It's true that you _can_ find Parler out of those app stores, but a significant fraction of people would not be able to do so; nor would people encounter Parler as a popular app they might consider installing.
(The web hosting is a different issue since there are a bunch of hosting options.)
We must decide if that needs to change.
This will require either amending the constitution to strip companies of their 1A rights, OR the supreme court ruling that companies are not people and have no 1A rights. Both are tall orders in my view, with far-reaching direct and 2nd-order effects.
Wait, in the US companies are considered people?
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-says-cor...
Not quite, the East India Company is a counter example.
The Boston Massacre was greatly exaggerated, really only five rioters were killed and arguably the British shot them after violent provocation. Paul Revere's engraving was fiction and portrayed them as murdering the colonists in cold blood, which planted the seeds of the American Revolution.
As far as the barrier to mass communication being lower, perhaps, but mass communication was more prominent in the 18th century than you might think. Pamphlets were fairly inexpensive easily duplicated short-form propaganda, and were read aloud in taverns and churches. Communication wasn't "instant" but it was possible, and the social aspects would have made it more like Twitter and Facebook than I think we'd like to admit.
I also think that us being forced to rely on private platforms for public discourse is a grave threat to democracy. There must be public forums that are strong enough to be viable and legitimate places for the majority of public political discourse to take place without relying on private institutions.
Is big tech within their right to censor how they see fit? Yes.
Is it antithetical to the American ethos? Probably.
We're talking about the situation in the United States, not a free market. If there were viable alternatives, nobody would care about being blocked from Twitter or Google or Facebook. The fact that these monopolies collude in their censorship campaign makes the impact that much more severe. The situation with these monopolies colluding to block an aspiring competitor is clearly an anti-trust issue.
There's literally no reason for a "viable alternative" to not appear. I mean, Parler is a "viable alternative" to Twitter, isn't it? It got kicked off AWS? Go ahead, and create your own viable alternative, there's literally nothing stopping you, just like in a "free market".
And considering that Google banned the app GCP is also out of the question.
BTW. You know that the largest cloud provides in the world are also the ones I mentioned above? There is only Alibaba Cloud that is outside US and all the rest are just small businesses (that might just resell what the big three is providing).
And what would be next? Let's block the "new Parler" on the DNS or routing level - build yourself a new internet?
I hate far right wing and also hate far left wing, but I will protect both right to speak.
2) Smaller providers like Digital Ocean are in fact not reselling the larger services, but you’re right that folks like Heroku are based on AWS.
3) They all have the right to speak. But private enterprises also have the right to decide for themselves if they want to do business with them. That too is a freedom of expression. It’s unclear to me why you think the far left or far rights freedom should supersede the moderates freedoms.
But they aren’t monopolies. AWS, Azure, GCP, Oracle, Digital Ocean.
Sure, there are only a handful of news networks in the US, just like there are only a handful of cloud infrastructure providers. But the first amendment doesn’t guarantee that everyone gets their own hour on the nightly news, and it doesn’t force private corporations in general to do business with all comers.
I don’t have to invite QAnon into my house, and I certainly don’t need to bake QAnon a wedding cake. And neither do AWS, Azure or Digital Ocean.
OK, but first you don't know if it is QAnon and second, are you also allowed not to bake wedding cake for a black couple, or maybe for Jewish one?
It is your freedom, right? So where is the line you can't cross? For me it is: if you open business you have to deal with everyone, sorry. If you don't like it, don't open a business.
You just need to follow the law, if courts say that "you can't sell wedding cakes to QAnon" you follow that, but until there is such law...
Can you explain what you mean here? I wasn’t aware that tech companies worked with one another when choosing who or what to ban.
But every time one of the entities takes some decision or step or action, whether censorship or otherwise, it makes it a little bit more excusable and easier for others to do it and justify it.
E.g. (hypothetical)
1. Reddit bans /r/ABC for "TOS violations".
2. It's news and many reporters report on it across various articles. Some say it's due to "repeated" "alleged" "hate speech" violations, whether true or not. Probably 50% true, who knows.
3. ABC makes its own website and has a mailing list from some mail newsletter provider X because that's just what you do when you have a site and need to keep in touch with visitors/members.
