On the politics board there's a thread about YouTube deciding to remove all content which claims any vaccines are ineffective or dangerous. That seems bad.

What would y'all think about extending free speech to cover certain online spaces? What would that look like?

I don't like the bill of rights extending to private companies.There is too much collateral damage that violate the rights of others.

What specifically about applying some version of free speech to social media sites seems bad to you?

Dilettante said:

---

What specifically about applying some version of free speech to social media sites seems bad to you?

---

Applying free speech protections to private companies opens up a crazy can of worms where people/companies have no control over how they are represented.

Dilettante said:

---

What specifically about applying some version of free speech to social media sites seems bad to you?

---

The Bill of rights protects your from government infringement, not infringement by private corps.

On the one hand YouTube ./ Google pays for the bandwidth, servers, platform, maintenance, so they can do whatever they want to with it. That means to me everything from censorship to political speech to whatever is fair game. Their site, their rules.

On the other hand, Google as a company seems to wield an outsized and perhaps dangerous amount of influence as an arbiter of truth and gatekeeper of information. When you combine Google with the other large social media platforms and accept that profit motive may be overridden by ideological agreement to collude in this information space, there's a real hazard for society.

I don't have an answer to the problem in general, but I think mandating free speech on private platforms is a bad idea, just like I think public accommodation laws are a bad idea in general.

Once again, Zobel said it better than I did.

Dilettante said:

---

On the politics board there's a thread about YouTube deciding to remove all content which claims any vaccines are ineffective or dangerous. That seems bad.

What would y'all think about extending free speech to cover certain online spaces? What would that look like?

---

Do you want YouTube to be an agent of the state?

Dilettante said:

---

What specifically about applying some version of free speech to social media sites seems bad to you?

---

It removes the ability of the owner of the site to remove someone they don't like.

Say I started a forum for Christians to discuss particular theological issues. I want to attract people who have the same general beliefs so we can start on the same footing before delving into deeper issues. If I don't have the ability to boot atheists or Buddhists or Muslims, then the discussions will likely be about each other's religious differences. That's fine, but not why I created the site.

Same for a forum discussing guns. I don't want gun control nuts on the site.

Youtube is sending a message that they don't want anti-vaxxers on their forum.

Zobel said:

---

On the one hand YouTube ./ Google pays for the bandwidth, servers, platform, maintenance, so they can do whatever they want to with it. That means to me everything from censorship to political speech to whatever is fair game. Their site, their rules.

On the other hand, Google as a company seems to wield an outsized and perhaps dangerous amount of influence as an arbiter of truth and gatekeeper of information. When you combine Google with the other large social media platforms and accept that profit motive may be overridden by ideological agreement to collude in this information space, there's a real hazard for society.

I don't have an answer to the problem in general, but I think mandating free speech on private platforms is a bad idea, just like I think public accommodation laws are a bad idea in general.

---

Once upon a time both parties were fine with breaking up corporations that wielded so much power as to alter how society operates. Now it seems like hand-wringing and attempts to legislate what they do with their power while not addressing the fact that they have so much power.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

On the politics board there's a thread about YouTube deciding to remove all content which claims any vaccines are ineffective or dangerous. That seems bad.

What would y'all think about extending free speech to cover certain online spaces? What would that look like?

---

Do you want YouTube to be an agent of the state?

---

It already is.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

On the politics board there's a thread about YouTube deciding to remove all content which claims any vaccines are ineffective or dangerous. That seems bad.

What would y'all think about extending free speech to cover certain online spaces? What would that look like?

---

Do you want YouTube to be an agent of the state?

---

It already is.

---

How are you defining that?

Private entities gaining outsized power and influence over society is the natural outcome of a Laissez-faire system. When a political group spends decades shouting that government regulations are evil I'm not very inclined to listen to their requests for stronger government regulations when they encounter a situation in which it would benefit them.

Completely censor free online spaces sound great until the Nazis show up and people start posting furry porn. Normal people, hell even weird people, don't want to be around that.

If you invite wolves and sheep, all you're going to get are wolves.

