[snowwrestler]

If we're going to have a marketplace of ideas, then some ideas will become popular and win, and some ideas will become unpopular and lose. This is how marketplaces are supposed to work.

If we want a forum for speech where every idea is always welcome, and platformed, and no one is allowed to lose no matter how unpopular they are, I don't know what you'd call that. I'd call it a form of hell, personally.

Philosophically, I believe the First Amendment is properly addressed at restraining the power of the government, rather than at propping up unpopular ideas.

[JamesBarney]

I think the idea of marketplace of ideas is that an idea loses by being unpopular, not by another idea persuading large institutions to ban it.

Your interpretation, that persuading a large institution to ban opposition ideas is winning, and being banned is losing, is entirely consistent with getting rid of the 1st amendment.

[rayiner]

Obviously the First Amendment is directed to the government. I’m not making a legal argument here. But we don’t abide by the first amendment merely because we throw up our hands and say “this is a terrible idea but we’re stuck with it.” There is an underlying principle there, and that principle isn’t necessarily limited to the government. (As a matter of what is good policy, not what is the minimum legally required protection.)

I don’t agree with your characterization that not shutting down subreddits or Twitter accounts is identical to forcing speech on anyone. There are a lot of Neo-marxists hanging out on Reddit calling for violence whose ideas I find extremely offensive and dangerous. But I choose not to wander into those subreddits. I don’t see why those subreddits need to be wiped out.

[snowwrestler]

It's up to the people who run Reddit. If they want to wipe out some subreddits, who is to say they can't? Any mechanism you can imagine to prevent them from doing so would have the effect of forcing speech upon them.

A website declining to carry some content seems perfectly in line with American values and traditions of free speech, in much the same way that Fox News is free to choose not to carry Rachel Maddow's show.

[rayiner]

I’m not saying they can’t, I’m saying they shouldn’t. I disagree that reddit can be analogized to serial television media for these purposes.

[fapjacks]

... Except for some people, though, right?

I have an idea how you feel about the guy refusing to sell (decorate) the gay marriage cake (not trying to be pithy here, just tried to do a bit of footwork before replying). Do you absolve that guy under those "American values and traditions of free speech" as you would a website in this case? For me, second-order consequences are as important as whether or not this particular guy must sell this particular cake, when it comes to issues as critical to a functioning free and democratic society (such as speech). So "fair" abstractions (those which don't hide or ignore contradiction) aren't just important, but obligatory. This is an issue that can be reasoned to completion without introducing "protected classes" of human being, because the reasoning and conclusion are the same regardless (and for the same reason more concise mathematical proofs are preferred over those predicated on "complications" such as Riemann).

The guy selling the cake argued that he was being compelled to express an opinion (decorate a cake in celebration of an idea his religious beliefs dictated were unethical), thus making it compelled speech. So, is Youtube being compelled to express a particular opinion, if they do not ban users from the platform, when those users say things people find abhorrent? I do not think so, because Youtube bills itself as a platform where users create content and then publish the content on the platform for other users. Youtube does not purport to be a merchant of the content itself (obligatory reference to criticality of Section 230 protections). But according to his legal defense, the cake guy is selling the decoration of the cake in addition to the cake itself; his artwork as an expression of himself. In other words, Youtube is selling the medium and not the message. But the cake guy is selling the message (in addition to the medium). He is billing his cake decoration as part of his services, whereas Youtube and every other "platform" specifically denies in legal long-form that the content on their platform(s) reflect the views and opinions of the companies creating them. That is the critical distinction, and why I feel strongly that any platform which displays in its ToS that users agree that the views expressed on its platform are not the views held by the company, is violating the right of free expression to the users they ban from their platforms for the speech those users express on their platforms.

