible value. It not only connects you to your friends and family, but the storage of media (videos, pictures, etc.) is also useful. I know some people whose entire family photo albums exist only on Facebook's servers. I don't know what kind of pricing would be reasonable... maybe as little as $1 a month for basic services, and then you pay more to unlock more storage for your photo uploads or something, but its a model that I think a lot of people might be interested in, if Facebook respected your privacy, etc.
Once again, I don't claim to know the answers, but I do know that we need to move away from the "free" model. My older brother told me 20 years ago, "If you go to a website, and you can't tell what the product is - you're the product." Seems as true now as it was then.
Parler is fine, they are in the process of switching to new hosting and already have the site running for top posters. Check the website. Beyond that, the vast majority of Parler users continue to use Facebook and Twitter they just follow the rules, same as you have to on Parler.
> Amazon algorithms for instance recommend "adult" fiction (with provocative cover art)
amazon publishes way more than that, NSFW, google "chuck tingle". The famous author of "space raptor butt invasion", and who can forget the literary masterpiece "pounded in the butt by my own butt"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=chuck+tin...
amazon publishes way more than that, NSFW, google "chuck tingle". The famous author of "space raptor butt invasion", and who can forget the literary masterpiece "pounded in the butt by my own butt"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=chuck+tin...
WTF is even real life. There are hundreds of them. https://www.amazon.com/Chuck-Tingle/e/B00SF2MTYK
One of my favorite titles is "Creamed In The Butt By My Handsome Living Corn"
One of my favorite titles is "Creamed In The Butt By My Handsome Living Corn"
Well, ultimately the law is interpreted by humans, concepts like "good-faith effort" and "bona fide" exist despite those not being something you can exactly define in a law. But judges know it when they see it and it's not actually a problem in practice.
This is ultimately one of those things where computer scientists (specifically) freak out because the real world isn't zeroes and ones like they're used to, it's all shades of grey, but if you act in good taste it's probably not going to be a problem. Ban the cartel murderporn, show the aftermath of the bombing (or not, at your discretion), ban the nudists, but allow breastfeeding (or not, at your discretion), all of that sounds fine to me and we don't need to code an exact line into law.
This is really a common thread in HN threads discussing anything touching on laws or regulation, because computer touchers just can't wrap their head around the idea that the law isn't absolutely precisely defined in a state machine and the judge and jury are going to apply human reasoning. But that's how the legal system works.
I'm going to note that there is of course a degree of self-servingness in insisting that there be an exact line drawn. It's a way for Facebook to punt on actually having to moderate their platform and push that responsibility onto the courts, because they don't want to pay humans to deal with what is ultimately a human problem that needs to be solved in human ways. The nature of the world is that there are grey areas and some stuff in the grey area is fine and some stuff shouldn't be there, and it will take human intervention to decide which is which.
If you don't want to pay to do that, and you want to be 100% on the green side of the line, then you will have to default to very aggressive censorship that will probably annoy users, but that's the price of being on a free platform that doesn't want to pay for adequate moderation.
This is ultimately one of those things where computer scientists (specifically) freak out because the real world isn't zeroes and ones like they're used to, it's all shades of grey, but if you act in good taste it's probably not going to be a problem. Ban the cartel murderporn, show the aftermath of the bombing (or not, at your discretion), ban the nudists, but allow breastfeeding (or not, at your discretion), all of that sounds fine to me and we don't need to code an exact line into law.
This is really a common thread in HN threads discussing anything touching on laws or regulation, because computer touchers just can't wrap their head around the idea that the law isn't absolutely precisely defined in a state machine and the judge and jury are going to apply human reasoning. But that's how the legal system works.
I'm going to note that there is of course a degree of self-servingness in insisting that there be an exact line drawn. It's a way for Facebook to punt on actually having to moderate their platform and push that responsibility onto the courts, because they don't want to pay humans to deal with what is ultimately a human problem that needs to be solved in human ways. The nature of the world is that there are grey areas and some stuff in the grey area is fine and some stuff shouldn't be there, and it will take human intervention to decide which is which.
If you don't want to pay to do that, and you want to be 100% on the green side of the line, then you will have to default to very aggressive censorship that will probably annoy users, but that's the price of being on a free platform that doesn't want to pay for adequate moderation.
I think what you're missing is that FB does employ an army of content moderators to decide if something passes their bar or not. And these are low wage, button clicking jobs along the lines of the AWS mechanical turk where without very explicit clear guidelines, you fall flat on your face.
For context, reviewers apparently typically spend ~0-3 seconds to determine if a piece of content (mostly pictures) is acceptable. Given the pace of content creation, I'm amazed they even get that long, I assume algorithms do a lot of the heavy lifting as well.
Even if you have extremely smart reviewers, if your guidelines aren't clear and you leave it to the reviewer's interpretation, you'd likely get extremely inconsistent results and that feels like a worse product experience than having no moderation at all.
So either have the govt decide these guidelines (esp. on political speech) and let them eat humblepie or let the platform do it and don't complain when they ban the POTUS.
For context, reviewers apparently typically spend ~0-3 seconds to determine if a piece of content (mostly pictures) is acceptable. Given the pace of content creation, I'm amazed they even get that long, I assume algorithms do a lot of the heavy lifting as well.
Even if you have extremely smart reviewers, if your guidelines aren't clear and you leave it to the reviewer's interpretation, you'd likely get extremely inconsistent results and that feels like a worse product experience than having no moderation at all.
So either have the govt decide these guidelines (esp. on political speech) and let them eat humblepie or let the platform do it and don't complain when they ban the POTUS.
[deleted]
I address this in another top comment as well. Just additional perspective.
You can't predict the future, so you have to find the one thing(s) to protect in all cases. And like you say, it can not be subjective. In Gov't Tech Acquisitions regulation the single objective is to protect and enable small and disadvantage businesses.
Perhaps it could be the same with platforms that propagate info, but there is risk in creating a competitive environment without some form of formal trust system. It does seem ambitious / hard to think about.
You can't predict the future, so you have to find the one thing(s) to protect in all cases. And like you say, it can not be subjective. In Gov't Tech Acquisitions regulation the single objective is to protect and enable small and disadvantage businesses.
Perhaps it could be the same with platforms that propagate info, but there is risk in creating a competitive environment without some form of formal trust system. It does seem ambitious / hard to think about.
> So yeah, I think Zuck will be more than happy to say, please tell us what to allow on the platform and we'll follow it to the letter and deflect the blame to the regulators.
He would never do that. He needs regular users to stay on the platform. The censorship isn't to appease government regulators, it's to keep from alienating regular people who don't want to be exposed to it. Deflecting blame to the regulators wouldn't stop users from leaving and heading to a platform that did more effective damage control.
He would never do that. He needs regular users to stay on the platform. The censorship isn't to appease government regulators, it's to keep from alienating regular people who don't want to be exposed to it. Deflecting blame to the regulators wouldn't stop users from leaving and heading to a platform that did more effective damage control.
He's been saying that pretty consistently for several years though.. too lazy to dig up the links.
Regular users might be somewhat impacted (if their bill gates is tracking us through vaccines post gets removed for example) but most people I'd say just want to post their breakfast / travel photos on Facebook than deal with QAnon conspiracies.
Regular users might be somewhat impacted (if their bill gates is tracking us through vaccines post gets removed for example) but most people I'd say just want to post their breakfast / travel photos on Facebook than deal with QAnon conspiracies.
>... you need a team of lawyers to exercise judgement on if content is allowed or not allowed on a platform.
No you don't. The platform is private property, they can decide whether or not they want such content, no lawyers needed. When someone gets banned or flagged on HN, does anyone mention lawyers getting involved? Of course not.
No you don't. The platform is private property, they can decide whether or not they want such content, no lawyers needed. When someone gets banned or flagged on HN, does anyone mention lawyers getting involved? Of course not.
The best answer I can come up with for this problem is much stricter enforcement of antitrust laws. Private organizations should not be compelled to carry content they find objectionable, but they should also not be allowed to dominate the channel.
I agree in principle, but it's worth also examining the effect this has on how people end up in media echo chambers— when the media is a monopoly like the BBC and people expect to hear Jeremy Paxman grill you, you're going to go face the music, because not doing so will be even worse for you than going and faceplanting (a similar thing could be said historically about Peter Mansbridge on CBC in Canada).
In the US, though, there's no such impetus. Interviewers and even whole outfits can get cut off from access for the slightest thing, so then you have the phenomenon of politicians only ever being interviewed in increasingly safe environments, with friendly hosts who suck up to them, following prearranged lines of questioning, etc. Any apparent instances of toughness are basically theatre, with both sides in on the act.
Anyway, I don't have an answer here. Choice in media is absolutely a net good, and competition is critical to a healthy overall dialogue. But I feel that some of the more subtle costs of this approach are not always considered in discussions about it.
In the US, though, there's no such impetus. Interviewers and even whole outfits can get cut off from access for the slightest thing, so then you have the phenomenon of politicians only ever being interviewed in increasingly safe environments, with friendly hosts who suck up to them, following prearranged lines of questioning, etc. Any apparent instances of toughness are basically theatre, with both sides in on the act.
