100% agree. Freedom of speech protects you _from_ government. The idea that government should compel commercial or private entities to give all voices a megaphone is misguided.
"Oligopoly".
With the added problem that the big platforms are all subject to US "moral" censorship. Which a takeover by Musk won't fix.
Before global social networks your opinion didn’t matter either. And that was probably a good thing. People are entitled to their opinions but most peoples opinions are idiotic and shouldn’t be broadcast around the world to be picked up and amplified by other idiots.
> Before global social networks your opinion didn’t matter either. And that was probably a good thing. People are entitled to their opinions but most peoples opinions are idiotic and shouldn’t be broadcast around the world to be picked up and amplified by other idiots.
Oh but who decides what opinions are idiotic? This is how the idea of free speech emerged :)
This is a valid question. The answer is clearly not a firehose—free speech absolutist forums are selected against by users for the toxic pits they devolve into.
Multiple forums and the gating mechanisms of wealth and literacy were the Enlightenment era’s filters. We don’t want nor have those any more.
At scale, with naive ML clustering algorithms that also prioritize engagement... that devolves into bubbles.
(I think that's still the right answer, but the implementations need work.)
I'll gladly clear this one up for you. It is: whoever decided the T&Cs of the platform you're using - the ones you agreed to when you signed up.
If you're banned from Twitter for posting white supremacist hate speech, paedophilia, for organizing targetted harrassment or anything else Twitter deems contrary to their T&Cs remember that (depending on where you live) while you may have the right to express yourself, I have the right as the operator of a platform not to listen to you or have you on my platform.
What most of the people whining about being booted from Twitter are upset about is that they aren't able to annoy the people they want to anymore. I'm fine with this.
Otherwise it stays until consensus.
The edge cases pale in comparison to the broadly accepted manipulation of a near-majority. And furthermore compared to the point-of-no-return where the majority is sufficiently manipulated.
Edit: downstream comments emphasizing the edge cases must've missed my last paragraph. The improvement only has to be better than doing nothing. Right now doing nothing is arguably acutely affecting almost 50% of the US population. No way the edge cases add up to that.
This is, in essence, selecting for experts spouting popular opinions. That’s a dangerous incentive model. (All before we even get to the question of delineating the experts.)
'I wish I'd been jabbed'...
It's like, other people would rather ignore reality, life and death, than budge on their uneducated opinions.
Ego is the enemy.
I'm no so sure about that. Since leaving social media, I've become quite involved in local politics. I now know some state legislators on a first-name basis and multiple directors of state departments in multiple states. I can call up people I've helped get elected and get my thoughts right to them. I find my opinion to effect much more change than it did when I was shouting into the digital void.
How about regular citizens who voted for those people but didn't "help them get elected"? Do they get to voice their opinions? Or what you're saying is that your politicians only serve those who directly donated resources (time is a resource) to them? Even though they should theoretically serve their whole constituency?
Like much in life, half the battle is just showing up.
You don't need social media to inform your representative of your opinions--and quite frankly, more direct communication is probably more effective in informing your representative of your opinions than social media.
Oh, irony..
come on man
This view somewhat misses the point. If you get on the big platforms and become famous, TODAY, you might have an opinion that matters to quite a few people. What about BEFORE? What platform were the big youtubers using in 2002? The big instagram influencers, where were their voices being heard in 1998? Paraphrasing you, "their opinions didn't exist".
At the point defined by the letter of the law
What about cases where the defendant can’t pony up the money to sue? What about cases where the defendant has no viable way to sue in the US, where the social media networks mostly reside?
> What about cases where the defendant can’t pony up the money to sue?
You don't sue abusers and people who send you death threats you report them to the police
Well, then, it's interesting that Spike Lee's comments were judged to be threatening harassment (he settled after legal action was taken against him and a judge ruled the case could proceed), yet he was never banned or removed from twitter.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/nov/12/spike-lee-sued-...
Let me be clear, this isn't about the Martin case -- this is about an uninvolved person who had nothing to do with the case at all being singled out for harassment by Spike Lee. And @Jack thought it was just fine. This isn't about supporting some stealth agenda; it's about not telling a posse to attack some innocent old man.
Social Media actually was a huge "democratization" of the ability to give a very large voice to some very minority views.
Previously we had subjective - but real - barriers to having a voice.
As someone who lives in a deep red state, I can tell you that the banning of various alt-right voices from mainstream social media has amplified their appeal among those inclined to listen, not eliminated it. There are plenty of channels for sharing your ideas besides Facebook and Twitter, and they use them.
--
But we live in a Meta-gopoly. Basically a control system by pseudo-chosen monopolies in various verticals that are all run by NGOs, but in bed with GOs.... with a revolving door of influence.
Look at the revolving door between FB and the NSA, or the fact that Amazon is building, running GovCloud, or that the CEO owns one of the big media firms, and that he is able to get clearance for satellites and rocket launches...
The non-existent lines between global corporate influence and which governments either benefit or suffer from the tech reach is quite disturbing.
Everyone wants to reduce everything to laws for some reason when the whole reason they are laws is because we value them culturally. The law is a last resort. We shouldn't be setting societal boundaries merely on extreme limits of law.
Trying to fix these cultural issues at gunpoint via courts is no better than trying to fix culture via censorship and social isolation.
Then there is just a marketing angle of saying you're free speech to pull users from the platform that you think is against free speech.
The whole thing feels really shaky as a genuine movement and feels more like regulating companies they don't like.
Either way, we are shaping the landscape of free speech, when that's how the vast majority of communication, discussion and organizing happens.
That said, I don't know how someone looks at the history of reddit and still wants uncheck free speech.
Then it would be a clearly different situation.
If you think that social medias speech policies are developed in a vacuum from influence from politicians, then you're mistaken. How could it be? Imagine being a CEO and getting dragged in front of Congress every 6 months to explain yourself. Or politicians calling your platform a threat to democracy and threatening to break you up. You think that would have no impact on your speech policies?
What would government restriction on speech look like if not soft (effective) influence on big media companies?
https://news.yahoo.com/biden-administration-flagging-problem...
Moving the goalpost. Nobody claimed private companies should ignore government sources.
You asked about “the government tell[ing] private platforms what speech is acceptable.” That would be a First Amendment violation.
> What would government restriction on speech look like if not soft (effective) influence on big media companies?
Flippantly: Russia.
Less flippantly: freedoms exist in balance. Taking an absolutist stance on individual speech curtails freedom of association. In practice, I suspect it will make most social media unusable in its current form. (Which may be for the worst.)
You asked about “the government tell[ing] private platforms what speech is acceptable.” That would be a First Amendment violation.
You saw the parent's linked article about the White House flagging posts for Facebook, right? Are you trying to make the argument that it's OK if the government "suggests" what Facebook/Twitter should do with posts on their platform, but they're only crossing the line if they _make_ Facebook/Twitter flag certain posts? I think it's a distinction without difference. The usual scenario I give people in this situation is, how would your view on this change if Trump "suggested" how Facebook could flag certain posts and then Facebook followed through with it. No demands, just "suggestions." Still OK with this relationship between the government and a private company?
No. Nobody was. That’s why it was moving the goalpost [1].
What is Musk's definition of open? How is that any better than the status quo? Because your bias happens to overlap with Musk's? Given his treatment of whistleblowers and employees at his current companies it's not at all clear that he actually values openness and free speech.
Free speech is a fundamental human right, outside of any document.
If the government charters corporations that suppress free speech, then they are effectively making a law that abridges free speech.