The more important point (and this is really like a high school civics debate) is that the government and/or a big tech company shouldn't decide what people are "allowed" to say. There's tons of dumb stuff online, the only thing dumber is the state dictating how I'm supposed to think. People seem to forget that sometimes someone they don't agree with is in power. What if they started banning tylenol-autism sceptical accounts?

▲ mapontosevenths 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> the government and/or a big tech company shouldn't decide what people are "allowed" to say.

That "and/or" is doing a lot of work here. There's a huge difference between government censorship and forcing private companies to host content they don't want to host on servers they own.

Then again, Alphabet is now claiming they did want to host it and mean old Biden pressured them into pulling it so if we buy that, maybe it doesn't matter.

> What if they started banning tylenol-autism sceptical accounts?

What if it's pro-cannibalism or pedophilia content? Everyone has a line, we're all just arguing about where exactly we think that line should be.

▲

int_19h 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> There's a huge difference between government censorship and forcing private companies to host content they don't want to host on servers they own.

It really depends. I remember after the Christchurch mosque shootings, there was a scramble to block the distribution of the shooter's manifesto. In some countries, the government could declare the content illegal directly, but in others, such as Australia, they didn't have pre-existing laws sufficiently wide to cover that, and so what happened in practice is that ISPs "proactively" formed a voluntary censorship cartel, acting in lockstep to block access to all copies of the manifesto, while the government was working on the new laws. If the practical end result is the same - a complete country block on some content - does it really matter whether it's dressed up as public or private censorship?

And with large tech companies like Alphabet and Meta, it is a particularly pointed question given how much the market is monopolized.

▲

onecommentman 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I wonder, in the case of mass violence events that were used as advertisement for the (assumed) murderer’s POV, whether there should be an equivalent of a House of Lords for the exceptional situation of censoring what in any other context would be breaking news. You don’t want or need (or be able) to censor a manifesto for all time, but you would want to prevent the (assumed) murderers from gaining any momentum from their heinous acts. So a ninety day (but only 90 day) embargo on public speech from bad actors, with the teeth of governmental enforcement, sounds pretty reasonable to me. Even cleverer to salt the ether with “leaks” that would actively suppress any political momentum for the (presumed) murderers during the embargo period, but with the true light of day shining after three months.

	▲	int_19h 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It doesn't sound reasonable to me tbh. If anything, reading those manifestos is a good way to learn just how nutty those people are in the first place. At the same time, having it accessible prevents speculation about motives, which can lead to false justification for politically oppressive measures. OTOH if the goal is to prevent copycats then I don't see the point of a 90-day embargo. People who are likely to take that kind of content seriously enough to emulate are still going to do so. Tarrant, for example, specifically referenced Anders Breivik.

▲

MostlyStable 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It can simultaneously be legal/allowable for them to ban speech, and yet also the case that we should criticize them for doing so. The first amendment only restricts the government, but a culture of free speech will also criticize private entities for taking censorious actions. And a culture of free speech is necessary to make sure that the first amendment is not eventually eroded away to nothing.

▲

plantwallshoe 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Isn’t promoting/removing opinions you care about a form of speech?

If I choose to put a Kamala sign in my yard and not a Trump sign, that’s an expression of free speech.

If the marketing company I own decides to not work for causes I don’t personally support, that’s free speech.

If the video hosting platform I’m CEO of doesn’t host unfounded anti-vax content because I think it’s a bad business move, is that not also free speech?

▲

AfterHIA 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The crux of this is a shift in context (φρόνησις) where-in entities like marketing companies or video hosting platforms are treated like moral agents which act in the same manner as individuals. We can overcome this dilemma by clarifying that generally, "individuals with the power to direct or control the speech of others run the risk of gross oppression by being more liberal with a right to control or stifle rather than erring on the side of propagating a culture of free expression whether this power is derived from legitimate political ascension or the concentration of capital."

