Free Speech and (Big Tech) Censorship Thread

[LordsFire]

How's that any different from a publisher or a newspaper? There was that publisher who was going to publish a book by Josh Hawley but decided not to do so because of 1/6. That affected the public discourse. Is that illegal? Is it illegal when I send a column to the New York Times demanding that it be plastered in the editorial pages and the Times laughs in my face? I'd observe that we have had newspapers and publishers in the past who have affected the American political discourse as much if not more so than Twitter. Twitter didn't literally drag this country into a war unlike Hearst.

And of course, why does size matter? So it's not okay for Twitter to prevent me from reaching millions, but okay for Spacebattles to prevent me from reaching hundreds if not thousands?

...You are familiar with the legal distinction between a platform and a publisher, right?

Granted, there's nowhere near as much accountability for publishers as there should be, but they are legally liable in exchange for retaining full editorial control.

The thing about Social media right now, is they're enjoying the immunity of platform status, while also enjoying the use of editorial control as a publisher.

 

[Terthna]

How's that any different from a publisher or a newspaper? There was that publisher who was going to publish a book by Josh Hawley but decided not to do so because of 1/6. That affected the public discourse. Is that illegal? Is it illegal when I send a column to the New York Times demanding that it be plastered in the editorial pages and the Times laughs in my face? I'd observe that we have had newspapers and publishers in the past who have affected the American political discourse as much if not more so than Twitter. Twitter didn't literally drag this country into a war unlike Hearst.

And of course, why does size matter? So it's not okay for Twitter to prevent me from reaching millions, but okay for Spacebattles to prevent me from reaching hundreds if not thousands?

The difference between a publisher/newspaper and Twitter is the difference between a publisher/newspaper and the public square. One sells content, the other is where people go to interact with each other. And size matters because monopolies are a thing that exists. If you're banned from Twitter, you have no way to communicate with the people who exclusively use Twitter to communicate, who number in the millions.

 

[Bear Ribs]

How's that any different from a publisher or a newspaper? There was that publisher who was going to publish a book by Josh Hawley but decided not to do so because of 1/6. That affected the public discourse. Is that illegal? Is it illegal when I send a column to the New York Times demanding that it be plastered in the editorial pages and the Times laughs in my face? I'd observe that we have had newspapers and publishers in the past who have affected the American political discourse as much if not more so than Twitter. Twitter didn't literally drag this country into a war unlike Hearst.

And of course, why does size matter? So it's not okay for Twitter to prevent me from reaching millions, but okay for Spacebattles to prevent me from reaching hundreds if not thousands?

If the New York Times publishes false information about me I can sue them for libel. They have the authority to publish as they choose but also have to take responsibility for what they publish.

If Twitter publishes false information, well, not Twitter's fault, they're not publishing it, other people are. Twitter refuses to accept responsibility. This was not a problem when Twitter also did not take authority for choosing what to publish. Now, however, Twitter essentially double-dips on rights in taking the authority to censor, but refusing the responsibility for their choices. The two go together, authority and responsibility.

 

[lordmcdeath]

The problem is that truly unregulated platforms are basically impossible to meaningfully monetize. Not that most publishers are doing all that well in journalism either, but this would be an order of a magnitude worse. If we have a Not-Twitter that will allow any sort of speech, who is going to be willing to advertise on it? How is it going to make money?

 

[Rocinante]

The problem is that truly unregulated platforms are basically impossible to meaningfully monetize. Not that most publishers are doing all that well in journalism either, but this would be an order of a magnitude worse. If we have a Not-Twitter that will allow any sort of speech, who is going to be willing to advertise on it? How is it going to make money?

okay, I'm not advocating to make these services platforms. But let's pretend for a second that they are.

If EVERYTHING like fb/twitter was treated as a platform, the advertisers would... probably still advertise.

See, they can pick and choose now. So if someone wants to host objectionable stuff, advertisers would be expected to distance themselves. There are other, better places to advertise and they'd be held to that standard.

