Hacker News Reader

Comment by ThrowawayR2 | Hacker News Reader

> "I stopped using zoom after they shut down accounts because people were discussing the Tiananmen Square Massacre."

Now, now, many HN readers in recent political threads have piously reminded us that corporations have no obligation to allow speech they don't want to host and it's perfectly okay for corporations to deplatform things because it would never be used in bad way. Surely, they could not be wrong? Surely...?

View on HN

I haven't seen anyone hold that platforms shouldn't be allowed to deplatform things and that people shouldn't be free to choose to stop using them because of those decisions.

Can you point me to a comment that says that?

I think platforms shouldn't be allowed to deplatform things, fwiw.

So now you've seen one such person. :)

Allow me to introduce you the most persecuted and deplatformed community in the whole social network world: nudists.

How about in situations where the speech is likely to get them banned from a country, or lose advertisers, or generally turn away users because of its association with speech that it doesn't like? Should businesses be forced to accommodate speech that threatens their livelihoods?

Per-country filter list. Ie. to the minimum feasible amount.

Platforms can figure out what ads you should get based on tracking from incredibly specific coincidences of IP addresses and browser user agents. I'm sure they can figure out what ads should not appear next to what content.

That doesn’t solve the brand reputation problem. Some users don’t want to be on a site that has anything to do with controversial / unsavory content. Bars have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason not protected by law (race, etc.). Social media is the online equivalent of the watering hole; should not they be afforded the same right?

No.

If people don't want to be on a site with someone, even if they don't have to interact with them, then that's just too bad. I will always favor local, positive rights over global, negative rights.

The right to > The right for somebody else to not.

I'm a value utilitarian. I think society should be organized so that humans can follow their interests. As such, I believe it is counterproductive for people to have an interest in others not following their interests; that's an interest that reduces net interest satisfaction rather than raises it.

My comment may have been vaguely worded. I meant that I hadn't met someone who held both of those views simultaneously.

Why do you believe that private companies should be coerced into hosting content they disagree with? Seems rather dystopian and authoritarian to me.

Because I value individual over corporate freedom.

It's authoritarian in the sense that, say, the GPL is authoritarian. It restricts one freedom to widen another.

That doesn't follow.

If I (an individual) start a web host (a company) and the KKK (an organization) wants to pay me money, why shouldn't I have the right to say no?

I'd prefer we had 'freedom from coercion to provide services for bad causes' rather than 'freedom to make anyone provide services to you'.

And I think it should be the other way around.

Yes, that means I want to coerce people to provide service. On the other hand, if they don't want it, they can always stop providing that service entirely.

Why?

I can't imagine why your view of utopia requires that people with money get to choose who they transact with but people with goods and services must transact with anyone who has money. Can you explain why that's fair or equitable?

You're pointing toward a world where I can say "I won't buy from X because Y" but nobody can say "I won't sell to X because Y".

If a seller doesn't believe in mask wearing, a buyer should be able to abstain from them. If a buyer doesn't believe in mask wearing, a seller should be able to abstain from them.

Buyers and sellers are temporary roles we play, not classes of people with different freedoms.

> I can't imagine why your view of utopia requires that people with money get to choose who they transact with but people with goods and services must transact with anyone who has money. Can you explain why that's fair or equitable?

This is not entirely an accurate description of my view. I think that also, people with money should not get to choose who they transact with on the basis of not directly related properties; the difference is not "buy vs sell" but one of scale. That is, I also think that for instance a large corporate chain shouldn't be able to choose to not buy from somebody on the basis of political allegiance. "Offering a service or product to the market" and "Acquiring a service or product from the market" are symmetrical.

What's a platform?

I would apply this to any company offering a service or product to the general public.

You give rights to people who offer money, not to people who offer goods and services. Why?

Also: what happens when both parties are offering money (e.g. currency exchange)? Can both of them choose who to transact with?

And if neither party has money (e.g. barter) then I assume that you think they should be coerced into working with each other?

No, you can always choose not to interact at all. You can always choose not to offer a service or product, or not to use a service or product. I just think that the larger the scale at which you decide what to do, the less interests that are not directly related should be permitted to matter.

Some people can't think in anything more than black and white it seems :/

Involvement of government is the distinguishing factor. Platforms can curate their content as an exercise of free speech; governments forcing their hand on particular issues is censorship.

But even so, I think it’s wiser to argue that companies clearly do and should have the right to vet content. But any platform that claims to be an open forum for communication should be criticized when they censor things and act in heavy-handed ways.

Hell yes, criticize them, boycott them, etc. Just because they've got a right to do something mustn't protect them from criticism and loss of public confidence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com