Importantly, a big part of my reasoning here is that, subscribing to stoic thought, I place accountability for any perceived "damage" from words on the shoulders of the person interpreting them. I mention this here because I've found this is so divergent from the dominant worldview that it's rejected often with much of the same forcefulness as if I'd stated a value judgment predicated on the color of a person's skin. And this seems to me to be symptomatic, and I'm not sure how this fits into the broader discussion of how the internet fits into our culture. But it's a core proposition which I hope will be addressed directly instead of indirectly, because the implications are clear (you are ceding control of your mind to others, when you allow their words to dictate your thoughts).

[salawat]

>Importantly, a big part of my reasoning here is that, subscribing to stoic thought, I place accountability for any perceived "damage" from words on the shoulders of the person interpreting them.

Whoa there buddy. You can't just suggest that other people be responsible for their own emotional responses and learn to moderate them and move along. If people started doing that, then what nwxt? You'd start having people independently then! Furthermore, that would completely negate a degree or manner of social control capable of being leaned on.

Apologies for the tongue in cheek, but I have the feeling your words may fall on deaf ears. Even worse, they'll fall on malicious ones who would turn it against you for the gall or privilege you demonstrate by aiming you can just say anything to anyone else, and whether or not they get offended is their problem.

I think I'm starting to understand the mentality a bit better;and it isn't necessarily unhealthy if taken at reasonable degrees. On the one hand, there is some level of required empathy to one's audience in any exchange. On the other hand though, no one is entitled to never getting in a verbal sparring match, and it's not terribly graciously or respectable to just say "That is your problem."

You have to bring your full rhetorical toolkit to the table. You have to meet on levels of logos, pathos, and ethos all. Leave any one out, or conspicuously absent, and you're liable to get binned more often than convincing anyone.

[fapjacks]

I do appreciate the sarcasm, and to your point, here's a bit of gallows humour in return: Allowing someone else to dictate your reaction to words is literal mind control. We cede control of our minds to those other people when we don't have control of our reactions. It's possible (and perhaps the typical case) that most people are habituated to a certain kind of mind control. And hearing or reading something which fits their worldview and moral relativity and subjective value judgments activates a particular reaction in their minds which becomes the expected reaction. It's only when these people hear or read something which is not in harmony with their habituated mind control that they react poorly, shunting the mind control directly into their emotions, bypassing critical thought. And just as though they'd been hit on the nose on the street unexpectedly, their emotional reaction (the thing which I call the "lizard brain") demands the assignment of "blame" so that it can start planning its revenge. Or otherwise respond in a way specified by the habituated mind control.

But to your point as well, it's in our nature though to react poorly to this notion, because it contains some uncomfortable truths about the universe and our place in it. And the lizard brain, having been hit on the nose with an uncomfortable, worldview-challenging assertion, commands to us that surely some fault lies on some level with the person saying the evil words or whatever. But no: It is literally the case that it is entirely within your control how you react to some person coming up to you on the street and screaming "COCKSUCKER!" in your face. I really try not to qualify my statements too much (because not doing so is one easy and practical way to demonstrate how little courtesy we extend to people who say things we disagree with, and how much we force our own value judgments on the words we interpret), but notice I'm not saying that it's not a lot of work to get to that point. And indeed, I still struggle with this mightily every day. We are human, after all. But we are the sole accountable party for our own thoughts.

To further support my assertion, imagine how your emotional, reactionary lizard brain would interpret the Cocksucker Guy if he was clearly a crazy person who lived on the street. Now imagine your interpretation of the same except that it's your significant other's best friend. Or significant other. Maybe you can see where this is going. Now imagine your interpretation of the exact same two scenarios, except instead of "cocksucker" they are screaming "asshole". You've just demonstrated in this simple thought experiment that your reaction is completely and wholly dependent on factors other than the words themselves. And this is my point (and indeed one of the core tenets of Stoicism), that control is an illusion, that real control does not extend beyond the boundary of your own mind, and thusly that the words themselves which you read and hear are not responsible for your reaction, but all this other shit that goes into your interpretation of those words, including your own personal subjective definition and value judgments and worldview.

