I feel like this should be regulated. We should not let private interests arbitrarily mold our speech just because that speech is being mediated by platforms that they create.
Edit: For the record, I’m not making a free speech absolutist argument.
For the record, I’m not making a free speech absolutist argument.
That’s a really strange disclaimer over a fundamental right akin to
I’m not a self-determination absolutist
I’m not a due-process-of-law absolutist
I’m not a freedom-of-movement absolutist
I’m not a freedom-of-conscience absolutist
I’m not a warranted-search-and-seizure absolutist
Absolutism here isn’t mentioned to disclaim protection of illegal speech, because that’s already unprotected, and no one here would dispute that.
In this context, absolutism disclaims protection of unpopular speech people here would denounce, so it disclaims freedom of speech entirely.
This denies the presumption of a fundamental right as protected, which is entirely backward.
Fundamental rights are presumed protected, whereas attempts to restrict or challenge them need strict scrutiny.
The less common disclaimer
I’m not a censorship absolutist
is an asymmetry revealing a copout.
As for regulation, it’s a private device people are free to denounce, customize, or reject for a competitor.
People have the liberty to produce & choose censored junk.
An open society doesn’t restrict such choices when it can leverage fundamental rights[1] to denounce, criticize, and challenge.
I added the disclaimer to my comment because there is speech that is legal, but i think is okay for private entities to regulate on their own platforms. A couple of examples that I considered:
While it’s legal to say really racist shit, it’s okay for something like an internet forum to mod such speech if they want to enforce some community standards.
It’s legal to spread misinformation about a global pandemic, but it’s okay for a private entity to mod it if they decide they dont want to contribute to hurting people.
My point is that I think private entities can regulate speech on their own platforms in some ways, but not others. Some thoughtful nuance is required and we need regulation that enforces all this. Left to their own, corporations like apple will hurt us.
I mean, I get slurs and stuff but drugs, sex, chauvinist? Like the one scenario it makes sense is to avoid Karens suing because a kid mashes the keyboard on the device they handed off raising their kids to, and ends up on an inappropriate website or something. Freeze peach barely even enters into it.
Edit: I’ve worded this poorly I mean it seems like something more overt than a free speech issue. Like something that started as liability shielding that blew out. Ah well.
I feel like this should be regulated. We should not let private interests arbitrarily mold our speech just because that speech is being mediated by platforms that they create.
Edit: For the record, I’m not making a free speech absolutist argument.
Double plus good point.
Yeah, the first amendment doesn’t apply to private companies, but we really, really need a digital bill of rights
Mold our speech, tell us what we can or can’t watch on the internet, and teach the general public to self-censor.
I hate this modern day bullshit. Just let me watch the pron I want, say the shit I want, when I want.
Self censoring by mis-spelling the word porn is quite the touch of irony in a comment like this on a platform like this
I was typing fast give me a fucking break. Childlike responses like that are why we’re in the shit we are now.
That’s a really strange disclaimer over a fundamental right akin to
Absolutism here isn’t mentioned to disclaim protection of illegal speech, because that’s already unprotected, and no one here would dispute that. In this context, absolutism disclaims protection of unpopular speech people here would denounce, so it disclaims freedom of speech entirely.
This denies the presumption of a fundamental right as protected, which is entirely backward. Fundamental rights are presumed protected, whereas attempts to restrict or challenge them need strict scrutiny. The less common disclaimer
is an asymmetry revealing a copout.
As for regulation, it’s a private device people are free to denounce, customize, or reject for a competitor. People have the liberty to produce & choose censored junk. An open society doesn’t restrict such choices when it can leverage fundamental rights[1] to denounce, criticize, and challenge.
this community seems to cower from defending ↩︎
I added the disclaimer to my comment because there is speech that is legal, but i think is okay for private entities to regulate on their own platforms. A couple of examples that I considered:
While it’s legal to say really racist shit, it’s okay for something like an internet forum to mod such speech if they want to enforce some community standards.
It’s legal to spread misinformation about a global pandemic, but it’s okay for a private entity to mod it if they decide they dont want to contribute to hurting people.
My point is that I think private entities can regulate speech on their own platforms in some ways, but not others. Some thoughtful nuance is required and we need regulation that enforces all this. Left to their own, corporations like apple will hurt us.
Your word thinking is double plus bad
I mean, I get slurs and stuff but drugs, sex, chauvinist? Like the one scenario it makes sense is to avoid Karens suing because a kid mashes the keyboard on the device they handed off raising their kids to, and ends up on an inappropriate website or something. Freeze peach barely even enters into it. Edit: I’ve worded this poorly I mean it seems like something more overt than a free speech issue. Like something that started as liability shielding that blew out. Ah well.
Even if it’s a kid using your phone, they still aren’t trying to type “ducking”.