Hacker News Reader

Comment by traverseda | Hacker News Reader

I presumed this wouldn't apply, but article 19 does look interesting.

"""

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

"""

There may actually be a case for the US needing to change their laws to extend free-speech protections to things that happen on the internet. But that's a whole separate issue. Maybe something the EFF would be interested in?

View on HN

EFF already is: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/09/youtubes-censorship-an...

Obama Administration supported banning criticism of Islam: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/un-adopts-religious-int...

The Constitution already applies to what happens on the Internet.

That Article would be more relevant to countries with hate speech laws or blasphemy laws.

What about private corporation that provide platforms for modern day public discourse enforcing their own blasphemy laws?

What about them? The US Constitution only binds on the Federal government and, through the process of incorporation, state (and, therefore, county and local) governments. Private entities can do what they want.

In a more normative sense (that is, describing what should be as opposed to simply what is), private entities should be able to enforce their own rules, there shouldn't be any limits to how many private entities there are, and it should be simple to move from one private entity to another.

In fact, I'd support data portability laws, simply based on the concept that data is an objectively valuable property and should be owned by the people it was generated from.

>Private entities can do what they want.

The baker should be able to deny baking a cake to gay couple?

A pharmacist should be able to deny knowing options about birth control based on religious rights?

A hospital should be able to deny removal of life sustaining device when I don't want it anymore?

>Private entities can do what they want.

Is there a difference between a private entity and a public corporation?

If I run my own plumbing company, I can hire my son without putting up an ad in the paper. Should a Google executive be allowed to hire her husband without putting up an ad?

We hold public companies at a higher standard that private individuals, correctly so.

What if Mead stopped you from using their notebook to write down a thought that they don't agree with?

> The baker should be able to deny baking a cake to gay couple?

Protected class.

> A pharmacist should be able to deny knowing options about birth control based on religious rights?

> A hospital should be able to deny removal of life sustaining device when I don't want it anymore?

You want to get into the special laws and regulations the medical field operates under? Really? Really? Because I can guarantee you don't. I can guarantee you are not qualified to do that, and do not have the patience to even start.

Leave it alone. It is its own world and always has been.

> What if Mead stopped you from using their notebook to write down a thought that they don't agree with?

It's more useful to have competition than regulation, because regulation can be gamed. Regulation is required when competition is not possible, does not happen, or when the potential for harm is so high that we cannot simply trust to competition, as in the medical field.

>Regulation is required when competition is not possible, does not happen, or when the potential for harm is so high that we cannot simply trust to competition, as in the medical field.

I contend that social media platforms of YouTube/Twitter/Facebook are at that level now. Competition is not possible and harm has clearly been done.

> I contend that social media platforms of YouTube/Twitter/Facebook are at that level now. Competition is not possible and harm has clearly been done.

I agree with you, and I think the regulation we need includes data portability regulation: Make it a legal requirement for companies to allow you to get all of your data (which those companies primarily exist to monetize anyway) out of their web services complete, in a simple fashion, in a way which allows you to put it into your own system or upload it into a competitor's system.

Other laws might be required as well, but data portability would be a good start.

How about audience portability?

Shouldn't I be allowed to give a forwarding address so that my audience that I developed, can reach me on the new platform that I go to?

I don't think any youtube creator worth her salt doesn't keep backup of the videos. The problem with google kicking you out is that you lose your audience. Severing the connection between you and your audience is the biggest issue here, not loss of some files.

Google should be forced to honor forwarding URL (e.g. to vimeo) for accounts that it suspends.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com