@blaineg It’s also why the “Political Quarantine” thread (I won’t link to it, it is best forgotten) reads so one-sided. Someone that didn’t understand that this is how free speech works was asked to pick up their toys and go home.
Freedom of speech is a legal concept, and it’s also a cultural value. This comic addresses the former in an uncharacteristically mean-spirited way, but says nothing of the latter, which is usually what people are concerned about, even if they’re not always great at expressing the distinction.
@brendino The people concerned about the cultural value of free speech are often unconcerned with the rights of listeners to not give a fuck.
The cultural rights of free speech does not extend to an entitlement of forced listening or attention or platforming. That’s the cognitive failure of the free screechers on the cultural aspects, independent of the legal aspects.
@mike808 I think we’re both relying on making generalizations about broad swaths of people, which makes dialogue unhelpful. And yeah, there are definitely bad actors who will use rhetoric to mask prejudice which makes it hard to know who’s acting in good faith.
I think you overrate the “forced listening” idea, but I’d need an example of what you mean by that.
“Entitlement of platforming” seems to belie the idea that you don’t think platforming dissenting viewpoints is all that important, which speaks to the cultural aspects that I think are worth sticking up for. Cases like Marsh v. Alabama and Knight Institute v. Trump ask all kinds of interesting questions about the scope of the public square.
@brendino “Entitlement of platforming” is that folks think that platforms like these forums, Twitter, Facebook, and social media platforms have an obligation to carry arbitrary speech. They don’t. That’s the entitlement I was referring to.
There are Terms of Use agreements that still need to be agreed to as a pre-condition and definition of “authorized use” of those resources. Unauthorized use of computer systems is a federal crime.
It’s a free market, and you don’t have to like Twitter’s Terms of Use, because you are free to create your own platform with your own terms of use and freely compete in the public marketplace.
@mike808 And yet a company town had to allow free speech on its streets, and (until SCOTUS vacated the ruling, anyways) the President’s account was considered public enough that he got in trouble for blocking someone.
There is legitimate argumentation around the idea that social media is a public square, even if it’s built by a private company. I don’t think it’s helpful to ignore that outright.
And we don’t talk this way in other realms of life! If I’m a renter, the government has a say in how I restrict who I rent to. People like me want to see government take action on forced arbitration, meddling in the right of two parties to make contracts that way.
But these are matters of law, and my main point was to point out that free speech is also a cultural value. I can advocate for better terms of use for Twitter without trying to nationalize it.
you are free to create your own platform with your own terms of use and freely compete in the public marketplace
In theory, maybe. In reality, it has proven difficult. You need someone who can host your stuff, and they don’t like your ideology, so “build your own server farm”. The payment processor doesn’t like your stuff, so “build your own payment processor”. The DDoS protection company decides they don’t like your stuff, so “build your own DDoS protection”. The app stores don’t like your stuff, so “build your own app store and phone to distribute it with”.
And, if you can get your venture off of the ground, that won’t end attacks: DDoSing is one, and we’ve also seen people go after advertisers on right-leaning cable news networks in an attempt to marginalize them, and try to get carriers to drop the networks.
Perhaps a bit paradoxical: people using speech to try and suppress speech. It’s within their rights! But it’s not born out of a love for the principle that puts the tool in their toolbox.
take action on forced arbitration, meddling in the right of two parties to make contracts that way.
If it is forced arbitration, then that isn’t the rights of two equal parties making an agreement in a fair exchange of value. Paying a ransom is also an agreement between two parties, but they are not equal parties and one is engaging in extortion, which is a crime.
The whole DIY “build your own alternative” if you don’t like the competitive options available in the free market is a reasonable position for the government to take. “build your own” is not the same as “entitled to no barriers to competition”, regulatory or otherwise, nor is the government required to remove or waive barriers for you just because you decide you want to enter a market.
There are armies of lobbyists in Washington whose sole purpose is to ensure barriers they have worked very hard to create and raise against disruptors and new competitors are maintained. That includes capturing regulators to maintain the status quo of “just enough competition to avoid anti-trust action, but not enough to disrupt the nice little cabal controlling the market”, without collusion, of course, wink, wink. Because that, like price fixing, would be illegal.
We see that all the time. Building codes. Regulators from the FCC to the FAA to the EPA to the DOT, Insurance commissioners, Utility Rate boards, etc. etc.
It is in the interests of the surviving corporations that have carved up the market to prevent any new competitors. That’s why it is so important to be a “first mover” in any new market, particularly new markets created by new technologies.
@PooltoyWolf HMU if you want to get on on the ground floor of some MehFTs I made. Proceeds will support the Freedom Truckers Against Mask and Vaccine Mandates. (Not a 501c charity. Not tax-deductible.)
On first try I got “Oops, couldn’t find that page”
Guess that says it all!
/image xkcd free speech
@mike808 One of my favorites.