4. Activists on Twitter notice. Outrage mob starts. "@X mail provider hosting known hate-speech movement" "@X mail provider...did you know you're hosting known white supremacists?" "Everybody, please stop using @X, they're supporting white supremacists!" "@AWS please look into what @X is using your infrastructure for!" ...all citing some selective articles as legitimacy.
5. Articles get written about a "movement" to have X drop service for controversial and "alleged" hate-speech website ABC.
6. X mail provider gets pressured and eventually drops service to ABC.
At this point, X mail provider probably won't get many "legitimate", "official" and "mainstream" criticisms for effectively dropping customers (even if all the mail sent by those customers on X's platform is 100% legal and innocent). Nor can their shareholders complain about losing profit because "we can't be seen supporting racists".
The problem is that each time this sort of thing happens, it adds "partial proof" of the accusations without an actual "court-like" process that decides if it's really true or not. After a certain point, it's just accepted and then carries an aura of truth/legitimacy.
Edit. Formatting.
It was banned from Reddit for being “hate speech” and in fact you can no longer suggest that obesity is something to be ashamed of —- on nearly any platform! Including GitHub. (but you are allowed to mock mock cigarette smokers or meth tweakers).
... from government.
I will add that even with regards to the government, there are limits to free speech — falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is the archetypal example.
Some people seem to think that freedom of speech is something that can be broadly forced upon private organizations, and that’s simply not true.
If folks don’t like companies that, in their opinion, unreasonably restrict speech, then I suggest they vote with their dollars, their attention, and maybe their work (e.g., via competitors).
Like Gab and Parler! Oh wait...
I generally agree private businesses shouldn’t be forced to do business with anyone they don’t want to, but we’re talking about near monopolies that in many ways wield more power than governments.
Apple and Google each have a monopoly on app distribution on their platforms. Facebook and Twitter combined effectively have a monopoly on social networks.
At this point, their only option to survive would be to build their own new internet. And that would need power/spectrum/land or other things that could be taken away from them by determined enough activism.
Maybe they could survive for a while by moving to a decentralised P2P/blockchain system of some kind. But that could potentially be blocked at an ISP level.
A few years ago I heard some people say we needed net neutrality. Republicans were against it.
As for Apple, yes. They do have a monopoly over their app platforms. Either a more robust PWA support framework or side loading needs to be a priority on iOS. I wouldn’t consider Google as having a monopoly over app distribution as you can sideload apps on Android and Android has (from what I’ve heard) well-rounded PWA support.
Big tech have basically declared that 30% of America is unwelcome on their platform. That is overbearing moderation that is likely to provoke a market response. I'd give it 6-12 months to see if they can hold on to a monopoly even leaving that massive slice of the market in play.
Why not? Private companies must respect your rights, like your right not to be discriminated against, so why can‘t they be forced to respect your right to free speech? Just because the status quo of the legal ecosystem is not ready to handle this edge-cases doesn‘t mean it can‘t be made to do it with some adjustments.
That mostly leaves Alibaba Cloud (I have no idea if it is available outside China) and "Others" - so a 43%. Not much to choose from considering that the big players have the best prices.
There’s plenty of existing examples of compelled speech. We could simply say, “you cannot run a public/large forum without allowing mostly free speech”.
I think the compelled speech argument is extremely weak, we have very narrowly defined and specific cases in strictly defined circumstances. This would make it the default for vast swathes of common communications and as I pointed out introduce huge problems with noise, spam and griefing.
The right of free expression is guaranteed by the first amendment by restricting the government from infringing upon your right. It doesn’t say the government or anyone else has to give you a microphone.
In order to ban me from a platform you have to take (negative) action towards me. My content is already on that network. Compelling to respect my rights means compelling a company to not negatively act against me.
Those businesses are also free to close up shop if they can’t handle it. If they are dumb enough to explicitly say they don’t want to do something for a certain legally protected class of individual solely due to their belonging to that class, then IMO they deserve to lose their shirt.
That would amount to involuntary servitude, which is not permitted by the 13th Amendment.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
I don't know what the answer is, but having seen these large private companies censor rational discussion of scientific fact, this scares me.
"Voting with your dollars" means taking your dollars and giving them to the 0.001% that agree with you. Then this will strengthen them a little so they may become 0.0011% or whatever.