In short-- no. Your right is to positively assert, "Trump sign" not, "excludes all other signs as a comparative right" even though this is a practical consequence of supporting one candidate and not others. "Owning a marketing company" means that you most hold to industrial and businesss ethics in order to do business in a common economic space. Being the CEO of any company that serves the democratic public means that one's ethical obligations must reflect the democratic sentiment of the public. It used to be that, "capitalism" or, "economic liberalism" meant that the dollars and eyeballs would go elsewhere as a basic bottom line for the realization of the ethical sentiment of the nation-state. This becomes less likely under conditions of monopoly and autocracy. The truth is that Section 230 created a nightmare. If internet platforms are now ubiquitous and well-developed aren't the protections realized under S230 now obsolete?

It would be neat if somebody did, "you can put any sign in my yard to promote any political cause unless it is specifically X/Trump/whatever." That would constitute a unique form of exclusionary free speech.

▲

plantwallshoe 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> Being the CEO of any company that serves the democratic public means that one's ethical obligations must reflect the democratic sentiment of the public.

How does one determine the democratic sentiment of the public, especially a public that is pretty evenly ideologically split? Seems fraught with personal interpretation (which is arguably another form of free speech.)

	▲	AfterHIA 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Let's think pragmatically and think of, "democracy" as a way of living which seeks to maximize human felicity and minimize human cruelty. In a fair society there would be/is a consensus that at a basic level our social contract is legitimized by these commitments to that. The issue stems from splitting hairs about what human felicity constitutes. This can be resolved as recognizing that some dignified splitting of these hairs is a necessary component of that felicity. This presents in our society as the public discourse and the contingent but distinct values of communities in their efforts to realize themselves. I'm reminded of that old line by Tolstoy-- something like, "happy families are all happy for precisely the same reasons; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." The point from an Adam Smith perspective is that healthy societies might all end up tending toward the same end by widely different means: Chinese communists might achieve superior cooperation and the realization of their values as, "the good life" by means dissimilar to the Quaker or the African tribesperson. The trick is seeing that the plurality of living forms and their competing values is not a hinderance to cooperation and mutual well-being but an opportunity for extended and renewed discourses about, "what we would like to be as creatures." Worth mentioning: https://sites.pitt.edu/~rbrandom/Courses/Antirepresentationa...

▲

lmz 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Agreed. If I have a TV network and think these anti-government hosts on my network are bad for business, that is also freedom of speech.

▲

rubyfan 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe. If it is independent of government coercion.

▲

Jensson 10 hours ago | parent [-]

But Youtube did this after government coercion, so what is the difference?

▲

alphabettsy 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I think you should look up the definition of coercion.

	▲	Jensson 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Have you seen the emails the Biden Administration sent to Youtube? Here is a quote verbatim that they sent to Youtube: > we want to be sure that you have a handle on vaccine hesitancy generally and are working toward making the problem better. This is a concern that is shared at the highest (and I mean highest) levels of the White House Saying you want to make sure they will censor these videos is a threat, and then they said that Biden was behind this to add legitimacy to the threat. If it was just a friendly greeting why would they threaten youtube with Bidens name? If youtube did this willingly there would be no need to write such a threatening message saying they want to make sure Youtube censors these. You can read the whole report here if you wanna see more: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-j... And if you don't see that as a threat, imagine someone in the trump administration sent that, do you still think its not a threat? Of course its a threat, it makes no sense to write that way otherwise, you would just say you wanted to hear how it goes not say you wanna make sure they do this specific thing and threaten them with the presidents powers.

▲

crtasm 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I hope to see the anti-government hosts before they're let go. The channels I've tried so far only seem to have boring old anti-corruption, anti-abuse of power and anti-treating groups of people as less than human hosts.

▲

AfterHIA 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You use terms (other as well) like, "own, is the CEO of, and the owner of" and this speaks to the ironically illiberal shift we've seen in contemporary politics. Historically one needed to justify, "why" some person is put into a position of authority or power-- now as a result of the Randroid Neoliberal Assault™ it's taken for granted that if, "John Galt assumed a position of power that he has a right to exercise his personal will even at the behest of who he serves or at the behest of ethics" as an extension of, "the rights of the individual."

I want to recapitulate this sentiment as often and as widely as possible-- Rand and her cronies know as much about virtue, freedom, and Aristotle as they do about fornicating; not much.

▲

lkey 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Or it might be the case that that 'culture' is eroding the thing it claims to be protecting. https://www.popehat.com/p/how-free-speech-culture-is-killing...