Companies and private citizens should be free to associate with whoever they choose. That necessarily includes the freedom to kick out whoever you don't want from the places you own. If you want to speak all kinds of craziness, go ahead, but you can't do so from my front porch, my pulpit, or on my website.

This is a subject that is tough. I hate censorship. Those in power muting those without is a terrible thing. However, silencing terrible things like Holocaust denial is something that should happen. The line between the two is hard to see, especially if you are passionate about the topic.

If we went back in time 50 years, then newspapers or book publishing companies weren't required to publish everything they received from all the crazies. If you wanted to publish your own manifesto you had to do it on your own dime with a less respectable company. I see Google and others holding similar position. Crazy videos and opinions have to be done on less respectable (I feel a bit weird classifying Google as respectable here) sites now. Unfortunately this leads to echo chambers and group think of those that follow the less respectable sites.

Why should Holocaust Deniers be silenced? Why does it matter whether it's a government or a company doing the silencing?

I think everyone should have access to the free exchange of ideas.

Dilettante said:

---

Why should Holocaust Deniers be silenced? Why does it matter whether it's a government or a company doing the silencing?

I think everyone should have access to the free exchange of ideas.

---

Excellent question that I'm not sure how to answer. I could probably type up a bunch of reasons, but they would mostly boil down to "that just feels right."

I guess even censoring the worst of speech does tend to give it some credence in the minds of some. Perhaps a better strategy would be to allow it and ignore it. But we all now it won't be ignored by all.

Dilettante said:

---

Why should Holocaust Deniers be silenced? Why does it matter whether it's a government or a company doing the silencing?

I think everyone should have access to the free exchange of ideas.

---

Do I have to allow you to deny the Holocaust in my home? How about a Lowe's? Should you be allowed to stand in there and shout about Holocaust denial? Even to the point that it harms the business? Freedom of speech doesn't mean everyone has to listen to everyone else. And it doesn't mean private platforms have to host every form of speech. Hell, it doesn't mean public platforms have to host every form of speech. There are limits on that. It just means you can't get in legal trouble for speech.

Quad Dog said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

Why should Holocaust Deniers be silenced? Why does it matter whether it's a government or a company doing the silencing?

I think everyone should have access to the free exchange of ideas.

---

Excellent question that I'm not sure how to answer. I could probably type up a bunch of reasons, but they would mostly boil down to "that just feels right."

I guess even censoring the worst of speech does tend to give it some credence in the minds of some. Perhaps a better strategy would be to allow it and ignore it. But we all now it won't be ignored by all.

---

Karl Popper has entered the chat.

Those questions were addressed in the previous posts. I think a good upper bound for the scope of such a law would cover only social media platforms.

The rest of your post seems like it's explaining the first amendment. I'm not confused about existing law. This thread is about what should exist, not what does.

Quad Dog said:

---

Excellent question that I'm not sure how to answer. I could probably type up a bunch of reasons, but they would mostly boil down to "that just feels right."

I guess even censoring the worst of speech does tend to give it some credence in the minds of some. Perhaps a better strategy would be to allow it and ignore it. But we all now it won't be ignored by all.

---

I have a hard time differentiating this type of position from the positions proposed by posters like Joe Boudin. He doesn't want Retired to be able to advocate for trans rights. You don't want some nazi to advocate against them. The systems that we're using for things we like can easily be used for things we don't.

Why should technology companies be the arbiter of what discourse occurs in public? Who gets to decide what speech is acceptable and why? The answer as it stands now is that companies decide it based on whatever they want. I'm not sure that's optimal.

The argument is basically that social media is the new town square (which I agree with. I'm not sure if I really believe the rest of my posts, or if I'm playing devil's advocate).

Governments used to control the places where people talk about stuff, so we limited them with the first amendment. Companies now control the places where people talk about stuff, and they have no analogous limitations.

craigernaught said:

---

Completely censor free online spaces sound great until the Nazis show up and people start posting furry porn. Normal people, hell even weird people, don't want to be around that.

If you invite wolves and sheep, all you're going to get are wolves.

Companies and private citizens should be free to associate with whoever they choose. That necessarily includes the freedom to kick out whoever you don't want from the places you own. If you want to speak all kinds of craziness, go ahead, but you can't do so from my front porch, my pulpit, or on my website.