Anyway, I don't have an answer here. Choice in media is absolutely a net good, and competition is critical to a healthy overall dialogue. But I feel that some of the more subtle costs of this approach are not always considered in discussions about it.
> people expect to hear Jeremy Paxman grill you, you're going to go face the music, because not doing so will be even worse for you than going and faceplanting
the lesson of Republicanism/Trumpism in the last decade is that this is very much not true. If parties are sufficiently polarized, you can just not go and nothing will happen, people will even defend your decision for not participating in a "biased" interview.
No actual bias need occur of course. And on the flip side refusing to participate in the actual hyper-partisan media will be perceived as justification for the former action. "Both sides do it!" and so on.
the lesson of Republicanism/Trumpism in the last decade is that this is very much not true. If parties are sufficiently polarized, you can just not go and nothing will happen, people will even defend your decision for not participating in a "biased" interview.
No actual bias need occur of course. And on the flip side refusing to participate in the actual hyper-partisan media will be perceived as justification for the former action. "Both sides do it!" and so on.
Yes, that is precisely the point I am making— that this effect is only a thing in places like the UK with a strong national public broadcaster to whom politicians must answer.
> to whom politicians must answer
but what if they simply... didn't? Most of the tories are going to turn out to vote Tory regardless, no? Negative media coverage of, let's say, brexit hasn't significantly dissuaded them, even after the initial leave vote when the forthcoming consequences were explained to them in appropriate detail by that strong national public broadcaster.
What if the politician in question just said "my party's position is clear and I won't be repeating myself ad nauseum, good night"? What would really happen? Would those tories really not turn out, or even vote for the other guy? Really actually?
The thing we are finding in the United States is that a lot of those "musts" in our media and in our government turn out to just have been social convention, a "would normally" if you will. People assume that something bad will happen to anyone who doesn't play fair, or someone who tells blatant lies, or who doesn't execute some duty of their office in an evenhanded way. But if you just don't, and you do it shamelessly enough - nothing actually happens. Particularly if you control enough of the government.
But the public is not really so good at actually holding politicians to account. Those tory voters will pull the lever regardless, if nothing else "because the other guy's worse, isn't he?".
And you have your own Murdoch media to radicalize those voters too. They don't have to play to the state broadcaster, if you have enough voters who think the BBC is just being unfair to their guy. And Murdoch media lets the party get the message out directly to the voters.
There's no easy solution, these kinds of attacks fundamentally "break" democracy, democracy works on the idea that voters are fundamentally well informed and at least somewhat even-handed. But Murdoch media and other greasy rags use the freedom of the press as a trojan horse to spread lies, and fundamentally a lot of voters are susceptible to it and will just keep voting for "their guy" regardless.
but what if they simply... didn't? Most of the tories are going to turn out to vote Tory regardless, no? Negative media coverage of, let's say, brexit hasn't significantly dissuaded them, even after the initial leave vote when the forthcoming consequences were explained to them in appropriate detail by that strong national public broadcaster.
What if the politician in question just said "my party's position is clear and I won't be repeating myself ad nauseum, good night"? What would really happen? Would those tories really not turn out, or even vote for the other guy? Really actually?
The thing we are finding in the United States is that a lot of those "musts" in our media and in our government turn out to just have been social convention, a "would normally" if you will. People assume that something bad will happen to anyone who doesn't play fair, or someone who tells blatant lies, or who doesn't execute some duty of their office in an evenhanded way. But if you just don't, and you do it shamelessly enough - nothing actually happens. Particularly if you control enough of the government.
But the public is not really so good at actually holding politicians to account. Those tory voters will pull the lever regardless, if nothing else "because the other guy's worse, isn't he?".
And you have your own Murdoch media to radicalize those voters too. They don't have to play to the state broadcaster, if you have enough voters who think the BBC is just being unfair to their guy. And Murdoch media lets the party get the message out directly to the voters.
There's no easy solution, these kinds of attacks fundamentally "break" democracy, democracy works on the idea that voters are fundamentally well informed and at least somewhat even-handed. But Murdoch media and other greasy rags use the freedom of the press as a trojan horse to spread lies, and fundamentally a lot of voters are susceptible to it and will just keep voting for "their guy" regardless.
> should not be compelled to carry content they find objectionable, but they should also not be allowed to dominate the channel
How do you do that though? The network effect almost always chooses a single winner in the social media market. YouTube is a perfect example. The content creators go where the market is. How do you make sure YouTube doesn't dominate the channel?
My (imperfect) solution is that once you get to the channel domination point, you should be treated as a utility - e.g. you can't kick people off your service unless they've broken the law.
How do you do that though? The network effect almost always chooses a single winner in the social media market. YouTube is a perfect example. The content creators go where the market is. How do you make sure YouTube doesn't dominate the channel?
My (imperfect) solution is that once you get to the channel domination point, you should be treated as a utility - e.g. you can't kick people off your service unless they've broken the law.
Your solution means no real competition or innovation could take place in that space then. I know it was just a quick take but there's a lot of consequences to that route imo. There's also nothing saying that everyone always goes to one social platform. Facebook for instance bought all of their recent potential competitors so it's more of a self fulfilling prophecy right now and one that really needs to be handled by anti trust imo.
All I said was that YouTube should be treated as a utility - - e.g. you can't kick people off your service unless they've broken the law. That is the extent of its treatment as a utility. It doesn't prevent anyone from competing against them.
"All I said was that YouTube should be treated as a utility"
Right I don't think you've understood the implications of being a utility in the US.
In the US: "Public utilities commissions may grant public utilities certain monopoly rights to facilitate servicing a given geographic area with a single system. For example, in California, prohibitions against anticompetitive behavior under the Unfair Practices Law do not apply to public utility corporations."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_utility#:~:text=A%20p....
Right I don't think you've understood the implications of being a utility in the US.
In the US: "Public utilities commissions may grant public utilities certain monopoly rights to facilitate servicing a given geographic area with a single system. For example, in California, prohibitions against anticompetitive behavior under the Unfair Practices Law do not apply to public utility corporations."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_utility#:~:text=A%20p....
There are solutions through antitrust law. One is that dominant carriers can't own content. AT&T should have to sell off Warner.
Another is to make local carriers common carriers, so they just provide transport independent of content. Telcos are still common carriers for analog telephony, but managed to escape it for Internet services.
Another is to make local carriers common carriers, so they just provide transport independent of content. Telcos are still common carriers for analog telephony, but managed to escape it for Internet services.
But none of these solutions applies to today's social media. YouTube doesn't carry any significant own content.
I assume incumbents might end up in the position where their smaller competitors have to deal with less regulation. For example, if MySpace had been treated differently than Facebook, it might have brought MySpace down much more quickly, but at the same time kept a lid on Facebook’s influence.
The implication of what you're saying is that fighting for net neutrality isn't enough, we need to ensure ample platform to everyone. But is it true? Isn't free speech more about not suffering legal persecution?
Your imperfect solution is what we have, minus any moderation. That doesn't sound pleasant.
I might be tempted to go along, though, if your utility is transparent to the legal process---you can sue people for fraud, for example.
I might be tempted to go along, though, if your utility is transparent to the legal process---you can sue people for fraud, for example.
Agree.
Government acquisitions regulation for tech itself is also a good example.(for COTs products, contracting dev/integration, consulting, research, etc). Gov't acquisition law has become so complex, yet has one single constraint in mind with every update:
Protect and enable small and disadvantaged businesses.
It's not perfect, in many new ways inefficient, but seems to do its job.
But what is the constraint we need when it comes to propagating information? It's not as objectively clear as the acquisition case.
Government acquisitions regulation for tech itself is also a good example.(for COTs products, contracting dev/integration, consulting, research, etc). Gov't acquisition law has become so complex, yet has one single constraint in mind with every update:
Protect and enable small and disadvantaged businesses.
It's not perfect, in many new ways inefficient, but seems to do its job.
But what is the constraint we need when it comes to propagating information? It's not as objectively clear as the acquisition case.
I'm all for that, but I think more radical action is needed in the case of social networks. Should social networking sites funded by advertising be allowed to exist? The business model rewards maximizing "user engagement". However much Facebook might be removing provocative material now (which I am in favor of), the fundamental incentives of their business will push them back to where they were, letting outrage-driven content spread. It's unreasonable to expect a corporation to do otherwise without intervention.
Not an external remedy, but one thing I wish Facebook would do is offer the equivalent of rel="nofollow" for engagements. I know there's a separate workflow for "show me less like this" or "mute this user for 30 days" but that feels more like me creating my own little banlist. Instead, I want a box I can tick which means "I'm posting here to fact-check this or attempt to correct the record; please don't treat this as an engagement for the purposes of recommending this link/story/comment to others, or for finding more things like it for me to look at."
I know it's still counter to their business because ultimately outrage -> engagements -> ad impressions. But I can't help thinking it might be a start.
I know it's still counter to their business because ultimately outrage -> engagements -> ad impressions. But I can't help thinking it might be a start.