Any large social movement should be able to support a share of the economy commensurate to its size, complete with their own journalists, printing presses, leaflet distributors, radio stations, TV shows, phone factories, app stores and social media apps, or whatever communication infrastructure they want to use.
Of course that requires lots of work, but if that work is divided by the number of people involved, it becomes manageable again (after all, the whole rest of society manages just fine).
If people want to skip that work and instead rely on others to provide them with everything, they shouldn't be surprised if they don't get exactly what they want.
This looks like a internet version of witch hunt.
To use an analogy closer to the founding of the United States: if you want to publish a radical new newspaper, you need to be prepared to buy your own printing press and build up your own network of stores, because the existing printers and sellers may not want to support you.
You are a republican, how do you publish your political pieces?
You have to create a 4th printing press from ground up (because people that have printing press parts are refusing to work with you).
Distribution is a more appropriate in this case.
Also see the Supreme Court case Brandenburg v Ohio (1969), which excluded from protection speech "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"
Note that when this phrase was originally used, it was to justify imprisoning people who distributed flyers opposing the draft in WW1, and the supreme court later partially overturned it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/on-the-rudeness-of-mobs-pogue
'On October 25, the freemen of Essex County, New Jersey, proclaimed that anyone who adhered to the Stamp Act should be cast out of polite society, that decent people should have “no Communication with any such Person, nor speak with them on any Occasion unless it be to inform them of their Vileness.” This was not an isolated view. One writer to a Pennsylvania paper suggested, in language typical of the time, that a man paying stamp duties should be “branded with eternal infamy and reproach,” and cast out. “Let him be alone in the world—let him wish to associate with the wild beasts of some dark loathsome cave.”'
Take Fox News as an example. They're not going to allow their platform to be used for liberal propaganda, and most likely also vet any advertisers. They aren't expected to just allow any content to be broadcast.
I guess a devil's advocate viewpoint could be that some of these services are platforms, but then again the reasons given for some of these bans aren't necessarily strictly political.
It just doesn’t feel like the right thing for our republic. It feels like foul play, and I guess my recourse is at the ballot box.
I guess I think the points raised here and elsewhere about what businesses can do are specious. We still try to keep things fair.
What we have here is a small group of companies exerting quasi-monopoly power; Apple and Google controlling "apps" or Twitter and Facebook controlling "social media". Sure, they have some smaller competitors technically, just like East Germany had some smaller political parties technically.
If it was up to me, I'd change the status quo: Let FAAGT decide if they want to be publishers, no limited liability, or open platforms, limited liability but at the same time they have to agree to Freedom of Speech for all, unless it's criminal speech like incitement to violence, or some narrow additional predefined exemptions such as the option to not allow pornography or nudity or gore.
And then, if Parler fails to moderate their content again and leaves up criminal stuff, it's the job of law enforcement and courts to not only sanction the people who abused Parler to commit these crimes, but also the state to sanction Parler.
There was once something called "Net Neutrality". As I recall conservatives were strongly against it.
Speech has never been, and will never be, completely protected without exceptions in the US.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
Generally speaking, hate speech can be allowed free speech, but not advocacy or incitement of specific violent acts. As the platform owner, and absent additional guidance from courts or Congress, private companies have no choice but to make decisions about what can be done with their private property. No company that is not a "common carrier" is obligated to let their infrastructure be used for a specific purpose. If you don't like the choices they make, the root cause isn't with the companies, it's with the laws themselves.
There is a sort of slider here between speech & property. If you dislike companies controlling their platforms as they see fit & want the slider to move in favor of free speech, it moves against freedoms of private property.
The current generation not knowing how to communicate without social media does not imply or suggest that social media is necessary for communication. If a person believes their values and entitlements limited by private entities they find alternatives not facilitated by those private entities, as in alternatives to social media.
I too agree that social media as a common medium probably does not, in itself, confer "common carrier" status on it. Even if many have been bought up by Facebook, there is still room for competitors to arise that provide alternative. This is not like ATT&T before its breakup where it was literally the only option. Heck, nothing stops someone from rolling their own stack on a local PC or local "cloud" and running their own social media service there, with mobile friendly sites that don't need an Android or Apple apps no need to rely on 3rd party cloud infrastructure. Then they would only be relying on the common-carrier ISP infrastructure that couldn't ban them for content. They aren't entitled to use the private infrastructure services or content distribution networks of other private organizations.
