Hacker News Reader

Comment by lettergram | Hacker News Reader

I’m a free speech absolutist - i.e. I believe in the first amendment, including the idea it should protect you from corporations. If you host a public square you must allow the speech.

There’s a very simple reason for that, freedom comes at a price. The price is an open, but critical mind. It would and is easy to silence opposition, it has been done for the past few years increasingly in the US. Truly it’s been happening even longer, the internet changed that dramatically.

To those that say “it’s enemy propaganda” who’s the enemy? Those striping you of rights — no? It’s fair to argue aggressors in a conflict are an enemy as well. Both can be true.

View on HN

A privately operated platform is, by definition, not a public square!

The problem is that on the modern internet, there are no public squares for hosting long-form video content. YouTube has a monopoly on the one big, private square. Something pretty much all YouTube content creators have been complaining about for years.

Pretty close to real life then?

Before computers, I could maybe broadcast in real-life to a few hundred people by talking directly in public square. And it would be fully up to me to convince people to show up somehow. And there would be no archive afterwards, unless I take care of this myself.

"Public square for hosting" was never a thing. I don't see why you expect this to suddenly appear.

> The problem is that on the modern internet, there are no public squares for hosting long-form video content

Was there ever a public square on the internet to host long form video content?

It’s really not that hard to host your own content on a server.

The internet itself is a public square.

That's not a problem.

Television stations were never under a governmental order to publish the words of every freakshow with an opinion. Neither were the radio stations, telegraphs, or the newspapers. You don't have a right to be heard. You don't have a right to a platform. You have the right to speech. How you go about distributing your speech is entirely on you.

There are no public squares on the internet. Even if you self host you can get your server shutdown since the entire internet requires a private entity to access

Have you considered that you have some autocratic tendencies yourself?

> I'm a free speech absolutist - i.e. I believe in the first amendment, including the idea it should protect you from corporations.

The Supreme Court has repeated ruled that the First Amendment extends towards editorial decisions in the sense that editors can choose what they publish and what they don't. Do you really believe people should be forced to distribute whatever you want them to?

> To those that say “it’s enemy propaganda” who’s the enemy?

The Russian government who would strip me and my fellow man of the right to free speech just like their stripped their own citizens.

> Do you really believe people should be forced to distribute whatever you want them to?

I think there’s a difference between “publisher” and “distributor”. Distributor can make decisions, to a degree, but we have “common carrier” status for a reason. If you’re given a defacto monopoly or monopolize a distribution channel, then no, I don’t think you have any right to block distribution. Again, they’ve taken the public square.

It would be like saying “Well, we sold all the parking meters in Chicago to foreigners (really, they did [1])”. Then that company decides to ban anyone who’s black from parking downtown. That would 100% be considered illegal. If we did it for a religious group, say Catholics - also 100% illegal. Now let’s say libertarians - guess that would be okay? No also illegal. You can’t take the public square from the people. The Supreme Court has ruled as such —- that said, I do think it needs to eventually clarify this; or more precisely legislation should be passed.

https://lastdropmugs.com/who-owns-chicago-parking-meters-llc...

> The Russian government who would strip me and my fellow man of the right to free speech just like their stripped their own citizens.

I agree Putin is a tyrant, but two tyrants don't make a democracy. I’d argue the US is no better at this point. Try questioning vaccines, 2020 election, Hunter Bidens laptop, protest at a school board, etc.

Again I’m an absolutist though... I think censorship is a tool of weak authoritarians.

> Try questioning vaccines, 2020 election, Hunter Bidens laptop, etc.

Why should a private company be compelled to carry and distribute any of this material at a cost to themselves?

Because they've been allowed to privatize what is effectively the commons.

In the US we had the Fairness Doctrine until Reagan. That was to try to make publishers show balanced views. Removing it led to Fox and MSNBC today.

Individuals are still quite capable of publishing material in the ole Web 1.0 way. Get a server, get some storage, and serve the data.

The commons of "being able to publish your own content" is still as available as it ever was.

YouTube (and others) monetized a single spot to host and discover content - but the commons still exists for anyone who wants to serve it.

YouTube itself isn't a publisher - they are a distributor. Publishers publish to YouTube for it to be distributed and monetized. The Fairness Doctrine applies to YouTube no more than it does to AT&T to insist that the phone calls that it carriers are balanced.