I think this is the only answer. I see a lot of people up in arms when it comes to speech they care about (e.g. Twitter removing QAnon) yet utterly silent when it comes to speech they don't (e.g. Tumblr removing NSFW). The "slippery slope" is only a problem when it hits close to home. This makes me think that if the shoe were on the other foot, team "free speech" would be more than happy to play censor.
The only way to prevent that is to keep entities from gaining so much power in the first place.
The only way to prevent that is to keep entities from gaining so much power in the first place.
[deleted]
Is the internet a channel or is Facebook a channel? Both?
Why?
Why?
Facebook is a channel. Here's my rationale. They have a dominant position in personal data gathering and targeted advertising, with algorithms that couple the creator and recipient of content. It's a made for purpose propaganda service.
If you host your own web server with a particular message that you want to express, it will be lost in a sea of servers, and never reach your intended audience.
If you host it through Facebook, the Facebook algorithms and targeting will help you direct it towards your intended audience, or help your audience find your content.
If you host your own web server with a particular message that you want to express, it will be lost in a sea of servers, and never reach your intended audience.
If you host it through Facebook, the Facebook algorithms and targeting will help you direct it towards your intended audience, or help your audience find your content.
Would they be allowed to rank the content then?
What if they rank some content as not being worth showing to anyone?
What if they rank some content as not being worth showing to anyone?
Actually, despite saying they're a channel, I don't think access to a targeted advertising channel is a right. Taking it to an absurd level, is it something that the government should provide? I'd prefer to see it abolished.
I tend to think that private platforms should mostly operate how they want. Ads, whatever. They shouldn't be allowed to use acquisitions to eliminate competition (like Facebook buying Instagram).
If there is gonna be access guarantees, I think they come at the network and routing level. Comcast shouldn't be choosing who their customers can reach, and neither should Level 3 (or whoever it is now).
If there is gonna be access guarantees, I think they come at the network and routing level. Comcast shouldn't be choosing who their customers can reach, and neither should Level 3 (or whoever it is now).
Father Coughlin was engaging in hate speech which is illegal in most countries (the US is an exception)[1].
Advocating sedition seems like a fundamentally different thing with a lot more political implications. Normally such a thing would result in the censure of individuals, not entire classes of individuals.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country
Advocating sedition seems like a fundamentally different thing with a lot more political implications. Normally such a thing would result in the censure of individuals, not entire classes of individuals.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country
The case in point was a single speaker being suppressed, not a "class", though. I don't understand why people keep trying to argue as if conservatives as a whole are being "suppressed". Most of them are still on Twitter (or here, or reddit, or...).
Parler was specific community with a specific set of inadequate moderation policies and became a center of thought for a violent community that ended up engaged in political violence. And that site, and only that site, thus became a target for broad suppression by other actors in the market.
Parler was specific community with a specific set of inadequate moderation policies and became a center of thought for a violent community that ended up engaged in political violence. And that site, and only that site, thus became a target for broad suppression by other actors in the market.
Hate speech is not a thing. It is a falsity that dumb people accept as a form of censorship when they don't like something. There are simply things you don't want to hear and things you do. Threats right? Nope.
It is true that "hate speech laws" are limits on free speech. It is perfectly reasonable to consider any limitation on free speech to be unethical, but pretending that "hate speech" is not well defined is willful ignorance. No country has absolute protection of absolute free speech.
This seems to blur the lines between "hate speech is a thing" and "hate speech should be banned." They are fundamentally different questions, and conflating them invites the normative fallacy.
You may not like hate speech laws, but they're explicitly coded in to plenty of legal systems, like Canada.
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/Resear...
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/Resear...
Surprised you're not being heavily downvoted already. (I don't agree with that, just surprised.)
I do however think extreme hate speech is a real thing, it's just misapplied to the point where anything anyone disagrees with is labeled hate speech.
Because at the end of the day, all negativity is based on hate, right? If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all (which is a nice convenient bromide for eliminating real critical thought.)
I do however think extreme hate speech is a real thing, it's just misapplied to the point where anything anyone disagrees with is labeled hate speech.
Because at the end of the day, all negativity is based on hate, right? If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all (which is a nice convenient bromide for eliminating real critical thought.)
This is off topic, but I can't get over how professional those protest signs look, especially given that this was before high availability of at-home publishing software, on-demand printing services and the like.
There were some interesting technologies before computer aided design in sign shops. When I was a kid one of my first jobs was silk-screening custom-made signs (like in those photos) and stickers. Much of it was done with light (UV?)-sensitive film techniques. A master was created carefully letter by letter from a bunch of letter 'stickers' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letraset], then the light-sensitive film was applied to the silk screen, and the master laid on to it and a lamp shone on it for a few minutes. The parts NOT exposed to the light (behind the letters) were capable of being washed away with a solvent of some sort (water in some cases if I remember correctly), leaving a very high resolution stencil that would be used to print onto whatever material desired, with a number of different types of inks. Pulling a squeegee and stacking hundreds of placards for drying was my summer job for several years. :)
For the really custom stuff, our commercial artists were amazingly talented with both brush and penknife. Some of those guys could paint lettering by hand that was incredibly consistent and amazingly fast.
For the really custom stuff, our commercial artists were amazingly talented with both brush and penknife. Some of those guys could paint lettering by hand that was incredibly consistent and amazingly fast.
Overall hand skill used to be much higher in the US, out of necessity: making clothes, repairing houses, auto maintenance, painting and decorating, etc.
Some of the signs are the exact same. I doubt they created these at home. Printing companies were around back then.
I don't buy the pattern of this argumentation which is basically:
"We did something like X a century ago, so X is not chilling new trend; X is quite okay."
It doesn't take much imagination to substitute various behaviors for X.
"We did something like X a century ago, so X is not chilling new trend; X is quite okay."
It doesn't take much imagination to substitute various behaviors for X.
You seem to be creating the pattern yourself. I see:
"We did something like X a century ago, history repeats, full stop."
Where did "X is quite okay" come from?
"We did something like X a century ago, history repeats, full stop."
Where did "X is quite okay" come from?
The tone of the article conveys agreement with the intervention.
For instance, the closing remark "in both cases, private business had to step in when the consequences became evident" could be rendered neutrally as "in both cases, private businesses stepped in when the consequences became evident."
"Had to step in" has the effect of defending the actions, by insinuating that they had no alternative.
For instance, the closing remark "in both cases, private business had to step in when the consequences became evident" could be rendered neutrally as "in both cases, private businesses stepped in when the consequences became evident."
"Had to step in" has the effect of defending the actions, by insinuating that they had no alternative.
Subtle, but I agree.
The most frustrating thing about the whole debate around censorship/deplatforming that no one seems to want to acknowledge that there is probably no good answer, only acceptable compromises. Everyone wants to paint those who came to a different conclusion as stupid or acting in bad faith, as if the answer is as clear as the sky is blue. No wonder this discussion never goes anywhere...
Being born in Detroit I heard about father Coughlin my entire life. Almost all of it was negative.
Did you know that after losing his radio show the post office refused to let him distribute his newspaper, Social Justice?
Despite many catholic parishes having closed Father Coughlin's church is still active. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shrine_of_the_Little_...
Did you know that after losing his radio show the post office refused to let him distribute his newspaper, Social Justice?
Despite many catholic parishes having closed Father Coughlin's church is still active. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shrine_of_the_Little_...
The Wikipedia summary of the story with the post office is absolutely fascinating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin#Cancellation_...
It appears that FDR's attorney general put pressure on the post office to revoke Coughlin's 2nd-class mailing privileges. In the end, the privileges weren't revoked, but (due in part to FDR putting pressure on the Catholic church itself), the bishopry commanded Coughlin to restrict his activities to local ministry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin#Cancellation_...
It appears that FDR's attorney general put pressure on the post office to revoke Coughlin's 2nd-class mailing privileges. In the end, the privileges weren't revoked, but (due in part to FDR putting pressure on the Catholic church itself), the bishopry commanded Coughlin to restrict his activities to local ministry.
Father Coughlin was a strong supporter of FDR dating back to when he was Governor of New York. It is only when he broke with FDR in 1936 that he started having problems.
Some context ...Coughlin was initially a powerful asset and supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, but then became a political opponent, accusing him of being too friendly to bankers. In 1934, he and others established a political organization called the National Union for Social Justice, supported by many German and Scandinavian immigrant Americans. membership was in the millions behind an agenda of monetary reform, nationalization of major industries and railroads, protection of labor rights and like the national socialists in Germany very anti communist.
The 30's were an extraordinary time - Hitler was Time magazine man of the year in 1938 - and there was strong resistance to the USA entering an 'old country' war at the end of the decade. A rough equivalent to 'occupy wall street' in the mid 30's was obviously very anti banker and this was a large part of Coughlin's Catholic German appeal. (Many Irish catholics were heavily involved as well as Italian Americans who had Mussolini supposedly making the trains run on time while pushing back on some bankers).
The William Kovarik (Professor of Communication, Radford University) article was originally titled
'That time private US media companies stepped in to silence the falsehoods and incitements of a major public figure … in 1938' in 'the Conversation' - the Smithsonian chose to re headline it.
