Hacker News Reader

>The constitution protects our freedom of speech from the government, not from private entities on their own private property. Make no mistake, that's what centralized social media platforms are - private property.

I'm getting pretty tired of this line. The American first amendment is not the same thing as the freedom of speech. People who value the freedom of speech aren't making arguments against these companies based on the law, they are stating this is a deterioration of liberal values.

Furthermore, the argument is that no corporation should have these powers that they do, thus the need to regulate or break up the large tech companies.

I want companies to be able to restrict speech though. That's what moderation is. I just want people to hold their moderation policies to a higher standard.

I would encourage you to read this article from the EFF. They do an excellent job of explaining material concerns regarding private censorship and chokepoints for the freedom of expression:

"Beyond Platforms: Private Censorship, Parler, and the Stack"

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/beyond-platforms-priva...

Thanks! That was a good read.

While I want spcial media platforms to preserve their right to moderate content, I'm still not sure how I feel about services further down the stack getting involved (like AWS did with Parler).

> HN mods focus more on how you say something rather than what you say

Exactly. I think it works because it makes discussion possible even for the most extreme ideas by reducing the emotional response.

People don’t become racists/terrorists/etc simply because someone told them so. Content removal of speech supporting these ideas doesn’t do any good.

However removing things that break the discussion works. Spamming, flooding, being very rude or provocative, all make the discussion impossible.

>HN mods focus more on how you say something rather than what you say.

This is how the news used to be regulated in the US. Before the Fairness Doctrine news was all over the place, during it was sane and rational, after .. well we're all living it.

When it comes to checks and balances, the news can be under regulated which allows for lies and corruption like we're seeing right now, it can be regulated in an unfair or bias way, or it can be regulated in a balanced way that doesn't restrict speech, it enhances it.

The US has already solved this problem for previous platforms. It needs to go back and put checks and balances back in, instead of letting corruption remove those checks and balances and keep it removed.

> not from private entities on their own private property.

Depends in the state. Free speech is protected in certain public parts of private property in California.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

There are also private highways and railroads, and yet the laws of the respective country apply there as well.

The laws are full of property restrictions that limit the ability of private individuals or companies to act in favor of the general interest. Our society depends on the state to impose such restrictions where necessary.

> The constitution protects our freedom of speech from the government, not from private entities on their own private property.

Yet, it's somehow still illegal for the phone company to cancel your phone service because you said something they didn't like while making a call on their telephone network ("private property").

You seem to be conflating constitutional rights violations by the government (1A) with the abhorrent (but legal!) practice of censorship by private organizations.

We've passed all sorts of laws to protect our communications systems and secure access thereto. This "but it's private property!" argument is a red herring.

Keeping with the analogy, if you call into a radio show with your phone, they aren't obligated to keep you on the air regardless if what you say. They can drop you at any time. It's their show and their hardware.

> Freedom of speech is not protected by the constitution on social media platforms and, frankly, I don't want 100% free speech on social media.

The issue here is that a few monopolists have managed to capture so much of "the Internet" that competition is nearly impossible.

The current situation seems untenable: tech oligarchs deciding arbitrary rules on their own whims and for their own purposes, with no due process, on platforms that are impossible to actually compete against.

The obvious solution is breaking up the monopolies so meaningful competition is possible, and continue allowing platforms to moderate as they see fit. But tech oligarchs write big checks to politicians, and it's hard to imagine there's much appetite for biting the hand that feeds.

Where does the article talk about freedom of speech? Especially as defined by the constitution? It's just making the argument that this speech should be allowed because it's relevant to the rest of the country.

The article doesn't talk about freedom of speech as protected by the constitution. I was just establishing background for my opinion on the broad subject of social media censorship, which is article is part of.

*incoming nitpick

>If you're civil, respectful, and on-topic you're seemingly allowed to present just about any idea.

HN heavily follows the religion of scientism. If you reject science, you will be downvoted nearly immediately. HN forgets that the reason that we don't fog our kids with DDT anymore is because 'settled science' was questioned. Yes I am generalizing by using "HN".

This is still, however, one of my favorite platforms to read.

Yeah. I'm more focused on mods removing content and suspending/banning users, though; not just other users downvoting posts.

That's the site's "algorithm" (ie, the audience) at work and not anything the mods are doing.

Downvotes aren’t the moderation the op is talking about.

Sufficiently powerful private corporations should be held to similar standards. It's a loophole in the first amendment, honestly - congress can't make a law punishing certain kinds of speech, but it can make Facebook's CEO show up to testify and threaten ruinous regulation if certain problems on the platform aren't handled.