Fox and MSNBC are publishers. Charter, Comcast, AT&T, and Dish are distributors.

> but the commons still exists for anyone who wants to serve it.

How do you go to the public square and take a speaker phone and start talking in the internet?

Google: blocks content

Twitter: blocks content

Facebook blocks content

DuckDuckGo: Deranks (possibly blocks) content

Reddit: Blocks content

... do you see the problem?

Company towns still had to allow free speech, Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc are the defacto town squares and if I can't pick up a microphone and speak my mind; then it is not as it once was.

Claiming I can "start my own town" doesn't work in this context. Worse, if I do how do people find my town? Can I advertise on these locations (nope, probably not). What if I use AWS? Well probably like parlor infrastructure would be pulled, if it becomes popular.

These are all private companies that have some space that they pay for from common carriers and open up to people with constraints. They are more akin to shopping centers were the teenagers use to hang out in than public spaces.

It is not reasonable for random people to declare that some private company's comment section is a public square and thus can't or shouldn't be moderated.

If you want to grab a microphone and speak your mind, stand up your own server and do it. However, no private company owes you a thing.

Just because you want Twitter or YouTube or Reddit to be a public square doesn't make it so.

If you want to have the government compel private companies to do things, then say it. If you want the government to takeover private companies to provide the services you desire, then again, say it.

As it is, the companies that you are listing are working as private companies in a context of "they're not breaking any laws" and "it is not the government's place to be regulating what private citizens or private companies are saying or not saying."

I also believe that going down that path of "you must host all content that isn't illegal" to a private company is as equally authoritarian as "you must not publish any content about X".

As it is, the companies are making decisions about their ethics and bottom lines (from however their content is monetized) and working from there to decide what is and is not appropriate to host on their systems.

> They are more akin to shopping centers were the teenagers use to hang out in than public spaces.

That is literally a public space and you can protest there depending on the district (New York for instance). The better analogy would be banning a store from a state. Sure people can move to a new state, but you’re still banning discourse in the region everyone lives in. Then banning any advertisements, and you’ll actively take the wealth and infrastructure from the other state, if you can.

> Just because you want Twitter or YouTube or Reddit to be a public square doesn't make it so.

It’s devoid from any of our opinions. The question is where can I conduct commerce on the internet? The answer is one of these companies is almost certainly required to make a profit. That makes it the public square. It’s where commerce and information is shared. I can’t go to an alternative, I can’t build an alternative.

"However, no private company owes you a thing."

Technically true, but I have yet to see someone who actually believes it. Everyone has a limit somewhere, for some people that limit is wedding cakes for gay marriages, for others is discrimination on some certain characteristics of a person. The point is that this kind of policy at the end of the day makes our society slightly worse.

"it is not the government's place to be regulating what private citizens or private companies are saying or not saying."

They are doing that but indirectly as to not break any law. See the senate hearings about facebook for example. They can force that via blackmailing (if you do not restrict X we will make a law that increases your tax or responsibility for what users post or whatever, deny funding or provide funding to competitors, prosecute crimes that we ignored before, etc)

The Fairness Doctrine applied to holders of broadcast licenses only, not to publishers in general. Per Red Lion Broadcasting Co v FCC[1], the FCC's power to enforce this rule only applied to mediums where there were limited channels.

That is, the court found that since not everyone could have their own broadcast television channel, the FCC could (if it chose) enforce something like the fairness doctrine. Note, however, that such rules are unconstitutional when applied to newspapers[2], or any other medium where bandwidth is not limited.

> Removing it led to Fox and MSNBC today.

Fox and MSNBC are cable channels. The Fairness Doctrine never applied to cable channels, and a modern reincarnation that tried would be obviously unconstitutional.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_Broadcasting_Co._v._F...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Herald_Publishing_Co._v....

You're the best kind of right (technically), that law doesn't even come close to applying here and yet the argument still stands. Broadcasting has been usurped, mass media is not delivered over ATSC, but over a variety of PHYs, with IP/UDP/TCP/TLS/HTTP on top and your channel directory is privatized.

I agree (and have posted elsewhere in this discussion) that there's a problem that needs solving. Nonetheless, the Fairness Doctrine didn't do what the OP claimed, and couldn't be made to do what the OP wanted, and yes, I think that does fatally undermine the argument being made.