1938 was a major turning point in US politics and as is the case today there was a major clamp down on free speech. This arguably subsequently partially resulted in the US entering WWII...
https://theconversation.com/that-time-private-us-media-compa...
The 30's were an extraordinary time - Hitler was Time magazine man of the year in 1938 - and there was strong resistance to the USA entering an 'old country' war at the end of the decade. A rough equivalent to 'occupy wall street' in the mid 30's was obviously very anti banker and this was a large part of Coughlin's Catholic German appeal. (Many Irish catholics were heavily involved as well as Italian Americans who had Mussolini supposedly making the trains run on time while pushing back on some bankers).
The William Kovarik (Professor of Communication, Radford University) article was originally titled
'That time private US media companies stepped in to silence the falsehoods and incitements of a major public figure … in 1938' in 'the Conversation' - the Smithsonian chose to re headline it.
1938 was a major turning point in US politics and as is the case today there was a major clamp down on free speech. This arguably subsequently partially resulted in the US entering WWII...
https://theconversation.com/that-time-private-us-media-compa...
Note also the "cocktail putsch" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot)---one of the few times you get to say "Smedley" with a straight face.
Actually, I believe that the USMC always has a bulldog mascot named Smedley.
Could you expand on your last sentence? My understanding was that the US entered WWII as a direct result of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Useful link about US isolationists vs interventionists
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/great-debate
While that is an interesting article about differing opinions before Pearl Harbor, it conclusively states that public opinion was essentially unanimous afterward. It did not mention anything about censorship, so I’m still a little lost.
The parent article is describing the political tipping point in 1938 where the isolationists were removed from media, isolated (sic) and discredited as the interventionists became the dominant force in US politics.
From that point the US was aligned with the allies, organized and then officially launched lend lease arming of the allies in January 1941 before joining the european war in December of 1941.
Coughlin, Lindberg et al were vilified and lost their public voices.
From that point the US was aligned with the allies, organized and then officially launched lend lease arming of the allies in January 1941 before joining the european war in December of 1941.
Coughlin, Lindberg et al were vilified and lost their public voices.
Are we reading the same article? There is absolutely nothing in that link about anyone being censored, isolated, or discredited. It instead describes overall public opinion shifting as Germany took more of Europe and Britain held them at bay.
'...The firms silencing him were the broadcasters of the day.
As a media historian, I find more than a little similarity between the stand those stations took back then and the way Twitter, YouTube and Facebook have silenced false claims of election fraud and incitements to violence in the aftermath of the siege on the U.S. Capitol – noticeably by silencing the claims of Donald Trump and his supporters.'
As a media historian, I find more than a little similarity between the stand those stations took back then and the way Twitter, YouTube and Facebook have silenced false claims of election fraud and incitements to violence in the aftermath of the siege on the U.S. Capitol – noticeably by silencing the claims of Donald Trump and his supporters.'
Had Huey Long not been assassinated in 1935 he would have been an important participant in the isolationist politics of the late 30's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Huey_Long
I don't think the founders ever could have imagined the possibility of high-capacity, fully automatic broadcasting of speech when they wrote the first amendment.
[deleted]
Url changed from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/time-private-us-media..., which points to this.
[deleted]
It's a tough call with private ownership of platforms and their rights and everything else.
I'm perpetually wondering how much you tolerate the free speech of a group whose purpose or side effects would inevitably restrict the rights of others.
I'm perpetually wondering how much you tolerate the free speech of a group whose purpose or side effects would inevitably restrict the rights of others.
Radio was a natural monopoly, but thanks to federation, social media need not be. (Note federation means one app, multiple echo chambers, should be easy.)
How would that improve matters, exactly?
Fox & Facebook have a profit motive for engagement at all costs, but federated social media would hopefully resist commercialization as various orgs ran servers / moderation for different purposes, you know, like the www.
Even if they were running adds like the old forums and what not, it would be more to reach costs and promote a media empire.
Yes, this all sounds like a rather wishful deescalation of the attention economy, but if nothing else, remember the hoi polloi didn't radicalize themselves in a vacuum, much as we see that narrative being pushed. I much prefer the above to some state capitalism regulated Facebook dystopia.
Even if they were running adds like the old forums and what not, it would be more to reach costs and promote a media empire.
Yes, this all sounds like a rather wishful deescalation of the attention economy, but if nothing else, remember the hoi polloi didn't radicalize themselves in a vacuum, much as we see that narrative being pushed. I much prefer the above to some state capitalism regulated Facebook dystopia.
I'd like to see a democratic/noospheric voice enter the picture, some day. I'm not sure it will be great, but giving the people a way to aggregate their voice, to say for themselves what they find objectionable & undeserving seems due. In a town square, one can just shout over jack-asses. But they keep being invited onto television/media! Stirs up more controversy, keep ratings high.
To be clear, I don't think that democratic vote should silence people. But I do think that people should have the option to stand & be accounted for, and one of the most important places to do that is in supporting, refusing, or outright censoring others. Government never had the option before of letting us chip in, letting us voice our support or distaste or alarm. Particularly the popular, the famous, those given the megaphone: they should be subject, real-time, regularly, to our accounts. And hopefully, our own accounts over time help us better determine who we were, where we were right, where we were wrong. So we can correct the record, keep becoming more perfect selves, as we try to head & govern towards our more perfect worlds.
deplatforming bad actors works
In some circumstances, and for a while. For example Parler has found a new host in Russia, probably with a big helping hand from Russian intelligence.
And sure that host could be deplatformed over it too, but if that continues to escalate then the ultimate endpoint is a balkanized internet where we don't tolerate traffic from ISPs that provide peer exchange to ISPs that provide data services to datacenters that provide services to hosting services that provide services to Parler. Effectively if Russia is willing to continue to escalate then the only practical solution to "de-platform" Parler would be to cut off Russia from the rest of the internet entirely.
And sure that host could be deplatformed over it too, but if that continues to escalate then the ultimate endpoint is a balkanized internet where we don't tolerate traffic from ISPs that provide peer exchange to ISPs that provide data services to datacenters that provide services to hosting services that provide services to Parler. Effectively if Russia is willing to continue to escalate then the only practical solution to "de-platform" Parler would be to cut off Russia from the rest of the internet entirely.
The answer to dangerous lies is the truth, not censorship. We have a marketplace of ideas where bad ideas die and good ideas spread. Unfortunately, I see a trend towards restricting free speech, which will only harm the country in the long term.
> We have a marketplace of ideas where bad ideas die and good ideas spread.
If that were true, neither QAnon nor "Stop the Steal" would have gone anywhere. Instead, they spread like wildfire to the point where their adherents literally attacked the democratic process.
The marketplace of ideas only works that way when its participants are rational actors with good judgement, and it's becoming increasingly clear that is not actually the case.
If that were true, neither QAnon nor "Stop the Steal" would have gone anywhere. Instead, they spread like wildfire to the point where their adherents literally attacked the democratic process.
The marketplace of ideas only works that way when its participants are rational actors with good judgement, and it's becoming increasingly clear that is not actually the case.
These "marketplace of ideas" zealots don't operate on evidence. No exceptions or qualifications to the sanctity of free speech exist. Free speech is a faith, and no such heresies are allowed.
I love free speech. I think it's one of the most important things in society. But the whole "kill lies with more speech" meme needs to die because there's simply no evidence for it.
We should have free speech for its own sake, and recognize and mitigate its harmful effects as much as possible. If we don't, society will turn against free speech entirely and everyone will be much worse off.
I love free speech. I think it's one of the most important things in society. But the whole "kill lies with more speech" meme needs to die because there's simply no evidence for it.
We should have free speech for its own sake, and recognize and mitigate its harmful effects as much as possible. If we don't, society will turn against free speech entirely and everyone will be much worse off.
> These "marketplace of ideas" zealots don't operate on evidence. No exceptions or qualifications to the sanctity of free speech exist. Free speech is a faith, and no such heresies are allowed.
I couldn't agree more. They also seem to have pretty extreme tunnel vision, and even seem to discard other First Amendment rights, like freedom of association and freedom of the press. Freedom of speech also means freedom to not speak, likewise freedom of association means freedom to not associate and freedom of the press means freedom not to publish. These are rights that aren't always in harmony, and need to be balanced if they're all to mean anything at all.
I think some of the zealotry is caused by something like "knowing just enough to be dangerous." It's easy to fall into zealotry if you only really know oversimple versions of one or two things. However, I think at least some of it is bad-faith argumentation, where grand invocations of "freedom of speech" are just rhetorical cover for shitty opinions they'd like to spread unhindered.
I couldn't agree more. They also seem to have pretty extreme tunnel vision, and even seem to discard other First Amendment rights, like freedom of association and freedom of the press. Freedom of speech also means freedom to not speak, likewise freedom of association means freedom to not associate and freedom of the press means freedom not to publish. These are rights that aren't always in harmony, and need to be balanced if they're all to mean anything at all.