	▲	AfterHIA 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This. Even if we have concrete protections in our society it takes a society of people committed to a common democratic cause and common functional prosperity that prevents there from being abuses of the right to speak and so on (..) This isn't complicated and this wasn't always controversial. I've already described above that even in this thread there's a sentiment which is that, "as long as somebody has gained coercive power legitimately then it is within their right to coerce." I see terms thrown around like, "if somebody owns" or, "if somebody is the CEO of..." which speaks to the growing air of illiberality an liberal autocranarianism which is a direct result of the neoliberal assault founding and funding thousands of Cato Institutes, Adam Smith Societies, and Heritage Foundations since the neoliberal turn in the late 1960's. We've legitimized domination ethics as an extension of the hungry rights of pseudotyrants and the expense of people in general. I wonder what people in general might one day do about this? I wonder if there's a historical precedent for what happens when people face oppression and the degradation of common cultural projects? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution#October_Rev... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

▲

AfterHIA 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Bingo. This is Adam Smith's whole point in the second half of, "Wealth Of Nations" that nobody bothers to read in lieu of the sentiments of the Cato Institute and the various Adam Smith societies. Nations produce, "kinds of people" that based on their experience of a common liberty and prosperity will err against tyranny. Economics and autocracy in our country is destroying our culture of, "talk and liberality." Discourse has become, "let's take turns attacking each other and each other's positions."

The American civilization has deep flaws but has historically worked toward, "doing what was right."

https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/book-v-of-the-reven...

▲

SantalBlush 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Are you in favor of HN allowing advertisements, shilling, or spam in these threads? Because those things are free speech. Would you like to allow comments about generic ED pills?

I simply don't believe people who say they want to support a culture of free speech on a media or social media site. They haven't really thought about what that means.

	▲	AfterHIA 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Without being crude I think they stopped, "thinking about that means" in any positive sense a long time ago. Cultures of discourse and criticism are never good for the powerful. The goal is to create a culture when anyone can say anything but with no meaningful social consequences negative or positive. I can call Trump a pedophile all day on my computer interface and maybe somebody else will see it but the Google and Meta machine just treat it as another engagement dollar. These dollars are now literally flowing to the White House in the form of investment commitments by acting Tech Czar Zuckerberg. While I'm with my dudes in computer space-- it all starts with the passing of the Mansfield Amendment. You want to know why tech sucks and we haven't made any foundational breakthroughs for decades? The privatization of technology innovation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirates_of_Silicon_Valley https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/narrative#chapter-iv-tumul...

▲

asadotzler 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Will you criticize my book publishing company for not publishing and distributing your smut short story?

	▲	user34283 11 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		No, but I will criticize Apple and Google for banning smut apps. If those two private companies would host all legal content, this could be a thriving market. Somehow big tech and payment processors get to censor most software.
	▲	AfterHIA 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Perhaps and if you have some kind of monopoly than definitely. Things beings, "yours" isn't some fundamental part of the human condition. CEOs serve their employees and shareholders and the ethics of the business space they operate in. Owners are ethically obligated to engage in fair business practices. I'm sick up to my neck of this sentiment that if John Galt is holding a gun he necessarily has the right to shoot it at somebody. Modern democracies aren't founded on realist ethics or absolute commitments to economic liberalism as totalizing-- they're founded on a ethical balance between the real needs of people, the real potential for capital expansion, and superior sentiments about the possibilities of the human condition. As a kid that supported Ron Paul's bid for the Republican nomination as a 16-year-old I can't help but feel that libertarian politics has ruined generations of people by getting them to accept autocracy as, "one ethical outcome to a free society." It isn't. The irony in me posting this will be lost on most: https://www.uschamber.com/

▲

mitthrowaway2 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The middle ground is when a company becomes a utility. The power company can't simply disconnect your electricity because they don't feel like offering it to you, even though they own the power lines. The phone company can't disconnect your call because they disagree with what you're saying, even though they own the transmission equipment.

▲

briHass 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The line should be what is illegal, which, at least in the US, is fairly permissive.