Woah, what?! No, this is entirely antithetical to "freedom of speech". The government should absolutely NOT be determining what is and is not allowed speech.
> Otherwise we are always dependent on the good will of the companies without democratic control
The market will decide right? Companies are made up of individuals. Their customers are as well. The past 30 years is evidence of that.
That's as hyperbolic as my omission is glaring. Yes, there are a few very narrow exceptions made.
I would say, though, that our 1st amendment rights are stronger today than ever.
The government does not originate tort claims of libel. It is there to mediate disputes that citizens bring against each other. Because the next best thing is people committing acts of violence against each other.
The relevant section:
"Criminal libel is rarely prosecuted but exists on the books in many states, and is constitutionally permitted in circumstances essentially identical to those where civil libel liability is constitutional."
Again, this is really beside the point IMO, as I mentioned before. I only brought it up due to being an unreconstituted pedant, unable to help myself.
I think you’re right in that the health of a democracy is closely linked to the ability of diverse voices to make themselves heard.
I don’t know what effect these moves will have but I suspect it will not have the intended one.
This is the paradox of tolerance. If you tolerant violent, discriminating voices like say, the Proud Boys, that intimidates other diverse groups from participating. Their intolerance becomes mainstream, making society less tolerant over time.
This is not about diversity of opinions anymore. The people who did this need to be persecuted and receive lengthy jail sentences, whoever aided and abetted them needs to be sentenced, and there need to be real and actual consequences. Because if we don't do that, we only show that we are weak, and that you can storm the Capitol without any consequences. What is the lesson you think they will take from that? You think it stops here? Are they encouraged, or discouraged? If nothing happens to them, what do you think they'll do next? This isn't over.
The people who are fanning the flames need their megaphones taken from them. If whole platforms exist for the purpose of encouraging hatred and sedition, these platforms need to be banned. It's not rocket science. Fucking ban Fox News. Block Breitbart. Or drown them in lawsuits and persecute them for every lie they tell. It's either that or fascism. You choose.
> You think it stops here? Are they encouraged, or discouraged? If nothing happens to them, what do you think they'll do next? This isn't over.
I don’t think it stops here. That’s sort of what I was getting at. Will censorship result in less violence or more violence? The assumption is that it turns the temperature down, but where is the precedent for that?
“Free Speech” - not just the technical definition but the culture of it - is a core American value. Having it suppressed so quickly and broadly may actually result in more violence.
I fear that we’re at the beginning of the American “Troubles”
A discussion about freedom fighters is a different one than a discussion about terrorists, even though the people involved might have committed the exact same crime (shooting a bunch of people).
As such, designating the mob as American Patriots and the event itself as a "riot" or "insurrection" instead of as a "coup" is - indeed - important and very telling.
If this seems to you to be one of the deepest root causes of the problem, that people can't compete due to centralized monetary control systems, and you want to help make the world better by uprooting that critical power, you may consider digging deeper into these projects.
So to be more clear - you're okay with removing this layer of protection? And yes, it could be abused but then that's where actual work and getting in place an intelligent and accountable government with sound policy is the path, not taking down walls so to make it easier for bad actors to function within the system; not caring about it, concerning yourself with it, and externalizing the cost of the purposeful ignorance is a very bad idea.
"Bitcoin is almost as bs as fiat money" - Elon Musk, I look forward to Elon eventually voicing his full thoughts on this and not just his summization; he of course has to be careful due to the growing "army of HODLers" who are all financially aligned, all financially incentivized to promote Bitcoin et al to increase their value in the decentralized, global Ponzi-Pyramid. There are issues in the system, they can be course corrected by educating people on the right policies, Bitcoin et al is certainly the impetus for this to occur.
If you are EXTREMELY knowledgeable and careful, you can transact with Bitcoin anonymously.
Less than 0.01% of the people who make a bunch of noise on Twitter or who stormed the Capitol are going to know how to be able to figure it out correctly.
Imagine it were the other way around, and suddenly Twitter and Facebook just couldn't use banks anymore, or cards.
Centralized control of money is too dangerous for everyone. Whatever power exists could someday be wielded against you.