I think some of the zealotry is caused by something like "knowing just enough to be dangerous." It's easy to fall into zealotry if you only really know oversimple versions of one or two things. However, I think at least some of it is bad-faith argumentation, where grand invocations of "freedom of speech" are just rhetorical cover for shitty opinions they'd like to spread unhindered.
Yes, and we can simplify even more -- we have a case from 80 years ago where the greatest atrocity in history was committed by a population that got duped by an anti-semitic demagogue.
To all those bandying about "free speech" without ever tackling any of the nuances of reality, I'd love to hear -- if push came to shove, would you have argued platforms should be giving megaphones to even Hitler? If not, you acknowledge there's a line, so let's define it.
To all those bandying about "free speech" without ever tackling any of the nuances of reality, I'd love to hear -- if push came to shove, would you have argued platforms should be giving megaphones to even Hitler? If not, you acknowledge there's a line, so let's define it.
The Weimer Republic had extensive hate speech laws on the books, which they even used to prosecute the Nazis in several cases. Not only were those laws ineffective, but the Nazis coopted them to silence opposition.
In contrast the US and the UK, with their free speech absolutism (British hate speech laws weren't put into place until recently), were one of the few major democracies without fascist parties winning any major elections.
In contrast the US and the UK, with their free speech absolutism (British hate speech laws weren't put into place until recently), were one of the few major democracies without fascist parties winning any major elections.
There is a good section on this in the book How Democracies Die where they go into detail as to why fascists could not come to power in America before Donald Trump. Basically their argument was that the party structures performed gatekeeping functions and that populists could not even get nominated to a party ticket (even with massive popular support, comparable to that of Donald Trump - they give the example of Henry Ford).
Those gatekeeping functions were lessened after the violent Democratic national convention of '68 (where there was a clash between pro-war and anti-war factions) and primaries became a thing that actually mattered (in 68 Humphrey was selected by backroom insiders who did not participate in a single primary in that cycle, leading to public outcry). However, the gatekeeping effects persisted because of the control the parties still had over advertising channels and the media; that control fell apart post-2000, which setup the conditions that enabled a populist like Donald Trump to actually be elected to the presidency.
So it's not free speech that kept fascists out of power in the U.S., it's institutional gatekeeping (in the 30's and 40's).
Those gatekeeping functions were lessened after the violent Democratic national convention of '68 (where there was a clash between pro-war and anti-war factions) and primaries became a thing that actually mattered (in 68 Humphrey was selected by backroom insiders who did not participate in a single primary in that cycle, leading to public outcry). However, the gatekeeping effects persisted because of the control the parties still had over advertising channels and the media; that control fell apart post-2000, which setup the conditions that enabled a populist like Donald Trump to actually be elected to the presidency.
So it's not free speech that kept fascists out of power in the U.S., it's institutional gatekeeping (in the 30's and 40's).
Are those institutional gatekeepers the so-called "elites" that the populist demagogues constantly complain about? (To be clear, I'm not being argumentative and I think the premise of party gatekeeping helping to prevent extremists from seizing power is probably accurate)
> Those gatekeeping functions were lessened after the violent Democratic national convention of '68
This point does not pass the smell test. Since 1968 the United States has become a vastly more tolerant, liberal, open and free society than prior to that point. You'd have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to say that the US is more prone to fascism than it was 50 years ago.
This point does not pass the smell test. Since 1968 the United States has become a vastly more tolerant, liberal, open and free society than prior to that point. You'd have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to say that the US is more prone to fascism than it was 50 years ago.
Free speech absolutism was no defense against fascism - the Nazi Party was prominent in both the US and UK, to use your examples, during the 1930s. It just never quite tipped into power, but you can see from the rise of Trumpism that that didn't hold true this time.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323...
https://time.com/4516276/cable-street-battle-london-east-end...
(the giant murals of George Washington and the talk about "job-stealing refugees" is particularly apropos given the current atmosphere of the Trumpist faction)
It is obviously correct that once social norms have reached the breaking point that hate speech laws can become a cudgel used to further hate speech. The goal is to keep it from reaching that point.
It is in fact probably correct to say that in either approach once the social norms have reached the breaking point, that either positive or negative freedoms can be weaponized. Freedom of speech can be used to rally a lynch mob, and hate speech laws can be used to oppress a minority, once you have reached the point where a hateful party has widespread social acceptance and control of a sufficient number of the political levers of power.
In general though it is also not correct to say that the US has complete free-speech absolutism. Actually planning to lynch someone, for example, is not protected free speech. The argument for further restrictions is that those lines may not be correctly drawn by our forefathers - why should actually planning to lynch Tom Brown be illegal, but the KKK rallying to lynch somebody be legal and protected, as long as they don't name a specific name in advance? Why should arguing that people should be lynched in general without the specific intention to do so today be protected? There are many places we could concievably draw the line without really impacting anyone's actual freedoms to do anything other than incite hatred and ultimately inciting violence and death.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323...
https://time.com/4516276/cable-street-battle-london-east-end...
(the giant murals of George Washington and the talk about "job-stealing refugees" is particularly apropos given the current atmosphere of the Trumpist faction)
It is obviously correct that once social norms have reached the breaking point that hate speech laws can become a cudgel used to further hate speech. The goal is to keep it from reaching that point.
It is in fact probably correct to say that in either approach once the social norms have reached the breaking point, that either positive or negative freedoms can be weaponized. Freedom of speech can be used to rally a lynch mob, and hate speech laws can be used to oppress a minority, once you have reached the point where a hateful party has widespread social acceptance and control of a sufficient number of the political levers of power.
In general though it is also not correct to say that the US has complete free-speech absolutism. Actually planning to lynch someone, for example, is not protected free speech. The argument for further restrictions is that those lines may not be correctly drawn by our forefathers - why should actually planning to lynch Tom Brown be illegal, but the KKK rallying to lynch somebody be legal and protected, as long as they don't name a specific name in advance? Why should arguing that people should be lynched in general without the specific intention to do so today be protected? There are many places we could concievably draw the line without really impacting anyone's actual freedoms to do anything other than incite hatred and ultimately inciting violence and death.
This doesn't really pass the smell test. I know very little about Hitler, but the small amount I do know is Hitler was found guilty of treason and put in jail for 5 years, during which he wrote Mein Kampf [1]. It seems pretty obvious to me if he had been put to death (the ultimate form of censorship) the holocaust wouldn't have happened.
You also dodge the central question - Do you believe Hitler had a protected right to free speech worth defending?
I may or may not read your response because I don't believe you're arguing in good faith though.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch
You also dodge the central question - Do you believe Hitler had a protected right to free speech worth defending?
I may or may not read your response because I don't believe you're arguing in good faith though.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch
> The marketplace of ideas only works that way when its participants are rational actors with good judgement
You're leaving out the implicit assumption you're making, that the "authorities" in charge of the marketplace are rational actors. You better hope to hell, that they are.
Because when some marketplace participants fail, they fail gracefully. When centralized authorities fail, they fail spectacularly and disastrously. I can virtually guarantee you that Qanon will be a footnote in ten years time. In contrast how would you like to live in Iran, China, Turkey, or any other regime where lunatics have taken over in the name of "protecting the people from dangerous ideas"?
All those people clamoring for authorities to clamp down on irrational Trumpist extremists, have forgotten that Trump and his cronies were just recently in charge of all three branches of the government as well as a supermajority of state governments.
This is how the political cycle always goes. All anybody sees is a sensible, incoming administration with likeminded views. And I actually agree. Biden's a decent man, and I honestly can't see him abusing even very broad powers. But what happens after? But there's no putting this genie back in the bottle. Do you trust President Donald Trump Jr. or President Tucker Carlson or President Josh Hawley with that power?
This isn't even hypothetical. Most people here are too young to remember the post-9/11 hysteria. But I can virtually guarantee you that had the current crop of anti-speech activists managed to put their would-be "anti-extremist" laws in place, that opposition to the War on Terror would have been de facto illegal.
Dealing with some stupid conspiracy theories and LARPer shamans, who have as much chance of overthrowing the American government as my toddler, are a small price to pay for fault-tolerance in liberal democracy.
You're leaving out the implicit assumption you're making, that the "authorities" in charge of the marketplace are rational actors. You better hope to hell, that they are.
Because when some marketplace participants fail, they fail gracefully. When centralized authorities fail, they fail spectacularly and disastrously. I can virtually guarantee you that Qanon will be a footnote in ten years time. In contrast how would you like to live in Iran, China, Turkey, or any other regime where lunatics have taken over in the name of "protecting the people from dangerous ideas"?
All those people clamoring for authorities to clamp down on irrational Trumpist extremists, have forgotten that Trump and his cronies were just recently in charge of all three branches of the government as well as a supermajority of state governments.
This is how the political cycle always goes. All anybody sees is a sensible, incoming administration with likeminded views. And I actually agree. Biden's a decent man, and I honestly can't see him abusing even very broad powers. But what happens after? But there's no putting this genie back in the bottle. Do you trust President Donald Trump Jr. or President Tucker Carlson or President Josh Hawley with that power?