@blaineg It’s also why the “Political Quarantine” thread (I won’t link to it, it is best forgotten) reads so one-sided. Someone that didn’t understand that this is how free speech works was asked to pick up their toys and go home.
@mike808 Yeah… just because people think you’re an asshole, doesn’t make you wrong, though.
@rebeltaz The air must be pretty thin that high in the atmosflat.
@mike808 Probably my least favorite xkcd.
Freedom of speech is a legal concept, and it’s also a cultural value. This comic addresses the former in an uncharacteristically mean-spirited way, but says nothing of the latter, which is usually what people are concerned about, even if they’re not always great at expressing the distinction.
@brendino The people concerned about the cultural value of free speech are often unconcerned with the rights of listeners to not give a fuck.
The cultural rights of free speech does not extend to an entitlement of forced listening or attention or platforming. That’s the cognitive failure of the free screechers on the cultural aspects, independent of the legal aspects.
@mike808 I think we’re both relying on making generalizations about broad swaths of people, which makes dialogue unhelpful. And yeah, there are definitely bad actors who will use rhetoric to mask prejudice which makes it hard to know who’s acting in good faith.
I think you overrate the “forced listening” idea, but I’d need an example of what you mean by that.
“Entitlement of platforming” seems to belie the idea that you don’t think platforming dissenting viewpoints is all that important, which speaks to the cultural aspects that I think are worth sticking up for. Cases like Marsh v. Alabama and Knight Institute v. Trump ask all kinds of interesting questions about the scope of the public square.
@brendino “Entitlement of platforming” is that folks think that platforms like these forums, Twitter, Facebook, and social media platforms have an obligation to carry arbitrary speech. They don’t. That’s the entitlement I was referring to.
There are Terms of Use agreements that still need to be agreed to as a pre-condition and definition of “authorized use” of those resources. Unauthorized use of computer systems is a federal crime.
It’s a free market, and you don’t have to like Twitter’s Terms of Use, because you are free to create your own platform with your own terms of use and freely compete in the public marketplace.
@mike808 And yet a company town had to allow free speech on its streets, and (until SCOTUS vacated the ruling, anyways) the President’s account was considered public enough that he got in trouble for blocking someone.
There is legitimate argumentation around the idea that social media is a public square, even if it’s built by a private company. I don’t think it’s helpful to ignore that outright.
And we don’t talk this way in other realms of life! If I’m a renter, the government has a say in how I restrict who I rent to. People like me want to see government take action on forced arbitration, meddling in the right of two parties to make contracts that way.
But these are matters of law, and my main point was to point out that free speech is also a cultural value. I can advocate for better terms of use for Twitter without trying to nationalize it.
In theory, maybe. In reality, it has proven difficult. You need someone who can host your stuff, and they don’t like your ideology, so “build your own server farm”. The payment processor doesn’t like your stuff, so “build your own payment processor”. The DDoS protection company decides they don’t like your stuff, so “build your own DDoS protection”. The app stores don’t like your stuff, so “build your own app store and phone to distribute it with”.
And, if you can get your venture off of the ground, that won’t end attacks: DDoSing is one, and we’ve also seen people go after advertisers on right-leaning cable news networks in an attempt to marginalize them, and try to get carriers to drop the networks.
Perhaps a bit paradoxical: people using speech to try and suppress speech. It’s within their rights! But it’s not born out of a love for the principle that puts the tool in their toolbox.
@brendino
If it is forced arbitration, then that isn’t the rights of two equal parties making an agreement in a fair exchange of value. Paying a ransom is also an agreement between two parties, but they are not equal parties and one is engaging in extortion, which is a crime.
The whole DIY “build your own alternative” if you don’t like the competitive options available in the free market is a reasonable position for the government to take. “build your own” is not the same as “entitled to no barriers to competition”, regulatory or otherwise, nor is the government required to remove or waive barriers for you just because you decide you want to enter a market.
There are armies of lobbyists in Washington whose sole purpose is to ensure barriers they have worked very hard to create and raise against disruptors and new competitors are maintained. That includes capturing regulators to maintain the status quo of “just enough competition to avoid anti-trust action, but not enough to disrupt the nice little cabal controlling the market”, without collusion, of course, wink, wink. Because that, like price fixing, would be illegal.
We see that all the time. Building codes. Regulators from the FCC to the FAA to the EPA to the DOT, Insurance commissioners, Utility Rate boards, etc. etc.
It is in the interests of the surviving corporations that have carved up the market to prevent any new competitors. That’s why it is so important to be a “first mover” in any new market, particularly new markets created by new technologies.
Favorite comment:
I hate crypto shills but I hate idiotic conservatives so much more.
@PooltoyWolf HMU if you want to get on on the ground floor of some MehFTs I made. Proceeds will support the Freedom Truckers Against Mask and Vaccine Mandates. (Not a 501c charity. Not tax-deductible.)
@mike808 With or without recurring contributions by default?
@PooltoyWolf Combined, and the result is that one
cryptoshitcoin that lost over 99% in value in a month.