If everything was a free for all, that standard likely wouldn't exist, the market wouldn't exist in the same way, and advertisers would just be advertising where they can.

 

[Terthna]

The problem is that truly unregulated platforms are basically impossible to meaningfully monetize. Not that most publishers are doing all that well in journalism either, but this would be an order of a magnitude worse. If we have a Not-Twitter that will allow any sort of speech, who is going to be willing to advertise on it? How is it going to make money?

To be fair, selling advertising space as a online business model has been falling apart across the internet as of late. Businesses have started admitting that they don't really get anything out of advertising online; almost nobody pays attention to them, and many people block them outright. The only exception seems to be sponsorship ads, which I understand have proven to be successful at pushing products to the consumer.

 

[Bear Ribs]

The problem is that truly unregulated platforms are basically impossible to meaningfully monetize. Not that most publishers are doing all that well in journalism either, but this would be an order of a magnitude worse. If we have a Not-Twitter that will allow any sort of speech, who is going to be willing to advertise on it? How is it going to make money?

You do realize you basically just argued that we should allow unethical and potentially dangerous practices so that big businesses can make money?

 

[lordmcdeath]

If everything was a free for all, that standard likely wouldn't exist, the market wouldn't exist in the same way, and advertisers would just be advertising where they can.

No, that isn't how things would go at all. It is far more likely they'd go with sponsored or created content, ideally with disabled ads if possible. Which works out well for the sponsor'ed creator(s), but it doesn't net the platform dime one. Assuming they do them at all. Because while it is deeply difficult to get positive attention to one's brand, it is remarkably easy to get negative attention. Nike, Coke, and all the other big spenders aren't going to want their ads on anything that might do damage, and if they can't get that out of new media, they will turn back to sources that can.

And if they were publishers, they'd be sued to death in weeks. Nothing with user added content can survive with publisher lability.

And even if you can't moderate political speech, you are going to have have take down methods for copy right or actually illegal content. And those mechanisms will be used to get rid of people.

To be fair, selling advertising space as a online business model has been falling apart across the internet as of late. Businesses have started admitting that they don't really get anything out of advertising online; almost nobody pays attention to them, and many people block them outright. The only exception seems to be sponsorship ads, which I understand have proven to be successful at pushing products to the consumer.

Marketing is disease, super effective initially, but we gradually build up our immune system. Sponsorship works because it creates that sense of I have given you a thing, and helped this person you are interested in, don't you feel semi-obligated to at least listen what I'm interested in.

You do realize you basically just argued that we should allow unethical and potentially dangerous practices so that big businesses can make money?

No, I'm saying that if they can't make money, they don't exist. Servers and infrastructure cost money. Unless you want the government or a charity to provide it, social media needs to make enough money to be worth the effort to create, maintain, and support. This is Capitalism, that's how it works. If you just want to burn social media down, then that's fine. But if you are arguing that being denied your social media platform is damaging enough, that it requires government intervention to make sure they don't kick you off, then I'm assuming you want it to live.

 

[Bear Ribs]

No, I'm saying that if they can't make money, they don't exist. Servers and infrastructure cost money. Unless you want the government or a charity to provide it, social media needs to make enough money to be worth the effort to create, maintain, and support. This is Capitalism, that's how it works. If you just want to burn social media down, then that's fine. But if you are arguing that being denied your social media platform is damaging enough, that it requires government intervention to make sure they don't kick you off, then I'm assuming you want it to live.

You assume incorrectly. Twitter and Facebook did not create the internet, they merely moved in and took over. Long before them there were a thousand thousand message boards, newsgroups, and BBS all making no profits and operating for free. Before them was the "walled gardens" model of Compuserve, AOL, and Prodigy where you paid a modest fee for access much as you would for a newspaper. Those days ended almost entirely due to manipulations of Google, who wanted data to be free so that their webspider could access and index the sites without Google having to pay.