(Not to mention which, the current supreme court is much more protective of free speech than in previous decades, and particularly of free speech exercised via corporate forms. Realistically, the odds of an expanded Fairness Doctrine passing muster in this court are nil.)

All of which means that whatever the solution ends up being, it's really not going to look much like the old Fairness Doctrine. Which, again, doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist!

I think it's fair to say, "it's not profitable", but that's not the argument being made. Further, those "hot button" issues are the most profitable content.

> It would be like saying “Well, we sold all the parking meters in Chicago to foreigners (really, they did [1])”. Then that company decides to ban anyone who’s black from parking downtown.

Stopping black people from parking would basically eliminate access to downtown. A publisher/distributor (I think that line's a lot finer than you make it out to be, but whatever) refusing to publish content just means a writer has to find a different outlet for their media. They could, for instance, start their own website.

Part of free speech is the right to keep your mouth shut, so publishers have the right to not distribute material they don't agree with

> I agree Putin is a tyrant, but two tyrants don't make a democracy. I’d argue the US is no better at this point. Try questioning vaccines, 2020 election, Hunter Bidens laptop, protest at a school board, etc.

The absurdity of this when people are being arrested in Russia for protesting with blank signs. Go down to your local town hall with a sign about Hunter Biden's laptop giving you a vaccine to change your vote in the 2020 election, no goons will show up.

Is being better than Russia the gold standard for free speech?

Ah, the ad hominem. The best defense against intolerance is to directly attack others! /s

Should they be forced by law to allow non-violent ISIS propaganda on their platform? If not, on what principle have you made that distinction?

At some point in the development of democracies, free speech will be recognized as a civil right. For now, as long as it’s a private company, your right to free speech can be ignored.

Free speech absolutism has literally never been a thing anywhere on this planet at any time in the history of the world because it is neither thoughtful nor practical.

Doesn't the US make a point that even Nazi speech is protected, as long as they don't directly incite violence or commit violent acts? How come RT is less protected than Nazi speech, then?

Before you claim "they do incite violence" -- no: many of the now censored podcasts like Ahí Les Va never incited violence.

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/freedom-of-speec...

It's not less protected. RT has the same protection from the state and the judicial system as Nazi speech does. RTs problem isn't that their speech isn't protected, it's that others refuse to help them distribute it - which is generally their legal right (and if they broke contracts saying otherwise in the process, RT is free to sue them).

I find that line of reasoning very unconvincing.

If speech is deplatformed in the Western world, even if not outright illegal, it is effectively banned. You don't get fined or arrested for watching, you just can't access it.

It's still not there -- you can still access RT's website and there are alternatives to YouTube... for now. How long till you cannot access them either.

It boggles the mind. So Russia blocks Facebook and Twitter, and we rightly repudiate it. Though I guess when we make RT and affiliates inaccessible it's ok?

I believe the difference between the author not having some of his distribution channels anymore and being able to complain about it vs the author being in jail (or worse) is quite relevant. As is the difference of being able to take his content and give it to people in other ways or not.

And if you talk "protected", it's pretty clearly a legal argument, and that works as outlined (in the US). "Should Google/... have banned them" is a good and interesting question, but not quite the same.

Yes, you are right. It's not legally banned, it's just being gradually made inaccessible to Western audiences. Whatever happened to the marketplace of ideas, plurality of voices, and other liberal ideas?

> Whatever happened to the marketplace of ideas, plurality of voices, and other liberal ideas?

Nothing happened to it. You're perfectly within your rights to go stand in a public marketplace and yell until you're blue in the face about whatever you please. "Free speech" does not and has never meant that any company or individual of your choosing is compelled to amplify what you have to say.

I don't think the analogy fits, since these are voices and outlets that are being effectively made inaccessible to Western audiences.

There's the purist view of free speech and then there's the practical one ("is it free speech if none can hear it"?). I'm obviously talking about the most important one: the latter.

> If speech is deplatformed in the Western world, even if not outright illegal, it is effectively banned. You don't get fined or arrested for watching, you just can't access it.