The legal process already did all the hard work of reaching consensus/compromise on where that line is, so just use that. At least with the legal system, there's some degree of visibility and influence possible by everyone. It's not some ethics department silently banning users they don't agree with.

	▲	11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

AfterHIA 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's a literal world of literature both contemporary and classical which points to the idea that concentrations of power in politics and concentrations of wealth and power in industry aren't dissimilar. I think there are limits to this as recent commentaries by guys like Zizek seem to suggest that the, "strong Nation-State" is a positive legacy of the European enlightenment. I think this is true, "when it is."

Power is power. Wealth is power. Political power is power. The powerful should not control the lives or destinies of the less powerful. This is the most basic description of contemporary democracy but becomes controversial when the Randroids and Commies alike start to split hairs about how the Lenins and John Galts of the world have a right to use power to further their respective political objectives.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm (Leviathan by Hobbes)

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50922 (Perpetual Peace by Kant)

https://www.heritage-history.com/site/hclass/secret_societie...

▲

mc32 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The thing is that people will tell you it wasn’t actually censorship because for them it was only the government being a busy body nosey government telling the tech corps about a select number of people violating their terms (nudge nudge please do something)… so I think the and/or is important.

	▲	AfterHIA 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Great post mc32 (I hope you're a Wayne Kramer fan!) This private-public tyranny that's going on right now. The FCC can't directly tell Kimmel, "you can't say that" they can say, "you may have violated this or this technical rule which..." This is how Project 2025 will play out in terms of people's real experience. You occupy all posts with ideologically sympathetic players and the liberality people are used to becomes ruinous as, "the watchers" are now, "watching for you." The irony is that most conservatives believe this is just, "what the left was doing in the 2010's in reverse" and I don't have a counterargument for this other than, "it doesn't matter; it's always bad and unethical." Real differences between Colbert and Tate taken for granted.

▲ JumpCrisscross 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> the government and/or a big tech company shouldn't decide what people are "allowed" to say

This throws out spam and fraud filters, both of which are content-based moderation.

Nobody moderates anything isn’t unfortunately a functional option. Particularly if the company has to sell ads.

▲ ncallaway 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As with others, I think your "and/or" between government and "big tech" is problematic.

I think government censorship should be strictly prohibited. I think "company" censorship is just the application of the first amendment.

Where I think the problem lies with things like YouTube is the fact that we have _monopolies_, so there is no "free market" of platforms.

I think we should be addressing "big tech" censorship not by requiring tech companies to behave like a government, but rather by preventing any companies from having so much individual power that we _need_ them to behave like a government.

We should have aggressive anti-trust laws, and interoperability requirements for large platforms, such that it doesn't matter if YouTube decides to be censorious, because there are 15 other platforms that people can viably use instead.

▲ ben_w an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> There's tons of dumb stuff online, the only thing dumber is the state dictating how I'm supposed to think

  I've seen stupidity on the internet you wouldn't believe.
  Time Cube rants — four simultaneous days in one rotation — burning across static-filled CRTs.
  Ponzi pyramids stretching into forever, needing ten billion souls to stand beneath one.
  And a man proclaiming he brought peace in wars that never were, while swearing the President was born on foreign soil.
  All those moments… lost… in a rain of tweets.

But even that dumb stuff aside: there's two ways for a government to silence the truth: censorship, and propaganda.

We've got LLMs now, letting interested parties (government or not) overwhelm everyone with an endless barrage of the worst, cheapest, lowest quality AI slop, the kind that makes even AI proponents like me go "ah, I see what you mean about it being autocomplete", because even the worst of that by quality is still able to bury any bad news story just as effectively as any censorship. Too much noise and not enough signal, is already why I'm consuming far less YouTube these days, why I gave up on Twitter when it was still called that, etc.

And we have AI that's a lot better at holding a conversation than just the worst, cheapest, lowest quality AI slop. We've already seen LLMs are able to induce psychosis in some people just by talking to them, and that was, so far as we can tell, accidental. How long will it be before a developer chooses to do this on purpose, and towards a goal of their choice? Even if it's just those who are susceptible, there's a lot of people.