This isn't even hypothetical. Most people here are too young to remember the post-9/11 hysteria. But I can virtually guarantee you that had the current crop of anti-speech activists managed to put their would-be "anti-extremist" laws in place, that opposition to the War on Terror would have been de facto illegal.
Dealing with some stupid conspiracy theories and LARPer shamans, who have as much chance of overthrowing the American government as my toddler, are a small price to pay for fault-tolerance in liberal democracy.
I don't see that assumption anywhere in the parent comment. Nor any call for authorities of some unknown nature to clamp down.
Just the point that the "marketplace of ideas" doesn't function very well when those in it are not acting in good faith. Qanon may be a footnote in ten years. The Tea Party is a footnote from the last decade. The Klan has gone down to footnote several times and been revived each time. (Although the current incarnation has gotten rid of the name and the outfits. Yay, progress!) I remember the 9/11 hysteria, and I remember checking on my Moslem friends about the free speech they were receiving. Anyway, and yet, here we are.
Blind faith in the marketplace of ideas doesn't work any better than blind faith in the invisible hand of economics.
Just the point that the "marketplace of ideas" doesn't function very well when those in it are not acting in good faith. Qanon may be a footnote in ten years. The Tea Party is a footnote from the last decade. The Klan has gone down to footnote several times and been revived each time. (Although the current incarnation has gotten rid of the name and the outfits. Yay, progress!) I remember the 9/11 hysteria, and I remember checking on my Moslem friends about the free speech they were receiving. Anyway, and yet, here we are.
Blind faith in the marketplace of ideas doesn't work any better than blind faith in the invisible hand of economics.
The standard you're applying is that if anyone, anywhere holds mistaken beliefs that the marketplace of ideas has failed. It's all well and good to imagine what it looks like next to a utopia of angels, but in that case we wouldn't have to worry about any system, would we?
The question is whether the marketplace of ideas works better than other actual systems or cultures found in the real-world. Here's what I do know, the marketplace of ideas was conceived 300 years ago in the Enlightenment. Since then, the amount of human liberty, tolerance, peace, and prosperity has exploded. The societies that adopted the principles of the Enlightenment first experienced the earliest and largest gains along these dimensions. The societies today that most adhere to Enlightenment principles and the marketplace of ideas are by far the freest and most prosperous. Over any reasonable span of time, tolerance, freedom and peace continue to monotonically improve. Especially for the most marginalized groups. Particularly in the most liberal societies.
In what universe could anyone possibly lock at this track record of success and not conclude that the Enlightenment and its principle of the marketplace of ideas has been a resounding success. Arguably the most resounding success in all of human history. Honestly, what possible system, real or imagined, do you believe could have produced better results?
The question is whether the marketplace of ideas works better than other actual systems or cultures found in the real-world. Here's what I do know, the marketplace of ideas was conceived 300 years ago in the Enlightenment. Since then, the amount of human liberty, tolerance, peace, and prosperity has exploded. The societies that adopted the principles of the Enlightenment first experienced the earliest and largest gains along these dimensions. The societies today that most adhere to Enlightenment principles and the marketplace of ideas are by far the freest and most prosperous. Over any reasonable span of time, tolerance, freedom and peace continue to monotonically improve. Especially for the most marginalized groups. Particularly in the most liberal societies.
In what universe could anyone possibly lock at this track record of success and not conclude that the Enlightenment and its principle of the marketplace of ideas has been a resounding success. Arguably the most resounding success in all of human history. Honestly, what possible system, real or imagined, do you believe could have produced better results?
> We have a marketplace of ideas where bad ideas die and good ideas spread
That is the ideal. The actual marketplace seems to operate in the opposite fashion.
That is the ideal. The actual marketplace seems to operate in the opposite fashion.
Your fundamental assumption is that bad ideas die. I'm not sure that is supported by the evidence.
The converse of that is "If the idea persists, it's good". I'm having a hard time seeing the evidence for that as well.
The converse of that is "If the idea persists, it's good". I'm having a hard time seeing the evidence for that as well.
Maybe something akin to Gresham's law?
Bad ideas die but it takes decades.
They also tend to be resurrected once outside the immediate lifespan of people who lived through them. For example, "trickle-down economics" was once called "horse and sparrow theory" back when the idea was popular in the 1800s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
(where did "trickle down" come from anyway? Well, if you feed the horse enough oats, there will be some left for the sparrows. That's what's "trickling down".)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
(where did "trickle down" come from anyway? Well, if you feed the horse enough oats, there will be some left for the sparrows. That's what's "trickling down".)
Years to Centuries. Some die, some live on. Some come around again, like the unwelcome undead.
The thing that makes ideas spread is not good/bad or truth/lie, it's whether people find them useful or comforting to believe. The truth has no chance in the "marketplace of ideas" against comforting lies that reinforce people's feelings of superiority and infallibility.
"We have a marketplace of ideas where bad ideas die and good ideas spread."
Perhaps it should work that way, but in a US context, I think this is demonstrably false. Many people participating in the marketplace of ideas hold diametrically opposing ideas and posit contradictory facts. There is no winnowing of falsehood from truth.
Perhaps it should work that way, but in a US context, I think this is demonstrably false. Many people participating in the marketplace of ideas hold diametrically opposing ideas and posit contradictory facts. There is no winnowing of falsehood from truth.
We have a marketplace of ideas where bad ideas die and good ideas spread.
Doubt. This was certainly the intention but it's very plain that the market of public discourse doesn't work nearly as well as scientific peer review, which is itself somewhat flawed.
It's an old truism that 'a lie can get halfway round the world before the truth has got its shoes on.' It has also been rigorously documented: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 For that matter, phrases like 'the big lie' reflect a wide social awareness that lying has historically been an effective political strategy.
Besides the fact that the marketplace of ideas demonstrably doesn't privilege truth in the short term, why would you expect it to? A marketplace is easily dominated by whoever can invest heavily in promotional tools. Furthermore, many people in the market demand entertainment or validation rather than truth, so there's abundant money to be made out of selling pleasant-sounding bullshit.
Doubt. This was certainly the intention but it's very plain that the market of public discourse doesn't work nearly as well as scientific peer review, which is itself somewhat flawed.
It's an old truism that 'a lie can get halfway round the world before the truth has got its shoes on.' It has also been rigorously documented: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 For that matter, phrases like 'the big lie' reflect a wide social awareness that lying has historically been an effective political strategy.
Besides the fact that the marketplace of ideas demonstrably doesn't privilege truth in the short term, why would you expect it to? A marketplace is easily dominated by whoever can invest heavily in promotional tools. Furthermore, many people in the market demand entertainment or validation rather than truth, so there's abundant money to be made out of selling pleasant-sounding bullshit.
bad ideas may eventually die by they may also cause harm before dying out.
In a world where we cannot censor an idea, then there is _no_ difference between a good and a bad idea, the very act of making a value judgment if an idea is good or bad is inherently an act of censorship.
Given that, there's clearly an amount of acceptable censorship that is higher than 0.
Given that, there's clearly an amount of acceptable censorship that is higher than 0.
> where bad ideas die and good ideas spread.
Why do we assume this is true? Billions of people get scammed in the world yearly. Yes. Billions.
Mass hysteria[1] is a thing, and sure in the long term an idea __may__ die out (again, there's no real evidence of this). The damage done until it does die out can lead to a rise in cult of personality like how Hitler came into power and became so popular in Germany.
There isn't some natural filter of hate and __bad__ ideas in humans. People are sheep and will put their weight behind anyone who resonates with them. Not necessarily "good" ideas.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_hysteria_cases
Why do we assume this is true? Billions of people get scammed in the world yearly. Yes. Billions.
Mass hysteria[1] is a thing, and sure in the long term an idea __may__ die out (again, there's no real evidence of this). The damage done until it does die out can lead to a rise in cult of personality like how Hitler came into power and became so popular in Germany.
There isn't some natural filter of hate and __bad__ ideas in humans. People are sheep and will put their weight behind anyone who resonates with them. Not necessarily "good" ideas.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_hysteria_cases
In other news, you also can’t say ‘ass’ on the radio.
Clearly, we've gotta change. Something needs to be done. But I think we should very carefully weigh our options, lest we become that which we seek to destroy.
And if anyone thinks the answer is clear, many of the same people saying we need to blacklist anyone claiming election fraud were saying Trump was trying to steal the election in October.
If we can be ban false claims of election fraud, we can ban true claims too.
If we can be ban false claims of election fraud, we can ban true claims too.
> We can be ban false claims of election fraud, we can bad true claims too.
I think the terms "shun" and "ostracize" fit the current situation better than "ban."
I think the terms "shun" and "ostracize" fit the current situation better than "ban."
Whatever you call it, nobody would want lawyers to be fired or huffpo being de-platformed for saying Trump stole the election had Trump narrowly won instead of narrowly lost.
The only difference is that the people in charge of big tech agree with you instead of the republicans. That won't always be the case.
The only difference is that the people in charge of big tech agree with you instead of the republicans. That won't always be the case.
When people say shit like this you just know immediately where they stand and who they consider their peers to be.