You do not owe anyone anything when it comes to controlling their minds, and in fact, you are actually doing another person harm when you habituate the mechanics of external mind control by accepting responsibility for the contents of their mind, their reactions according to their subjective value judgments and moral relativity. Supporting the removal of some Youtube channels with unpopular views is precisely how you make habituating mind control more effective than it already is. Society desperately needs more mechanisms for supporting critical thought and (far) less of anything which streamlines shunting mind control around critical thought and into the emotional lizard brain. If anything, our society needs more bad ideas floating around and not less.

So stop helping the advertising industry, the government, mass media manufacturers, racist shitheads, and anybody else who would wish to co-opt the thought processes of those around you! The content of another person's mind is not your responsibility, and arguably none of your business.

[gamblor956]

why I feel strongly that any platform which displays in its ToS that users agree that the views expressed on its platform are not the views held by the company, is violating the right of free expression to the users they ban from their platforms for the speech those users express on their platforms.

Users don't have a right to free expression on others' platforms. The right to freedom on of speech only extends to one's own platforms of expression. If someone wants to post videos they can host their own video sharing website.

[f1refly]

> If someone wants to post videos they can host their own video sharing website.

And then google comes and takes your domain away and refuses to give it back

[tptacek]

In Democracy and Distrust, Ely says rules like the First Amendment are important because they secure the channels of democracy; in his framing, it's important that the government not suppress speech because doing so prevents the people from governing. It's not because speech is an intrinsic or natural right, which is an idea he argues against.

That made sense to me when I read it.

The idea of a universal principle of reverence for speech, regardless of its substance, makes no sense to me. In fact, it doesn't make sense to most people. Even on HN, you can find people arguing for decriminalizing child pornography. You have no trouble with that idea being suppressed. Why is white supremacy less loathsome? That's what we say when we suggest white supremacist speech be tolerated.

(Violent neo-Marxism and Shining Path Maoism is trendy among left-edgelords and is equally intolerable).

[phonypc]

I would/do have a problem with that idea being supressed. The path to defeating a truly bad idea is to publicly flog it, not pretend it doesn't exist.

[tptacek]

No. It takes more time to rebut ridiculous ideas than to generate them. At some point along the spectrum of consensus, the burden shifts to the person propagating the idea; otherwise, all we're doing is wasting time feeding the trolls.

[phonypc]

Trolls can be ignored. Bad ideas can be expressed in good faith.

[tptacek]

In neither case are we obligated to tolerate them.

[dionidium]

The reason we need a blanket rule against state prohibition of speech is that human beings cannot be trusted to decide which speech is off limits. It's obvious to you that white supremacy makes the list, but it is just as obvious to religious fundamentalists that heretical speech should make the list (we're talking about your eternal soul, after all).

There is no workable rule that can't be exploited or extended. And it's not enough to invoke the Slippery Slope fallacy in response, because even if we could all decide today on the perfect list of topics to prohibit (we can't, but even if I grant you that absurdity), politics and governance absolutely does operate incrementally and no line would long remain static, especially a line that's so easily moved as one defining acceptable speech.

It's just simply not a workable idea. The only thing you can do is make a rule that prohibits the prohibition of speech and then let people fight it out in public, over and over and over and over, just like you and I are doing here.

And to be clear: YouTube (and other private actors) banning speech they don't like is a totally legitimate part of that conversation.

[tptacek]

I do not support laws banning white supremacist speech, so I’m not sure what your point is here.

[dionidium]

Your framing of Ely's justification for the 1st Amendment did not make it clear that you wouldn't support banning speech you find particularly egregious. I'm happy to have been wrong.

[tptacek]

Ely wouldn't either. The point is that 1A protects the political process, not a natural right we have to express ourselves; thus the distinction between government and social suppression of speech.

[pnako]

In a marketplace of ideas, unpopular views would get... unpopular view counts (on Youtube and elsewhere).

If you want to keep with this analogy, censorship is a form of protectionism, so your marketplace of ideas is not a free market.