What's important is the freedom to share truth, no matter how uncomfortable, and especially when it's uncomfortable for those with power. Unfortunately, what we humans actually share the most is gossip, which is already a poor proxy for truth and is basically how all the witch hunts, genocides, and other moral-panic-induced horrors of history happened.

It is all a mess; it is all hard; don't mistake the proxy (free speech in general) for the territory (speak truth to power, I think?); censorship is simultaneously bad and the only word I know for any act which may block propaganda which is also bad.

▲ AfterHIA 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Another way of articulating this: "concentrations of power and wealth should not determine the speech or political sentiments of the many."

My fear is that this is incredibly uncontroversial this is until it's not-- when pushes becomes shoves we start having debates about what are, "legitimate" concentrations of power (wealth) and how that legitimacy in itself lets us, "tolerate what we would generally condemn as intolerable." I feel we need to take a queue from the Chomsky's of the world and decree:

"all unjustified concentrations of power and wealth are necessarily interested in control and as such we should aggressively and purposefully refuse to tolerate them at all as a basic condition of democratic living..."

This used to be, "social democracy" where these days the Democratic Party in the United States' motto is more, "let us make deals with the devil because reasons and things." People have the power. We are the people. Hare fucking Krsna.

▲ heavyset_go 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is just a reminder that we're both posting on one the most heavily censored, big tech-sponsored spaces on the internet, and arguably, that's what allows for you to have your civics debate in earnest.

What you are arguing for is a dissolution of HN and sites like it.

▲ asadotzler 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No one in Big Tech decides what you are allowed to say, they can only withhold their distribution of what you say.

As a book publisher, should I be required to publish your furry smut short stories? Of course not. Is that infringing on your freedom of speech? Of course not.

▲

AfterHIA 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If the furry smut people became the dominant force in literature and your company was driven out of business fairly for not producing enough furry smut would that too constitute censorship?

I want to see how steep this hill you're willing to die on is. What's that old saying-- that thing about the shoe being on the other foot?

▲

mitthrowaway2 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No, they ban your account and exclude you from the market commons if they don't like what you say.

▲

mulmen 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes that’s how free markets work. Your idea has to be free to die in obscurity.

Compelled speech is not free speech. You have no right to an audience. The existence of a wide distribution platform does not grant you a right to it.

These arguments fall completely flat because it’s always about the right to distribute misinformation. It’s never about posting porn or war crimes or spam. That kind of curation isn’t contentious.

Google didn’t suddenly see the light and become free speech absolutists. They caved to political pressure and are selectively allowing the preferred misinformation of the current administration.

▲

int_19h 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A market that has companies with the size - or rather, the market dominance - of the likes of Google is not meaningfully a free market. The fundamental problem isn't whether Google censors or not, nor what it censors, but the very fact that its decision on this matter is so impactful.

▲

mulmen 8 hours ago | parent [-]

If you want to debate anti trust and regulation then let’s do it. Google’s dominance is bad for our society, culture, and our economy but it’s not a reason to erode our fundamental rights. Compelling free speech will do nothing to erode Google’s market share or encourage competition. In fact it will further entrench Google’s dominance.

▲

int_19h 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You're right, but freedom of speech is also a valid angle from which to debate antitrust and regulation. Indeed, I don't want Google to be compelled to platform others - I want platforms that large to not exist in the first place. But pointing out that censorship by big tech megacorps has very real and very negative effects that can be comparable to outright government censorship in some cases is a part of that fight.

	▲	mulmen 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> You're right, but freedom of speech is also a valid angle from which to debate antitrust and regulation. The effect of YouTube’s content moderation size on speech is a symptom of weak antitrust policy, not of free expression. So sure, mention the effect on speech if you want but don’t ignore the solution.

▲

Dylan16807 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How is compelling google to censor less going to entrench their dominance? If it's purely by making them suck less, I'm okay with that risk.

And I don't think it erodes any fundamental rights to put restrictions on huge monopolies.

▲

mulmen 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> How is compelling google to censor less going to entrench their dominance?

If you force Google alone to amplify certain speech then what competitive advantage does a less censorious service provide?

> If it's purely by making them suck less, I'm okay with that risk.

Define “suck less”. Now ask yourself if you are comfortable with someone you completely disagree with defining what sucks less.