Sure you can. Any loon can run a website or do things the old fashioned way (standing on a soapbox in a public square). You're perfectly entitled to seek the loons out; what you aren't entitled to are private subsidies that lower the otherwise basic level of effort required on your part.

I'm not sure you will always be able to, if current trends continue. Deplatforming from everywhere that matters is effectively banning. We worry when Russia and China do it, and we should also worry when the US and Europe do it too.

PS: we are talking about news coverage and outlets, not "loons". Please don't add unwanted "color" to this debate.

You'll note that in countries like Russia and China, you can end up in prison for contradicting the state or publishing information that doesn't comport with its narrative. I don't think there's any meaningful sense in which a nastygram from Facebook telling you that you've been banned can compare to the material threats that such countries hold over the heads of their citizens. Our worry (which often feels performative) is largely rooted in that.

If you want to fight against "current trends," then you need to stop delivering undue power to private corporations and expecting the government to haphazardly legislate you out of your problems (the basis for that legislation is left as a continued exercise, given that there is absolutely no 1A basis for compelling companies to distribute speech.)

> You'll note that in countries like Russia and China, you can end up in prison for contradicting the state or publishing information that doesn't comport with its narrative.

Yes, in the West we're not quite there yet. We are just simply removing access to dissenting voices. Only for those we deem "enemies", of course. For now.

> you need to stop delivering undue power to private corporations and expecting the government to haphazardly legislate you out of your problems

I'm not sure where this non sequitur comes from, but regardless: which government? From which country do you think I'm from?

I am quite certain they do not oppose laws against making false statements to investigators, lying about income/losses on tax returns or shareholder reports, making violent threats, and etc.

As you say, there are no free speech absolutists.

Those things are unlawful because of the effect they directly cause to the real world.

Speech, in general, is just sharing information - it does not cause any direct effect on the real world (actions of other people with whom we have shared the information do not count as direct effects, or otherwise the legal system would get really messy).

>Speech, in general, is just sharing information - it does not cause any direct effect on the real world

If this were true, free speech wouldn't be worth defending or even debating. Speech has effects, which makes it valuable.

Every action has effects on the world. If we go down that path we might as well ban thoughtcrime, because criminal thoughts have effects on your mind, making you more probable to actually commit a crime.

Note the word "direct" in the sentence you have qouted.

I can tell you’ve never read the constitution and any of the founding documents. The US makes a point that even nazism is allowed to be discussed here. Or was until very recently.

It has at times been stripped away, but the ideals are always something to strive for

This is not a thoughtful reply to the parent. He's correct, and doesn't mention Naziism at all.

I guess I disagree? I was pointing out that throughout the history of the United States it’s actively supported discussion of topics disallowed elsewhere; including nazism which is banned as “hate speech” throughout the rest of the west.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/sk...

But being able to discuss Naziism isn't free speech absolutism. You admit that your "absolutist" views are far beyond what the US protects, and so the US today isn't a free speech absolutist nation, despite having what are probably the most significant speech protections of any nation in history. Parents point remains true.

I can point to three separate 1919 USSC court cases alone that blow a giant hole in your theory. What YOU think is free speech in this country didn't actually even begin to exist until 1969.

It's a fun delineation. In 1968, the banning of draft card burning was ruled to not be a denial of speech rights. In 1969, black armbands were allowed as political speech for the first time and the KKK was allowed to preach in favor of violence as long as they didn't specifically mention when or where the violence was gonna happen.

The modern interpretation of what constitutes free speech in this country is less than 60 years old. We're less than 80 years from another case where they ruled that kids had no choice but to recite the pledge of allegiance.

Just because you have this pipe dream of the US being founded by some infallible saints doesn't mean they weren't a bunch of selfish pricks who were interested in protecting their own interests.

It depends on which of the founders you read, it was always hotly contested and depending who was in power pre-1830 which policies were followed. I agree after the civil war free-speech was effectively eroded. BUT as you pointed out free speech started to be reconstituted after WWII. I personally would argue free speech started to degrade again in the 90's and has continued until today.

It's an ebb and flow, largely based on politics at the time. That said, it's also not uniform across the country.

It didn't "start to be reconstituted" after WWII.

It literally didn't exist in its modern form until the civil rights movement and the liberalization of the Court. The idea that it's "started to degrade again" is ridiculous. We even allow money to be speech now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com