Leftist activists and sex workers specifically (but among others) have been getting banned from twitter, fb, reddit, other "big tech" platforms for years now. But I don't remember a mass crying out against it by the free speech fundamentalists.
Leftist activists and sex workers specifically (but among others) have been getting banned from twitter, fb, reddit, other "big tech" platforms for years now. But I don't remember a mass crying out against it by the free speech fundamentalists.
It sounds like you are proving my point. You don't want leftist activists banned for challenging the status quo.
- It could happen to you!
- It already has?
- That just proves my point!
> nobody would want lawyers to be fired
The thing about the present circumstances is that they are so far outside of norms that such sanctions are exactly what is being put on the table by the judiciary. Because there are, in fact, limits to the doubt the judicial system is willing to grant litigants... Limits that lawyers have a professional duty to understand.
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2020cv3...
"Courts are not instruments through which parties engage in such gamesmanship or symbolic political gestures. As a result, at the conclusion of this litigation, the Court will determine whether to issue an order to show cause why this matter should not be referred to its Committee on Grievances for potential discipline of Plaintiffs’ counsel."
It is extremely correct, I think, to ask what long-term effects account banning and legal sanctions will have on norms and standards in the future, but one must note that norms and standards are currently extremely compromised. This circumstance is highly unusual.
The thing about the present circumstances is that they are so far outside of norms that such sanctions are exactly what is being put on the table by the judiciary. Because there are, in fact, limits to the doubt the judicial system is willing to grant litigants... Limits that lawyers have a professional duty to understand.
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2020cv3...
"Courts are not instruments through which parties engage in such gamesmanship or symbolic political gestures. As a result, at the conclusion of this litigation, the Court will determine whether to issue an order to show cause why this matter should not be referred to its Committee on Grievances for potential discipline of Plaintiffs’ counsel."
It is extremely correct, I think, to ask what long-term effects account banning and legal sanctions will have on norms and standards in the future, but one must note that norms and standards are currently extremely compromised. This circumstance is highly unusual.
They didn't really deplatform until it went beyond speech and into targetted political violence and murder.
> They didn't really deplatform until it went beyond speech and into targetted political violence and murder.
This right here. Far too many fucking apologists are neatly eliding the insurrection against our lawfully elected government that was incited by a seditious terrorist leader, and the literal years of lies that lead to that incident. Those arguing this is unjust censorship are arguing in bad faith and should be ignored.
He was given all the free speech he could handle, right up until he broke very clear laws against incitement. The only problem I see here is that platforms like Facebook and Twitter are monopolies and are not accountable to the people whose lives they affect (we the people). Either restrict their power (eg, break them up), or regulate them as common carriers.
That being said, it's dirt cheap and easy to rent a website and post whatever you please, right up until you incite again.
This right here. Far too many fucking apologists are neatly eliding the insurrection against our lawfully elected government that was incited by a seditious terrorist leader, and the literal years of lies that lead to that incident. Those arguing this is unjust censorship are arguing in bad faith and should be ignored.
He was given all the free speech he could handle, right up until he broke very clear laws against incitement. The only problem I see here is that platforms like Facebook and Twitter are monopolies and are not accountable to the people whose lives they affect (we the people). Either restrict their power (eg, break them up), or regulate them as common carriers.
That being said, it's dirt cheap and easy to rent a website and post whatever you please, right up until you incite again.
Watching so many self proclaimed libertarians and free market cures all folks twist themselves into pretzels advocating the government should force companies to allow Parler, Trump and others use their services has been very entertaining. Too bad gay couples wanting to buy a wedding cake didn't receive that same kind of support from these folks.
I think if you paid better attention you’d notice the libertarians are not asking for the government to intervene. You can voice opposition to something without advocating for the government to regulate the thing. That is in fact a core tenet of libertarianism: persuasion instead of government coercion.
I think if you paid better attention you'd noticed I used the self proclaimed qualifier for a reason. I have no interesting in playing the true scotsman game.
Accusing you of not paying attention was wrong and I am sorry.
It is quite possible that there exist people that profess to be libertarian and don't understand the point about about persuasion over coercion.
It is quite possible that there exist people that profess to be libertarian and don't understand the point about about persuasion over coercion.
It's kinda disingenuous of them to ignore the fact that Trump made a big thing out of repealing section 230 and has not only talked many times about regulating social media but formally petitioned the FCC to do so: https://www.ntia.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_petition_f...
I don't believe Trump or his followers have ever claimed to be libertarian?
The Paradox of Tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Ah that's a good point. The only think that need not be tolerated is intolerance itself. Sadly, tolerance easily can stem from the lack of backbone than from the abundance of it.
I would also propose there is a Dunning-Kruger Corollary of Tolerance, which is that the more intolerant a person is the more likely they are to perceive themselves as tolerant, and perceive people who disagree with them as intolerant.
Yes, sadly that seems to be what has happened at Google, Facebook, Twitter etc.
Yes we already know that everyone on this forum is pro censorship. Can we all just move on? Im so sick of all this political news when all we really care about are apple gadgets and javascript frameworks.
I know people will try to draw a parallel between this and banning Parler, Trump, etc from social media but they are quite different. A radio station operates more like a newspaper and vets everything that is broadcast on its channel and has to grant access to do so, that isn't true of social media. This would be more akin to CNN/MSNBC/etc refusing to air Trump rallies.
Radio stations regularly have live interviews with listeners, and my local NPR station ends those segments with "the views expressed in this segment may not reflect those of the station, underwriters, or management".
That's no different than a "letter to the editor." Still not remotely similar to social media.
Interesting history, and the subtext seems to be that this is precedence for deleting Trump from social media. But the connection isn't presented, it is assumed. And in my opinion, doesn't exist.
>As a media historian, I find more than a little similarity between the stand those stations took back then and the way Twitter, YouTube and Facebook have silenced false claims of election fraud and incitements to violence in the aftermath of the siege on the U.S. Capitol – noticeably by silencing the claims of Donald Trump and his supporters.
If you're going to link accusations of election fraud with Nazism you need more than "more than a little similarity".
And bundling up accusations of election fraud with incitements to violence is very sloppy. Someone can believe fraud happened without advocating violence.
If we don't allow that seperation, then anyone who is critical about anything to do with the election is inciting violence. Of course, when this standard is applied it won't be done evenly. Instead it will be targeted to certain groups. At that point it becomes political persicution.
>As a media historian, I find more than a little similarity between the stand those stations took back then and the way Twitter, YouTube and Facebook have silenced false claims of election fraud and incitements to violence in the aftermath of the siege on the U.S. Capitol – noticeably by silencing the claims of Donald Trump and his supporters.
If you're going to link accusations of election fraud with Nazism you need more than "more than a little similarity".
And bundling up accusations of election fraud with incitements to violence is very sloppy. Someone can believe fraud happened without advocating violence.
If we don't allow that seperation, then anyone who is critical about anything to do with the election is inciting violence. Of course, when this standard is applied it won't be done evenly. Instead it will be targeted to certain groups. At that point it becomes political persicution.
I find it troubling that this article omits the fact that Coughlin's newspaper was a weekly named "Social Justice", and that Coughlin was the leader and founder of the National Union for Social Justice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Justice_(periodical) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Union_for_Social_Just...
The overlap in names between Coughlin's authoritarian-right movement and today's increasingly authoritarian-left version may at first seem like a mere coincidence, but my view is that this is reflective of a deep epistemological commonality between these views. Despite the surface-level political differences, which amounts to disagreement on who to scapegoat and which group should wield increasingly authoritarian power over others, they are not very different.
From where does this commonality stem? German philosophers that created the intellectual conditions within German society that made both the Weimar Republic and its collapse into Hitler's Nazi Germany inevitable: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/530716/the-cause-of...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Justice_(periodical) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Union_for_Social_Just...
The overlap in names between Coughlin's authoritarian-right movement and today's increasingly authoritarian-left version may at first seem like a mere coincidence, but my view is that this is reflective of a deep epistemological commonality between these views. Despite the surface-level political differences, which amounts to disagreement on who to scapegoat and which group should wield increasingly authoritarian power over others, they are not very different.
From where does this commonality stem? German philosophers that created the intellectual conditions within German society that made both the Weimar Republic and its collapse into Hitler's Nazi Germany inevitable: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/530716/the-cause-of...
Often we confuse there being precedent for an event with the precedent being actually right.
I understand both perspectives here: what's "morally" right and what is strictly by the book right.
Personally, I lean towards the latter. As the famous quote says (paraphrased), I may not agree with what you say, but I'll always defend your right to say it.
At the very least it should go through due process, not be at the whim of some private organization.
I understand both perspectives here: what's "morally" right and what is strictly by the book right.
Personally, I lean towards the latter. As the famous quote says (paraphrased), I may not agree with what you say, but I'll always defend your right to say it.
At the very least it should go through due process, not be at the whim of some private organization.
Perhaps there's a middleground between allowing someone to say something privately and providing them a platform to broadcast that message to the world though
Good point. But it begs the next question: where exactly is the line between the two?
I'd argue the abstractions, at best, are getting in the way; at worst they're being intentionally manipulated to suit.