Why do you think the rioters are so afraid and angry? They were fine with Trump's making up executive powers that don't actually exist anywhere. Now they're seeing the other edge of the sword, and they're so afraid they're losing their minds.
Learn from them. Don't become like them when your view falls out of favor. Don't create a power so great your life would be ruined if your enemy came to wield it.
Also, cash exists as a payment option - yes, it's slower than digital transactions which is also a feature to limit and slow allocation and in this case, slow the allocation to people wanting to allow open calls for violence. With enough support they could also create their own credit card company, if they can find a government who will be supportive of open calls to violence.
I don't know if you're aware of it, but your falling empire, the almighty America, is not the only country in the world. The censorship tactics that are deployed right now on the half of the population of the country that famously has the most free speech in the world, will be used against the people in other countries too. The willingness of the corporations to work with authoritarian governments, the obvious example being China, is not exactly a secret. These people hold no moral convictions, they use slave labor for God's sake, just so you can mindlessly consume more useless crap like a new iPhone every year or God knows how many pairs of Nike shoes, as they pander to you with rainbow flags and raised fists.
People who are in the front lines against such governments, some of whom you might show "support" to regularly on your favourite social media website, are also being persecuted for the same reasons - calls for violence and terrorism. The people from my country were hailed as heroes after the WWII by the Western world. But today, in some places in the world, people who are doing the same thing and fighting for the same causes that we did are labeled as terrorists. People might belive one thing today and the complete opposite tomorrow. Which is whatever suits the people at the media industry and their employers at the time.
And the bottomline is that you yourself might find yourself on the receiving end of the things you think are so great in the near future. The following weeks are not about the left vs the right. Or antiterrorism vs terrorism. Or morality vs lack thereof. Or however you want to frame it to feel good about yourself. It's about escalation or de-escalation. The right completely lost and the left had the upperhand. But for some reason, either stupidity or on purpose, they've chose to go about it in the worst possible way. Get petty, overblow the Capitol shitshow and seek revenge on the right. You might not even agree with that framing, but this is how the right perceives it. And that means escalation. Nothing might happen because of it or everything might happen. But the point is that you've turned the victory of the left into an uncertain future, that no one knows what holds.
Sorry for getting carried away, I know this is not a place for my bullshit, but this is basically the only place where I can voice my meaningless opinions that no one cares about.
The ability for private companies to deplatform who they want is a feature, it's a failsafe against authoritarianism and tyranny - and it's not black and white, all or nothing - it's a spectrum or gradient, and it can be evolved with good core policies like those that will break apart the duopoly and reduce the power of amalgamated mainstream media; I hope you're aware of Andrew Yang and his core policy proposals which will do just that.
I'm mentally too tired to reply thoroughly to the rest of what you say, however you're right in that there is a beast on both sides of the duopoly that's integrated with mainstream media who will sensationalize - and stir up both sides however much they can for the sake of views and revenue. So I don't agree with your premise that either side had actual control of what narrative was presented, which is a problem in of itself - and one pro of social media is people like Yang who can share what they've learned and interact with others online without the gatekeeping of TV channels and newspapers, a relatively direct connection to people interest in tuning into your individual channel; 3 days ago he also stated: "For Cable News we should revive the Fairness Doctrine which the FCC had on the books until 1985 that required that you show both sides of a political issue. It was repealed by Reagan. If there was ever a time to bring it back it’s now." - the thread is here where he discusses this: https://twitter.com/JanPerry/status/1347211706162769921 - he begins by saying "There are 3 problems with our media that are fueling polarization: ..."
This is a perfectly fine place for your "bullshit" - you didn't name call, so you're all good in my books.
> The ability for private companies to deplatform who they want is a feature, it's a failsafe against authoritarianism and tyranny - and it's not black and white, all or nothing - it's a spectrum or gradient, and it can be evolved with good core policies like those that will break apart the duopoly and reduce the power of amalgamated mainstream media
If you'd listen to the right-libertarians, the conclusion they've reached is that if we would take capitalism without the government to it's full extent, it would be a very authoritarian system. They correctly predicted this tactics of deplatforming from every angle that we can see today, as a way of getting rid of undesirable people who would try to bring back the government. Ironically enough, they were wrong only in that it targeted them first, not the communists. I guess the second part addresses this, and what can I say to that, I wish I could be that optimistic.