---

First they came for the furries, and I said nothing, because I wasn't a furry. The content of the speech is irrelevant to whether it should be allowed to exist (excluding threats etc.)

I agree that people should have the right to associate with whoever they choose. That's my whole point. I wouldn't claim that everyone's Facebook feed should include posts about furfest 2022. But Facebook should extend the same rights to furries and nazis as it does to swingers and communists, or gay people and libertarians. It's not good that someone other than citizens can actively pick winners and losers. The main method of discourse is not available to certain groups of people.

What if the vaccines are dangerous, and there is a conspiracy to hide that fact? If that idea had merit, is it possible for it to win in our current system? I think the answer is no.

Dilettante said:

---

Those questions were addressed in the previous posts. I think a good upper bound for the scope of such a law would cover only social media platforms.

The rest of your post seems like it's explaining the first amendment. I'm not confused about existing law. This thread is about what should exist, not what does.

---

Why are social media companies deprived of the rights other companies have?

Dilettante said:

---

craigernaught said:

---

Completely censor free online spaces sound great until the Nazis show up and people start posting furry porn. Normal people, hell even weird people, don't want to be around that.

If you invite wolves and sheep, all you're going to get are wolves.

Companies and private citizens should be free to associate with whoever they choose. That necessarily includes the freedom to kick out whoever you don't want from the places you own. If you want to speak all kinds of craziness, go ahead, but you can't do so from my front porch, my pulpit, or on my website.

---

First they came for the furries, and I said nothing, because I wasn't a furry. The content of the speech is irrelevant to whether it should be allowed to exist (excluding threats etc.)

I agree that people should have the right to associate with whoever they choose. That's my whole point. I wouldn't claim that everyone's Facebook feed should include posts about furfest 2022. But Facebook should extend the same rights to furries and nazis as it does to swingers and communists, or gay people and libertarians. It's not good that someone other than citizens can actively pick winners and losers. The main method of discourse is not available to certain groups of people.

What if the vaccines are dangerous, and there is a conspiracy to hide that fact? If that idea had merit, is it possible for it to win in our current system? I think the answer is no.

---

Facebook is a private company. Why shouldn't they be able to moderate their platform?

Because internet based platforms are critical to modern communication. It is not possible for ideas to win without access to these platforms. The amount of power and influence that Facebook etc. has is bad, and something needs to be done about it. I think the term monopoly is applicable.

No reason you shouldn't be able to impose regulations on private businesses if it's in the best interest of society, and the free exchange of thoughts and ideas is probably the highest ideal a society can strive for.

Dilettante said:

---

Because internet based platforms are critical to modern communication. It is not possible for ideas to win without access to these platforms. The amount of power and influence that Facebook etc. has is bad, and something needs to be done about it. I think the term monopoly is applicable.

---

I'm all for trust busting. But private companies get to decide what's carried on their platform.

Edit. Didn't mean for that emoji.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

craigernaught said:

---

Completely censor free online spaces sound great until the Nazis show up and people start posting furry porn. Normal people, hell even weird people, don't want to be around that.

If you invite wolves and sheep, all you're going to get are wolves.

Companies and private citizens should be free to associate with whoever they choose. That necessarily includes the freedom to kick out whoever you don't want from the places you own. If you want to speak all kinds of craziness, go ahead, but you can't do so from my front porch, my pulpit, or on my website.

---

First they came for the furries, and I said nothing, because I wasn't a furry. The content of the speech is irrelevant to whether it should be allowed to exist (excluding threats etc.)

I agree that people should have the right to associate with whoever they choose. That's my whole point. I wouldn't claim that everyone's Facebook feed should include posts about furfest 2022. But Facebook should extend the same rights to furries and nazis as it does to swingers and communists, or gay people and libertarians. It's not good that someone other than citizens can actively pick winners and losers. The main method of discourse is not available to certain groups of people.

What if the vaccines are dangerous, and there is a conspiracy to hide that fact? If that idea had merit, is it possible for it to win in our current system? I think the answer is no.