Infrastructural requirements are cooperative requirements at their core—they're not detachable from the people that use, operate, and maintain them. Infrastructure that delivers such a mass of information isn't automatic, it's a concerted effort of many people.
If the people you are relying on to amplify your message do not want to cooperate with you, should they be forced to?
How it appears to me is that we've reached a point, a rare point, in which the majority of the people involved in those works have decided against cooperating with delivering the messaging of some people because they don't want to be a party to it. Not out of fear of reprisal, but out of disagreement with the stated goals of it.
Infrastructural requirements are cooperative requirements at their core—they're not detachable from the people that use, operate, and maintain them. Infrastructure that delivers such a mass of information isn't automatic, it's a concerted effort of many people.
If the people you are relying on to amplify your message do not want to cooperate with you, should they be forced to?
How it appears to me is that we've reached a point, a rare point, in which the majority of the people involved in those works have decided against cooperating with delivering the messaging of some people because they don't want to be a party to it. Not out of fear of reprisal, but out of disagreement with the stated goals of it.
This is an interesting point, and you're an excellent writer.
So the obvious question: is it acceptable for the group of people you described (large corporations) to read your messages and insert themselves in private conversation?
So the obvious question: is it acceptable for the group of people you described (large corporations) to read your messages and insert themselves in private conversation?
Good question—and if you’re looking for a line in the sand you may have found one.
I wouldn’t say they should insert themselves in the process and read the messages mid-com, but there’s nothing hiding this messaging on the back end. In fact, isn’t this all a result of it being highly publicized? It’s that public broadcast people are reacting to, and nixing.
They haven’t been booted off any private messaging systems (where they’ve only practiced private coms), have they?
Edit: by back-end I mean the end product of their efforts not serverside
I wouldn’t say they should insert themselves in the process and read the messages mid-com, but there’s nothing hiding this messaging on the back end. In fact, isn’t this all a result of it being highly publicized? It’s that public broadcast people are reacting to, and nixing.
They haven’t been booted off any private messaging systems (where they’ve only practiced private coms), have they?
Edit: by back-end I mean the end product of their efforts not serverside
When you use someone else's capital. The issue was that Coughlin was using other broadcasters infra to disseminate his message. If he had his own tower then it wouldn't have been a problem.
The answer seems to be from nearly everyone: "It's obvious, whatever my side agrees is acceptable of course." (Which does not help of course.)
You're welcome to say it. Others should not be forced to listen, repeat, or amplify what you say.
That’s why I don’t like „retweets are not endorsements“. Spreading a message is endorsement, one way or another. They have the choice to retweet or not and when they choose to spread the message, they become co-responsible for its consequences.
But the key word is forced isn't it?
Do we really have to police what people are allowed to endorse?
Do we really have to police what people are allowed to endorse?
Fine - let's run with this.
We set up a system where certain ideas are not tolerated. There is a preferential system for use of mass communication platforms. Only officially sanctioned speakers or patterns of thought are allowed to be broadcast to the mass.
A step further: Who decides what is acceptable? And on what grounds shall we suspend the speech of others? What stops this from becoming suppression of political speech?
We set up a system where certain ideas are not tolerated. There is a preferential system for use of mass communication platforms. Only officially sanctioned speakers or patterns of thought are allowed to be broadcast to the mass.
A step further: Who decides what is acceptable? And on what grounds shall we suspend the speech of others? What stops this from becoming suppression of political speech?
This is a little like saying that we shouldn't have speed limits, because who decides what speed is safe for driving?
We all decide, collectively. That is how society works: a group of people making tradeoffs. Individual sacrifices for the benefit of the group.
Obviously, no tradeoff will make every single person happy. But that doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and let people do 90 in a school zone.
We all decide, collectively. That is how society works: a group of people making tradeoffs. Individual sacrifices for the benefit of the group.
Obviously, no tradeoff will make every single person happy. But that doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and let people do 90 in a school zone.
The difference is our constitution doesn't explicitly say to remove speed limits.
If it did, we'd have to go through proper process to get the constitution amended.
If it did, we'd have to go through proper process to get the constitution amended.
Sure, a constitution is just a formalization of those tradeoffs. But the US Constitution has nothing to do with this article or the parallel current events.
Maybe we're approaching this from different angles/aren't on the same page.
I was looking at this through the lense of free speech/censorship.
I was looking at this through the lense of free speech/censorship.
Sorry, let me elaborate. You said that the difference between my speed limit example and (presumably) the article/current events is that the latter is addressed by the Constitution. I disagree with that assertion — the Constitution specifically forbids abridgement of free speech by the government, not by private entities.
You can take the position that private entities should uphold the "spirit" of the First Amendment even though they're not compelled to. But that's a moral argument, not a legal one.
You can take the position that private entities should uphold the "spirit" of the First Amendment even though they're not compelled to. But that's a moral argument, not a legal one.
Gotcha, that's why I added the bit about going through due process vs a private entity (especially an entity that runs an entire platform) deciding your speech is banned with no oversight.
This issue gets complicated, as stated cureently in your post, is of course correct.
I guess the conversation I want to have is a completely separate one: these companies have reached a massive scale, a scale that you could argue is of government proportions, and hence maybe should in some instances be handled as such.
Should Google or Apple get to decide who has free speech, at their scale?
I agree with you 100% - this is as of today a moral argument. My follow up question is, should it be?
This issue gets complicated, as stated cureently in your post, is of course correct.
I guess the conversation I want to have is a completely separate one: these companies have reached a massive scale, a scale that you could argue is of government proportions, and hence maybe should in some instances be handled as such.
Should Google or Apple get to decide who has free speech, at their scale?
I agree with you 100% - this is as of today a moral argument. My follow up question is, should it be?
I'll add that most of my objection here is to the comment to which I originally replied. I really dislike the "there's no objectively correct line, so we shouldn't draw a line at all" point of view.
As to your follow up question — I think the root of the issue is not "is it right for a company to make speech decisions" but "is it right for a company to wield so much power over public discourse?" IMO it should remain a moral issue, and we should simply aggressively break up entities that attain "public square" status.
As to your follow up question — I think the root of the issue is not "is it right for a company to make speech decisions" but "is it right for a company to wield so much power over public discourse?" IMO it should remain a moral issue, and we should simply aggressively break up entities that attain "public square" status.
This is exactly the conversation I hoped would be sparked
I believe you've described something akin to the existing infrastructure for issuing radio broadcast licenses via the FCC.
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-pr...
There is likely some guidance to be had on this topic from studying the way the FCC has navigated the Scylla and Charybdis of authorizing broadcast licenses vs. trampling the First Amendment rights of American citizens.
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-pr...
There is likely some guidance to be had on this topic from studying the way the FCC has navigated the Scylla and Charybdis of authorizing broadcast licenses vs. trampling the First Amendment rights of American citizens.
That's an irrational extrapolation, from saying that nobody should be obliged to amplify points of view they find disagreeable to suggesting that they are officially forbidden from doing so. It really misrepresents the argument made by the grandparent post.
I think I could have been more clear.
Let's get to particulars:
Imagine a future where large corps like Facebook, Amazon, et al. wield de facto censorship power for domestic social media. Are we OK with this? If the answer is Yes, that's fine, let's do that, but we should talk about it clearly, ditch the partisan left/right dichotomy, (big corps dgaf about ideology) and weigh the pros and cons for our nation, culture, and society.
Let's get to particulars:
Imagine a future where large corps like Facebook, Amazon, et al. wield de facto censorship power for domestic social media. Are we OK with this? If the answer is Yes, that's fine, let's do that, but we should talk about it clearly, ditch the partisan left/right dichotomy, (big corps dgaf about ideology) and weigh the pros and cons for our nation, culture, and society.
[deleted]
[deleted]
There is a difference between letting someone speak freely and handing them a megaphone. The Constitution does not give individuals the freedom to incite violence. It is designed to prevent it. Russia is putting Parler back online - at least they believe in free speech.
>Russia is putting Parler back online - at least they believe in free speech.
This is not a given conclusion, they could just be interested in speech that negatively affects a geopolitical rival.
This is not a given conclusion, they could just be interested in speech that negatively affects a geopolitical rival.
Russia believes in free speech when that speech incites social unrest in the US. When it incites social unrest in Russia? Not so much.
> Russian-based firm DDoS-Guard said in a statement to The Hill it started servicing Parler on Sunday night. The firm said Parler is not using DDoS-Guard as a hosting site, but did not detail what services it is providing the platform.
I don't know if your statement is true, and since this thread is about "truth", maybe this needs further investigation.
I don't know if your statement is true, and since this thread is about "truth", maybe this needs further investigation.
Now if we choose to be fools and ignore what has actually happened here, we have the right to do that too. Most of the conversations about freedom, censorship, misinformation, private corporations, rights, authority, etc. seem to be neglecting the tremendous scope for abuse.
The mere accusation of being an infidel is enough to taint the perception of the person in question. Someone was banned from the radio for alleged misinformation. What's the vetting process? For most it's to check their political leanings, laugh, and not pursue the matter further. This is a dangerous standard to set.