> So I don't agree with your premise that either side had actual control of what narrative was presented, which is a problem in of itself
Sorry, I wasn't clear at all in what I meant. By "the left" and "the right" I generally meant that the people in power on the left went after Trump supporters. It's showing my own biases there I guess in portraying it as the "elites vs people", but to my defense, I'd say it was at least accurately on topic of this thread. And surely there are already more than enough people to go after the right-wingers in power, so I'm sure it's fine. But I agree with you, Reps and right-leaning media are lying to their base just as much as Dems and left-leaning media are lying to their base, if that's what you're saying.
Biden won, that's reason enough to reignite your optimism - even if it's just a little flame. Then stimulus-survival cheques will go to many that desperately need it. Then everyone will get vaccinated for COVID and things can begin to open up again. Yang is running for NYC Mayor - though not officially announced - he's registered to run + there's a video of him doing a Mayoral run announcement video. Yang, then if it makes sense, will run again in 2024 - "instead of that single $2,000 stimulus cheque - how much would it have helped if you got $1,000 every month?" Etc.
"Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions." - Yup, though how much is perpetuated purposefully by Democrats vs. the narratives that mainstream media (or whoever else has influence on what they say) is unknown - but it happens. It's why social media is good because it allows people like Andrew Yang to have a voice - someone very articulate, very understanding of the problems, and has figured out the solutions which he's able to clearly explain. We need many more Andrew Yangs.
'Stop calling it a “free speech app”. Historically Parler is harsher on dissenting political views than any of their competitors. Just, ya know, against the “other side”.' - https://www.reddit.com/r/technews/comments/kts86k/comment/gi...
There's so much learned helplessness, victim mindset- and a sign of an unhealthy, non-critical thinking, more unreasonable population.
If we look at Parler being dependent on other companies, there are 3 dependencies that bit them in the last few days:
(A) running servers on AWS
(B) distributing Android app through Google Play Store
(C) distributing iPhone app through Apple Store
Parler could and should have avoided the dependency on AWS by hosting with a company more aligned with their views or outside of the US.
However, I cannot in good faith say "Parler should have written their own mobile OS if they want people to use their platform from their phones". I believe Android supports app installation without Google Play. It's a little inconvenient, but I think an extra minute or two of clicking around is an ok price to pay for access to unpopular speech.
However, as far as I know there's no way to have an app on iPhones without Apple's approval. This is a strong point for "even if you start your own company, you're not the governor - 45% of America's phone users can only access your service at the mercy of Apple".
If you want the convenience afforded by the technology of private companies then you will have to follow their rules; if you show that you're racist while a guest in my house, I'm going to ask you to leave and if you refuse I'm going to call the police to have you removed.
Android does allow side-loading of apps, and Apple has the ability to prevent already installed apps from working. I think ultimately this is a question of whether you want your opponents/"enemies" - those who aren't aligned with you - to have access to the same level of technology as you: is it a good idea to level the playing field or to have an advantage? Arguably it's only good if the owners/controllers of that technology are on a more right/good path than the "other."
I assume in part Parler expected or wanted this deplatforming to happen as free marketing and to rally individuals to the platform, rallying the energy of people feeling persecuted - because enough of them were openly calling for violence and moderators weren't removing those comments/users from the platforms - but they don't seem to be having that sane/reasonable conversation to calm and quell the angry mob - and any "outsider" who attempts to reason with them gets ban/blocked, so it's inevitable it will spillover into the physical world. I feel and think it's good to slow this mob down however possible, even if it angers some of them more - they were already substantial open calls for violence, so it's not like deplatforming was the cause, the cause is Trump et al's lies and propaganda to incite violence; where's Trump ingenuine call for "law and order" after the Capitol was stormed? Answer: Trump told people to go to the Capitol.
Yes, but that’s already true without this action, which doesn’t make them any more or less democratically controlled. A more democratic way of deciding clear limits on free speech would be great, but the absence of one doesn’t mean the platforms should sit on their hands and do nothing while the world burns.
Would it be acceptable for the state to pass laws that severely limits private entities to do so?