---

Facebook is a private company. Why shouldn't they be able to moderate their platform?

---

What do you think of Twitter suspending Conservatives, Trump, and Nicki Minaj but keeping the Taliban on the platform?

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

craigernaught said:

---

Completely censor free online spaces sound great until the Nazis show up and people start posting furry porn. Normal people, hell even weird people, don't want to be around that.

If you invite wolves and sheep, all you're going to get are wolves.

Companies and private citizens should be free to associate with whoever they choose. That necessarily includes the freedom to kick out whoever you don't want from the places you own. If you want to speak all kinds of craziness, go ahead, but you can't do so from my front porch, my pulpit, or on my website.

---

First they came for the furries, and I said nothing, because I wasn't a furry. The content of the speech is irrelevant to whether it should be allowed to exist (excluding threats etc.)

I agree that people should have the right to associate with whoever they choose. That's my whole point. I wouldn't claim that everyone's Facebook feed should include posts about furfest 2022. But Facebook should extend the same rights to furries and nazis as it does to swingers and communists, or gay people and libertarians. It's not good that someone other than citizens can actively pick winners and losers. The main method of discourse is not available to certain groups of people.

What if the vaccines are dangerous, and there is a conspiracy to hide that fact? If that idea had merit, is it possible for it to win in our current system? I think the answer is no.

---

Facebook is a private company. Why shouldn't they be able to moderate their platform?

---

What do you think of Twitter suspending Conservatives, Trump, and Nicki Minaj but keeping the Taliban on the platform?

---

Their platform.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

craigernaught said:

---

Completely censor free online spaces sound great until the Nazis show up and people start posting furry porn. Normal people, hell even weird people, don't want to be around that.

If you invite wolves and sheep, all you're going to get are wolves.

Companies and private citizens should be free to associate with whoever they choose. That necessarily includes the freedom to kick out whoever you don't want from the places you own. If you want to speak all kinds of craziness, go ahead, but you can't do so from my front porch, my pulpit, or on my website.

---

First they came for the furries, and I said nothing, because I wasn't a furry. The content of the speech is irrelevant to whether it should be allowed to exist (excluding threats etc.)

I agree that people should have the right to associate with whoever they choose. That's my whole point. I wouldn't claim that everyone's Facebook feed should include posts about furfest 2022. But Facebook should extend the same rights to furries and nazis as it does to swingers and communists, or gay people and libertarians. It's not good that someone other than citizens can actively pick winners and losers. The main method of discourse is not available to certain groups of people.

What if the vaccines are dangerous, and there is a conspiracy to hide that fact? If that idea had merit, is it possible for it to win in our current system? I think the answer is no.

---

Facebook is a private company. Why shouldn't they be able to moderate their platform?

---

What do you think of Twitter suspending Conservatives, Trump, and Nicki Minaj but keeping the Taliban on the platform?

---

Their platform.

---

Then hopefully decentralized social media platforms gain prominence soon because the route we are going down is looking bleak.

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

craigernaught said:

---

Completely censor free online spaces sound great until the Nazis show up and people start posting furry porn. Normal people, hell even weird people, don't want to be around that.

If you invite wolves and sheep, all you're going to get are wolves.

Companies and private citizens should be free to associate with whoever they choose. That necessarily includes the freedom to kick out whoever you don't want from the places you own. If you want to speak all kinds of craziness, go ahead, but you can't do so from my front porch, my pulpit, or on my website.

---

First they came for the furries, and I said nothing, because I wasn't a furry. The content of the speech is irrelevant to whether it should be allowed to exist (excluding threats etc.)

I agree that people should have the right to associate with whoever they choose. That's my whole point. I wouldn't claim that everyone's Facebook feed should include posts about furfest 2022. But Facebook should extend the same rights to furries and nazis as it does to swingers and communists, or gay people and libertarians. It's not good that someone other than citizens can actively pick winners and losers. The main method of discourse is not available to certain groups of people.

What if the vaccines are dangerous, and there is a conspiracy to hide that fact? If that idea had merit, is it possible for it to win in our current system? I think the answer is no.

---

Facebook is a private company. Why shouldn't they be able to moderate their platform?