Any of those models could return, or another alternative could be found, perhaps a new model we don't have at this time. Nothing says Twitter is privileged to exist and must be allowed to do as it pleases. As it is I see more paywalls every day and I suspect the age of walled gardens is going to make a return, though needless to say it won't be identical. Adblockers have become too ubiquitous, malware companies poser as advertisers have poisoned the well, and the age of advertising supporting the net is gradually coming to a close.

 

[Largo]

If the New York Times publishes false information about me I can sue them for libel. They have the authority to publish as they choose but also have to take responsibility for what they publish.

If Twitter publishes false information, well, not Twitter's fault, they're not publishing it, other people are. Twitter refuses to accept responsibility. This was not a problem when Twitter also did not take authority for choosing what to publish. Now, however, Twitter essentially double-dips on rights in taking the authority to censor, but refusing the responsibility for their choices. The two go together, authority and responsibility.

The responsibility for their choices exists in that people choose to go elsewhere, just like the responsibility for Spacebattles's moderation choices is that you guys ended up here. Hell, Trump was pondering about whether to go to somewhere like Gab before Kushner told him that was a terrible idea.

The reality is that if Twitter lacks any authority to censor, then no one will use Twitter for the same reason why I and many others have negative interest in ever visiting 4chan or 8chan. And if you want Twitter to be a publisher, well look at how actual publishers function.

The difference between a publisher/newspaper and Twitter is the difference between a publisher/newspaper and the public square. One sells content, the other is where people go to interact with each other. And size matters because monopolies are a thing that exists. If you're banned from Twitter, you have no way to communicate with the people who exclusively use Twitter to communicate, who number in the millions.

Or how about YouTube? YouTube has chat streams. Should YouTube channels be allowed to censor those chat streams? After all, Google is almost certainly a monopoly by whatever standards you have.

There are individuals banned from SB who I liked, and have utterly no way to communicate with at this point, never mind that I would lose the ability to communicate with thousands of persons should I ever be banned. The fact that Twitter is larger than SB is fundamentally irrelevant, especially since you have no clear way of defining what is large and not too large. If you claim you do, then I suppose I'll ask: should Reddit be subject to these same rules you envision?

 

[Wargamer08]

The responsibility for their choices exists in that people choose to go elsewhere, just like the responsibility for Spacebattles's moderation choices is that you guys ended up here. Hell, Trump was pondering about whether to go to somewhere like Gab before Kushner told him that was a terrible idea.

The reality is that if Twitter lacks any authority to censor, then no one will use Twitter for the same reason why I and many others have negative interest in ever visiting 4chan or 8chan. And if you want Twitter to be a publisher, well look at how actual publishers function.


There are individuals banned from SB who I liked, and have utterly no way to communicate with at this point, never mind that I would lose the ability to communicate with thousands of persons should I ever be banned. The fact that Twitter is larger than SB is fundamentally irrelevant, especially since you have no clear way of defining what is large and not too large. If you claim you do, then I suppose I'll ask: should Reddit be subject to these same rules you envision?

You’re still not understanding the distinction between the two types of services. With a publisher like a newspaper or a site like SB they hold all authority over what gets posted or printed. Anything they don’t like goes away it’s little to no recourse. In return for that they are liable for any number of things. They are personally responsible if someone is using the site to recruit for ISIS, they are vulnerable to being sued to being an accessory to scams, etc.

With a platform, the company states that they only provide the service. This is stuff like phone companies and power utilities and lately social media. The phone company is not responsible for making sure no one uses the phone to arrange crimes like phone scams. The power company has, broadly, no say in who receives power for their house and what people do with it. No one charges the power company for providing power for grow ops.

Now just like some providers do cut off service for people that break the law, so too can something like Facebook kick people off for beheading videos. The issue as it stands is that most social media companies have gone past just removing people breaking the law and into removing people and content they don’t like for arbitrary reasons. Doing so should open them up to all the requirements of a publisher, because they are now editorializing their content. They have some pretty shaky exceptions holding them up right now. As if they are publishers, they are liable for everything. All the illegal scams people are running through their system, all the various terrorist groups, all the liable cases. They basically collapse in lawsuits.