There’s lot to think about here. Free speech is good and all, but is it not really about free speech in relation to the state? i.e you’ll not be thrown in jail or persecuted for saying things.
Btw, if you follow policy just a bit bellow the surface you’ll soon find that “we are always dependent on the good will of the companies without democratic control” since ways back.
The internet is still rather open - parler could start a web site or give out a magazine.
The possible venues of free speech are numerous.
This is why it is interesting - it’s a question about regulation. State and law “interfering” with private company interests.
I like regulations on big companies in general, but this one would end up with weird effects, I reckon.
They're just deciding they don't want to host their content on their servers. Which makes sense because some of their content is illegal. Amazon wouldn't host a message board for pedos eithers.
Having said that, it is indeed disturbing how large the actual power of those big companies is. As a society, we have to consider how this should be handled going forward.
If you keep plotting insurrection, violent murder, and the overthrow of democracy, you will also be banned. As you should be. Because if you aren't banned, any form of support - whether it's delivering pizza or web services - has the potential to make you an accessory.
Most TOS are pretty clear about the "no criminal acts" part. The baffling thing isn't why those rules exist, it's why right wing extremists particularly seem to believe the rules shouldn't apply to them.
So that I understand: on what grounds are such companies deciding what's allowed or not allowed for all people? As best as I can tell, they're deciding what's allowed or not allowed on their own platforms.
And a point I've made elsewhere but I'll repeat here: Parler might've exposed itself to FOSTA/SESTA by insisting on not moderating, and as such, while AAPL/AMZN/GOOG deplatformed Parler with violence as cause, it's also somewhat likely that gaining awareness of the lack of FOSTA/SESTA compliance may have forced their hand. (I'll invite an attorney to keep me honest here - I'm not one.)
I keep pointing this out because, of course, FOSTA/SESTA were passed in the last few years.
As I understand him, private companies should decide for themselves who they serve and if we think they are behaving immorally, convince our circle not to give them business. It's not the government's job to say who they can and cannot serve.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-...
PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.
INTERVIEWER: But?
PAUL: You had to ask me the "but." I don't like the idea of telling private business owners — I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant — but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.
INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworth’s?
PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part — and this is the hard part about believing in freedom — is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example — you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we're here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I'm sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things.It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we're civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don't belong to those groups, or don't associate with those people.In this case, it was decided that the baker has a right to refuse service if they have a moral objection to the service they're being asked to provide. The same principle applies to Amazon, though one can certainly see how the scale and scope of Amazon's services and their centrality to the online economy makes things a bit more complicated.
Just the system working as intended I think?
[1] https://twitter.com/BethLynch2020/status/1347987417052172306...
Companies are obligated to make the most possible money for their shareholders. Otherwise their shareholders withdraw investments and invest elsewhere. Deplatforming is a legal money making strategy (it might succeed or it might fail but the goal is to make money). To add more data, in Nov 2020 7 MM more “potential customers” voted for Biden compared to Trump. Additionally, the “potential customers” that voted for Biden were predominantly younger i.e. more time to purchase good and services from company X. It seems clear to me deplatforming is a medium-term and long-term financial numbers game.
> Otherwise we are always dependent on the good will of the companies without democratic control.
The way I see this is:
Historically we thought free market economics only applied to the monetary aspect of socio-economics. “deplatforming”/“cancel culture” seems to be the free market “solution” to social issues. It is basically the “popular vote” weighted by capital, forcing social change by ostracism/“excommunication” (specifically limiting their ability to scale their speech, without excommunicating them from society - “soft excommunication”?).
Historically social issues were dictated by the church through “hard excommunication” fast and effective, but not fair to minorities. Since then we’ve tried to use a version of “one person one vote” and required government regulation, and moved very slow (for many reasons, one of them being a disproportionate voting power to low population states). Perhaps we are now witnessing the efficiency of the free market to solve social issues?
Which is an interesting/ironic result, given historic Republican policy about free markets.
P.S. FWIW, I’d be happy with more regulation in this area, even though the free market “solution” is in my favor. I hope we can soon live in a world that uses “one person one vote” for all societal decisions, that strategy seems most fair to me. However, whatever your politics might be, please understand: A true “one person one vote” does also mean that both the Senate and the Electoral College need to be rectified.