> And I don't think it erodes any fundamental rights to put restrictions on huge monopolies.

You’re talking about antitrust, not free expression.

Compelled speech is an erosion of the first amendment. You may think that erosion is acceptable but you can’t deny it exists.

▲

Dylan16807 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> If you force Google alone to amplify certain speech then what competitive advantage does a less censorious service provide?

If that's the only "advantage" another service has, I don't care if it has no competitive advantage. If it offers anything else then that's the advantage.

Seriously this idea is super weird to me. There are plenty of reasons to avoid too much regulation. But "don't force company X to make their users happier because happy users won't leave" is a terrible reason.

>Define “suck less”. Now ask yourself if you are comfortable with someone you completely disagree with defining what sucks less.

A big part of the "if" is that people are making their own evaluations.

> You’re talking about antitrust

I am not talking about antitrust. I'm saying that the bigger and more powerful a corporation gets the further it is from a human and human rights.

> Compelled speech is an erosion of the first amendment. You may think that erosion is acceptable but you can’t deny it exists.

In this case, barely at all, and it's the same one we already have for common carriers.

▲

mulmen 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> If that's the only "advantage" another service has, I don't care if it has no competitive advantage. If it offers anything else then that's the advantage.

The value proposition of a less censorious YouTube alternative is exactly that it is less censorious. You’re seemingly arguing against free markets.

> Seriously this idea is super weird to me. There are plenty of reasons to avoid too much regulation. But "don't force company X to make their users happier because happy users won't leave" is a terrible reason.

The problem with compelled speech is that the government should not be in the business of deciding what kind of speech makes people happy.

> A big part of the "if" is that people are making their own evaluations.

People should have the freedom to choose the media they consume. Compelled speech takes that choice away from them by putting the government in the position of making that decision for the people. This distorts the marketplace of ideas.

I don’t have time to read every comment or email or watch every video. Private content moderation is a value add and a form of expression. We need competition in that space, not government restriction.

> I am not talking about antitrust. I'm saying that the bigger and more powerful a corporation gets the further it is from a human and human rights.

If your problem with Google is how much influence they have then yes, you are talking about antitrust. That’s the regulatory mechanism by which excessive corporate influence can be restricted.

> In this case, barely at all, and it's the same one we already have for common carriers.

“A little” is still more than nothing which was your previous assertion. You may be comfortable with the rising temperature of our shared pot of water but I say it is a cause for concern.

	▲	Dylan16807 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> You’re seemingly arguing against free markets. You're only talking about the people that like a feature. Why do you need a free market for that if every company can do it? Not everything has to be a free market. There are reasons to use competition but not this reason. > the government should not be in the business of deciding what kind of speech makes people happy I did not say or intentionally imply they should. > People should have the freedom to choose the media they consume. Compelled speech takes that choice away Not if the compelling is just that they can't ban content. That only adds choice. > If your problem with Google is how much influence they have then yes, you are talking about antitrust. That’s the regulatory mechanism by which excessive corporate influence can be restricted. There can be other mechanisms, and more importantly my argument there isn't about mechanisms. They are barely barely humanlike, so human rights are barely barely relevant. > “A little” is still more than nothing which was your previous assertion. You may be comfortable with the rising temperature of our shared pot of water but I say it is a cause for concern. It's barely any increase because we already have common carrier rules. And I stand by the statement that it doesn't erode fundamental rights. The right of giant corporations to have free speech is at the edge, not fundamental. And a rule like that increases the free speech of so many actual humans.

▲

5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

themaninthedark 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Just to split hairs here, as I do not think that a company should be forced to host content.

Hosting content is not giving someone an audience.

If I take my stool into the main square and stand on it, giving a speech about the evils of canned spinach. People pass by but no-one stops and listens(or not for long), I did not have an audience.

If I record the same thing and put it up on Youtube and the same reaction happens. I only get 5~10 views, Youtube is not giving me an audience. They are hosting the video, just like they do for many other videos that are uploaded everyday.

If Youtube suddenly starts pushing my video onto everyone's "Home", "Recommended " or whatever; then that would be them giving me an audience.

If the Big Spinach Canners find my video and ask Youtube to take it down, that is censorship.