---

What do you think of Twitter suspending Conservatives, Trump, and Nicki Minaj but keeping the Taliban on the platform?

---

Their platform.

---

Then hopefully decentralized social media platforms gain prominence soon because the route we are going down is looking bleak.

---

I don't find the state requiring a privately held company to host speech it does not want to host particularly comforting.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

craigernaught said:

---

Completely censor free online spaces sound great until the Nazis show up and people start posting furry porn. Normal people, hell even weird people, don't want to be around that.

If you invite wolves and sheep, all you're going to get are wolves.

Companies and private citizens should be free to associate with whoever they choose. That necessarily includes the freedom to kick out whoever you don't want from the places you own. If you want to speak all kinds of craziness, go ahead, but you can't do so from my front porch, my pulpit, or on my website.

---

First they came for the furries, and I said nothing, because I wasn't a furry. The content of the speech is irrelevant to whether it should be allowed to exist (excluding threats etc.)

I agree that people should have the right to associate with whoever they choose. That's my whole point. I wouldn't claim that everyone's Facebook feed should include posts about furfest 2022. But Facebook should extend the same rights to furries and nazis as it does to swingers and communists, or gay people and libertarians. It's not good that someone other than citizens can actively pick winners and losers. The main method of discourse is not available to certain groups of people.

What if the vaccines are dangerous, and there is a conspiracy to hide that fact? If that idea had merit, is it possible for it to win in our current system? I think the answer is no.

---

Facebook is a private company. Why shouldn't they be able to moderate their platform?

---

What do you think of Twitter suspending Conservatives, Trump, and Nicki Minaj but keeping the Taliban on the platform?

---

Their platform.

---

Then hopefully decentralized social media platforms gain prominence soon because the route we are going down is looking bleak.

---

I don't find the state requiring a privately held company to host speech it does not want to host particularly comforting.

---

Oh but you don't care that the powerful private companies who control the majority of online information are pushing endless propaganda on our society and censoring one political side? You don't see how this could be a very bad thing?

Also this idea of the relationship between the state and powerful private corporations is so out dated in some of the comments on here. Almost as if you have never payed attention to the scandals over the years.

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

craigernaught said:

---

Completely censor free online spaces sound great until the Nazis show up and people start posting furry porn. Normal people, hell even weird people, don't want to be around that.

If you invite wolves and sheep, all you're going to get are wolves.

Companies and private citizens should be free to associate with whoever they choose. That necessarily includes the freedom to kick out whoever you don't want from the places you own. If you want to speak all kinds of craziness, go ahead, but you can't do so from my front porch, my pulpit, or on my website.

---

First they came for the furries, and I said nothing, because I wasn't a furry. The content of the speech is irrelevant to whether it should be allowed to exist (excluding threats etc.)

I agree that people should have the right to associate with whoever they choose. That's my whole point. I wouldn't claim that everyone's Facebook feed should include posts about furfest 2022. But Facebook should extend the same rights to furries and nazis as it does to swingers and communists, or gay people and libertarians. It's not good that someone other than citizens can actively pick winners and losers. The main method of discourse is not available to certain groups of people.

What if the vaccines are dangerous, and there is a conspiracy to hide that fact? If that idea had merit, is it possible for it to win in our current system? I think the answer is no.

---

Facebook is a private company. Why shouldn't they be able to moderate their platform?

---

What do you think of Twitter suspending Conservatives, Trump, and Nicki Minaj but keeping the Taliban on the platform?

---

Their platform.

---

Then hopefully decentralized social media platforms gain prominence soon because the route we are going down is looking bleak.

---

I don't find the state requiring a privately held company to host speech it does not want to host particularly comforting.

---

Oh but you don't care that the powerful private companies who control the majority of online information are pushing endless propaganda on our society and censoring one political side? You don't see how this could be a very bad thing?

---

I'm more concerned about the erosion of representative government and democracy from your side than what private companies do with their platform. I'm all for breaking up big tech monopolies, but that's different than dictating how they use their space.

I wonder what some posters would be saying about government overreach into private companies if people like AOC and Bernie were being silenced.