Spot the threat to free speech
-
@Jolly said in Spot the threat to free speech:
It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.
I'm pretty sure jon considers that a reasonable viewpoint in other contexts.
@Horace said in Spot the threat to free speech:
@Jolly said in Spot the threat to free speech:
It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.
I'm pretty sure jon considers that a reasonable viewpoint in other contexts.
I'm not sure how you could possibly get around it.
-
@Copper said in Spot the threat to free speech:
@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
Broadcast was different because of scarcity.
CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio
Twitter vs TNCR
In the days when it was CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio we had the fairness doctrine.
The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.
@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.
I think that is the question, has Twitter gotten to the size that once again raises the need?
Ironically Mr. Trump has probably influenced it's size.
-
When someone does something to hinder free speech (Twitter) a person who speaks up about it and vows to stop them from doing it again (Trump) that person is not guilty of hindering free speech, but of taking action against the blocking of free speech. It's just like man A walks up to man B and hits him in the face with his fist, man B then hits him back, and you're trying to accuse man B of starting a fight.
-
@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.
I think that is the question, has Twitter gotten to the size that once again raises the need?
Ironically Mr. Trump has probably influenced it's size.
@Copper said in Spot the threat to free speech:
@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.
I think that is the question, has Twitter gotten to the size that once again raises the need?
Ironically Mr. Trump has probably influenced it's size.
Twitter is like 7th largest social media site, excluding the foreign ones that aren't in use here.
If twitter is too large and needs the government to control its content surely Fox News does too.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
When someone does something to hinder free speech (Twitter) a person who speaks up about it and vows to stop them from doing it again (Trump) that person is not guilty of hindering free speech, but of taking action against the blocking of free speech. It's just like man A walks up to man B and hits him in the face with his fist, man B then hits him back, and you're trying to accuse man B of starting a fight.
@Larry said in Spot the threat to free speech:
When someone does something to hinder free speech (Twitter) a person who speaks up about it and vows to stop them from doing it again (Trump) that person is not guilty of hindering free speech, but of taking action against the blocking of free speech. It's just like man A walks up to man B and hits him in the face with his fist, man B then hits him back, and you're trying to accuse man B of starting a fight.
Man A vs Man B analogy fails. This is Government vs Man.
-
The seventh largest social media site adding commentary to someone's unedited post isn't a threat to free speech.
The men with guns, or the rules enforced my men in suits with the implied power of the men with guns behind them, is the threat to free speech.
-
We’ve created social platforms that are a perfect host for outside influences to polarize our society. Much of twitter and Facebook is not Americans expressing their right to free speech but meddling and manipulating. The evidence for this in bots is quite clear.
Second the right to free speech as a person is not the right of anonymous entity to spew polarizing garbage to millions of people. I don’t think the Constitution provides protection for that.
-
@Loki To be serious I'm dead-dog certain there have been court cases on whether you lose your right to free speech if publishing anonymously and there's no way the courts would have ever allowed that. I think if you reflected on it for a while you wouldn't be for it either.
-
-
Free speech means free speech. In my way of seeing that, it's none of the courts' business.
-
Right - but there's a more basic issue at play here first.
Twitter is more akin to a bar.
The barkeep reigns supreme in the bar and can tell you to GTFO whenever they want. That's not a first amendment issue.
Do we want government to regulate social media as a first step?
-
@Larry said in Spot the threat to free speech:
Free speech means free speech. In my way of seeing that, it's none of the courts' business.
Well, the courts only get involved when the government tries to limit it. So, if you believe in free speech the courts are your friend.
-
Right - but there's a more basic issue at play here first.
Twitter is more akin to a bar.
The barkeep reigns supreme in the bar and can tell you to GTFO whenever they want. That's not a first amendment issue.
Do we want government to regulate social media as a first step?
@xenon said in Spot the threat to free speech:
Right - but there's a more basic issue at play here first.
Twitter is more akin to a bar.
The barkeep reigns supreme in the bar and can tell you to GTFO whenever they want. That's not a first amendment issue.
Do we want government to regulate social media as a first step?
The bar analogy doesn't work for me because of the size and reach of Twitter.
-
We’ve created social platforms that are a perfect host for outside influences to polarize our society. Much of twitter and Facebook is not Americans expressing their right to free speech but meddling and manipulating. The evidence for this in bots is quite clear.
Second the right to free speech as a person is not the right of anonymous entity to spew polarizing garbage to millions of people. I don’t think the Constitution provides protection for that.
@Loki said in Spot the threat to free speech:
We’ve created social platforms that are a perfect host for outside influences to polarize our society. Much of twitter and Facebook is not Americans expressing their right to free speech but meddling and manipulating. The evidence for this in bots is quite clear.
And the thing being exploited here is each individual's eagerness to pounce when the other tribe is seen to be crazy or stupid or evil. The best way to immunize ourselves against those trolls is to stop being so eager to do that.
Education is extremely important.