	▲	mulmen 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Hosting content is not giving someone an audience. Yes, it is. > If I take my stool into the main square and stand on it, giving a speech about the evils of canned spinach. People pass by but no-one stops and listens(or not for long), I did not have an audience. Well, yes, you did. They are free to cheer, boo, or leave. YouTube is more like an open mic night. I reject the idea that it is a public space like a main square. > If I record the same thing and put it up on Youtube and the same reaction happens. I only get 5~10 views, Youtube is not giving me an audience. They are hosting the video, just like they do for many other videos that are uploaded everyday. I am lucky to have never worked in content moderation but I’m certain YouTube refuses or removes submissions every day. So while your spinach speech may survive there are many other videos that don’t. > If Youtube suddenly starts pushing my video onto everyone's "Home", "Recommended " or whatever; then that would be them giving me an audience. Being on YouTube at all is YouTube giving you an audience. Their recommendation algorithm is the value proposition of their product to consumers whose attention is the product sold to advertisers. > If the Big Spinach Canners find my video and ask Youtube to take it down, that is censorship. Perhaps in the strictest dictionary sense it is censorship but it is not censorship in a first amendment sense. This is a private business decision. You’re free to submit your video as an ad and pay Google directly for eyeballs. And they can still say no. The only problem here is the size of YouTube relative to competitors. The fix there is antitrust, not erosion of civil liberties. Consider the landscape that evolves in a post-YouTube environment with an eroded first amendment and without section 230 protections. Those protections are critical for innovation and free expression.

▲ zetazzed 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Does Disney have a positive obligation to show animal cruelty snuff films on Disney Plus? Or are they allowed to control what people say on their network? Does Roblox have to allow XXX games showing non-consensual sex acts on their site, or are they allowed to control what people say on their network? Can WebMD decide not to present articles claiming that homeopathy is the ultimate cure-all? Does X have to share a "trending" topic about the refusal to release the Epstein files?

The reason we ban government censorship is so that a private actor can always create their own conspiracy theory + snuff film site if they want, and other platforms are not obligated to carry content they find objectionable. Get really into Rumble or Truth Social or X if you would like a very different perspective from Youtube's.

	▲	AfterHIA 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Let's say that in the future that the dominant form of entertainment is X-rated animal snuff films for whatever reason. Would a lack of alternative content constitute an attack on your right to choose freely or speak? Given your ethical framework I'd have to say, "no" but even as your discursive opponent I would have to admit that if you as a person are adverse to, "X-rated furry smut" that I would sympathize with you as the oppressed if it meant your ability to live and communicate has been stifled or called into question. Oppression has many forms and many names. The Johnny Conservatarians want to reserve certain categories of cruelty as, "necessary" or, "permissable" by creating frameworks like, "everything is permitted just as long as some social condition is met..." At the crux of things the libertarians and the non-psychos are just having a debate on when it's fair game to be unethical or cruel to others in the name of extending human freedom and human dignity. We've fallen so far from the tree.

▲ mulmen 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I have some ideas I want to post on your personal webpage but you have not given me access. Why are you censoring me?

▲

AfterHIA 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I have a consortium of other website owners who refuse to crosslink your materials unless you put our banner on your site. Is this oppression? Oppression goes both ways, has many names, and takes many forms. Its most insidious form being the Oxford Comma.

▲

mitthrowaway2 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Is andy99's personal webpage a de-facto commons where the public congregates to share and exchange ideas?

	▲	AfterHIA 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I know that your post is rhetorical but I'll extend your thinking into real life-- has andy99 personal webpage been created because you're an elected official representing others? Would this still give andy99 the right to distribute hate speech on his personal webpage? I think we can harmonize around, "unfortunately so" and that's why I think the way forward is concentrating on the, "unfortunately" and not the, "so." We have the right to do a potentially limitless amount of unbecoming, cruel, and oppressive things to our fellow man. We also have the potential for forming and proliferating societies. We invented religion and agriculture out of dirt and need. Let us choose Nazarenes, Jeffersons, and Socrates' over Neros, Alexanders, and Napoleons. This didn't use to be politically controversial!
	▲	mulmen 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It would be if they’d stop censoring me!