 

[Bear Ribs]

The responsibility for their choices exists in that people choose to go elsewhere, just like the responsibility for Spacebattles's moderation choices is that you guys ended up here. Hell, Trump was pondering about whether to go to somewhere like Gab before Kushner told him that was a terrible idea.

That's not what responsibility means. If the Greedy Jerk Water Company decides they can make more of a profit selling water that contains arsenic, they don't have a "responsibility" that people may choose to drink other water. They face prison and massive lawsuits, that's responsibility. What you're mistaking for responsibility is a consequence.

 

[Largo]

You’re still not understanding the distinction between the two types of services. With a publisher like a newspaper or a site like SB they hold all authority over what gets posted or printed. Anything they don’t like goes away it’s little to no recourse. In return for that they are liable for any number of things. They are personally responsible if someone is using the site to recruit for ISIS, they are vulnerable to being sued to being an accessory to scams, etc.

That is not how it works, and if it did, SB would shut down tomorrow. You cannot tell me that every single post on SB which has outright called for violence or advocated for something illegal has been removed or dealt with by the moderators. Hell, there were posts like that on that fucking PM, and SB staff as a whole ultimately did nothing about it for months. And yet no one advocated that SB be outright sued for that PM.

No one would ever take on that risk. Which is why actual publishers like a newspaper verify what is going to be published before it's actually posted, unlike SB which sometimes checks the posts after it is posted. If SB was a publisher like you're claiming, then no one would be allowed to make a post unless it was pre-approved by mods beforehand.

In summation? SB isn't a publisher like you're trying to make it out to be. Now, it obviously isn't a platform which does nothing and lets people post whatever the fuck they want. So what is it then? What it is is the same thing as Twitter. You guys want to draw a distinction between SB and social media companies. But at the end of the day, social media are just Internet forums on a larger scale. Thus what applies to one applies to the other.

And I'll ask you the same question I asked Terthna. You claim that Spacebattles should be allowed to ban whoever the fuck it wants, while Twitter cannot. So what about Reddit? Is Reddit allowed to say neo-Nazis cannot set up subreddits? Can subreddits declare that posting neo-Nazi rhetoric will get you banned?

 

[Zachowon]

That is not how it works, and if it did, SB would shut down tomorrow. You cannot tell me that every single post on SB which has outright called for violence or advocated for something illegal has been removed or dealt with by the moderators. Hell, there were posts like that on that fucking PM, and SB staff as a whole ultimately did nothing about it for months. And yet no one advocated that SB be outright sued for that PM.

No one would ever take on that risk. Which is why actual publishers like a newspaper verify what is going to be published before it's actually posted, unlike SB which sometimes checks the posts after it is posted. If SB was a publisher like you're claiming, then no one would be allowed to make a post unless it was pre-approved by mods beforehand.

In summation? SB isn't a publisher like you're trying to make it out to be. Now, it obviously isn't a platform which does nothing and lets people post whatever the fuck they want. So what is it then? What it is is the same thing as Twitter. You guys want to draw a distinction between SB and social media companies. But at the end of the day, social media are just Internet forums on a larger scale. Thus what applies to one applies to the other.

And I'll ask you the same question I asked Terthna. You claim that Spacebattles should be allowed to ban whoever the fuck it wants, while Twitter cannot. So what about Reddit? Is Reddit allowed to say neo-Nazis cannot set up subreddits? Can subreddits declare that posting neo-Nazi rhetoric will get you banned?

Yeah SB had multiple people who are apart of ANTIFA and the like and have called for violence

 

[Wargamer08]

Right and there is a reasonable amount of leeway given for stuff like that. Just because a small amount of questionable content exists that they haven’t removed yet does not mean that they are not a publisher. I mean have you read the terms and conditions for posting on forums? One of them is that you don’t own whatever you post, the forum does. Now at the same time in order to sue, you would have to prove that they willingly and with full knowledge of the illegal content left it up. Plus a whole bunch of other stuff that changes depending on where they are registered.

SB can ban or delete whatever they and whomever they want. They are a web forum that has assumed most of the responsibilities of a publisher.

Likewise you both have no fucking clue what the actual legal requirement for a call to violence must contain. In simple terms it must be directed, immediate and to people with the means to carry it out. Saying that so and so is evil and mean and kicks puppies so should be killed is not a legal call to violence. Saying that so and so lives at 123 House Ave, Lemon City and is home right now so people should come kill him is a call for violence.

The difference between a web forum and a social media platform should be like the difference between a private club and a public park. The club can kick you out for pretty much any reason it wants, where you need to break the law openly to get thrown out of a park.

Note that because of the way the laws are written for stuff on the internet, sites can claim rights to be both platforms and publishers. This puts them in a weird in between state, and legally right now nothing is done either way. This in effect lets them claim which standards to apply. The issues become when they claim one state, then apply standards for the other. Like most stuff on the internet, it’s complicated and made internationally so.

Edit- What I would like to see out of mainstream social media is equality of enforcement of their rules. Which obviously isn’t happening. If they want to claim that they are just enforcing the rules everyone must operate under, then what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[lordmcdeath]

The difference between a web forum and a social media platform should be like the difference between a private club and a public park. The club can kick you out for pretty much any reason it wants, where you need to break the law openly to get thrown out of a park.

But in that analogy, the public park is a common public good held in common and paid for by local taxes or possibly a trust setup when the land was donated. The social media platform is a private enterprise paid for by private individuals. Are you trying to imply that Social Media Companies owe you a platform?

Beyond that, neither platform or publisher model are viable models for the internet. An unregulated platform turns into a sewer, that most people won't want to use. There isn't enough money to hire people to review all the posts on a web forum, much less provide the sort of editorial oversight necessary for a publication. That stuff multiplies geometrically.

 

[Wargamer08]

But in that analogy, the public park is a common public good held in common and paid for by local taxes or possibly a trust setup when the land was donated. The social media platform is a private enterprise paid for by private individuals. Are you trying to imply that Social Media Companies owe you a platform?

Beyond that, neither platform or publisher model are viable models for the internet. An unregulated platform turns into a sewer, that most people won't want to use. There isn't enough money to hire people to review all the posts on a web forum, much less provide the sort of editorial oversight necessary for a publication. That stuff multiplies geometrically.

The problem is that people want a free lunch. The water company isn’t allowed to cut off convicts and sex offenders. It sells them water same as everyone else. The fact that FB extracts money in different ways then simply billing you should not change that dynamic.

Likewise, the letting companies claim inability to fully police their space because of size should not give them licence to just crack down on the people they dislike. Just like the fact that phone company can't keep track of everyone using the phone to commit crimes. Bell does not cut phone service to people it does not like the political opinions of.

 

[lordmcdeath]

Your two examples are both utilities and built around natural monopolies based on physical infrastructure. Neither are true with social media platforms. Even internet access itself isn't acknowledged as a utility or governed by those rules.

Beyond that, you can lose internet access for a number of crimes and the DMCA can knock you off with little recourse.

 

[LindyAF]

Twitter has only very seldom actually makes positive net income IIRC, and didn't at all until I think like 2018. And they're one of the platforms that makes more ad revenue per user.

Regardless of what you think about long term profitability, that pretty clearly hasn't been the stumbling block for alternative social media platforms. The stumbling block for most alternative social media has always been when they get denied hosting or get de-listed from app stores.

As for where the ads would come from, idk I think a lot of companies just aren't going to care. You might not be able to ever get the big US multinationals but is a sketchy Chinese company selling 'oil filters' or whatever really going to care?

 

[History Learner]

I Created this thread to talk about free speech and the censorship that goes on these days.

Nationalize the Tech Companies, the Banking industry and shut down NGOs.