[Gene_Parmesan]

I've never understood people's conflation of "I do not like your speech" with "censorship." A bookstore refusing to carry books by certain authors is in no way censorship, for instance (the books still exist, just not in that bookstore), yet when we bring things into the digital realm for some reason people seem to lose the distinction.

Let me put it this way. Nothing is stopping hateful people from creating their own video hosting platform and hosting their drivel. Hence, free speech. But nothing in the entirety of free speech, whether the legal notions or the philosophical notions, requires platforms to give that speech a place to live. The whole "marketplace of ideas" concept fundamentally works by having the community at large reject hateful speech.

Free speech does not mean each instance of speech needs to be weighed and evaluated equally by the community.

From a far more practical perspective, allowing this sort of thing onto your platform spells death for any content-platform startup. Seeing this sort of thing is going to immediately (a) drive sensible content consumers -- your actual users -- away from the platform, and (b) draw other hate speech creators to you like flies to shit. If that's what the platform wants to do, then nothing in the world is stopping them, but they will never gain mainstream success.

[colesantiago]

Gab looks like it's doing well, being the largest mastodon node with lots of non technical users.

That's about as 'mainstream' as you can get in the fediverse.

[andrewzah]

It's absolutely hilarious they switched to mastodon, given the nature of the overall mastodon culture.

[Covzire]

The problem with your analogy is how you define bookstore. If there were dozens of Youtube "bookstores" in every major city this wouldn't be an issue but functionally speaking every city or town or hamlet has the same 2 or 3 bookstores to choose from and they're all awful at supporting freedom of speech.

[BurningFrog]

Every era has its things it considers beyond decency to discuss. Most people agree with them, and even if they don't, they know to keep quiet.

Those who agree with the norms of 2020 also think many of the norms of past times were awful. Homosexuality was considered beyond decency not long ago. Race mixing, premarital sex as well. The list can be made very long.

So what are the chances that mainstream decency right now has found the perfect set of correct values, that never needs to be challenged?

[core-questions]

> Nothing is stopping hateful people from creating their own video hosting platform and hosting their drivel.

Cloudflare and domain registrar bans, payment processor bans and deplatforming, etc. would beg to differ.

[wlll]

You can still do it, you don't need to use cloudflare, you don't need to use that registrar.

You don't even need to use the Internet, paint it on a sign and walk around the street with it on a pole.

You're not having your free speech impeded by any of this, because refusing to carry someone elses speech isn't censorship, it's just that when you say things that are repulsive to people they won't want to help promote it.

If you want free speech go to your door, walk outside, start taking. You got your free speech. Everything else is a bonus.

[tristor]

> If you want free speech go to your door, walk outside, start taking. You got your free speech. Everything else is a bonus.

This argument is reductio ad absurdum, except executed against an argument you support. De-platforming online is in opposition to free speech, and the fact you can walk out your front door with a sign does not mitigate the loss of equal power behind your speech that others enjoy by using Internet services. You standing on the street with a sign is in no way equivalent in character or reach to writing what your sign says on Twitter. So here we are, the Internet is a thing, it exists, and so do digital platforms. Free and open access to web platforms is a core philosophical requirement to ensure freedom of speech, and de-platforming people damages that.

It's okay to be opposed to freedom of speech, it's okay to be opposed to the open web, but don't act as if you are not while advocating de-platforming as being an acceptable behavior.

[ilikehurdles]

> the fact you can walk out your front door with a sign does not mitigate the loss of equal power behind your speech that others enjoy by using Internet services. You standing on the street with a sign is in no way equivalent in character or reach to writing what your sign says on Twitter

Maybe the answer is obvious to you, but it is not to me: why should these things be equivalent? Why should you be entitled to twitter's channel for your views that twitter does not want to host?

If Twitter is making the decision on its own -- that is, it's not coerced by the state, and if you are still capable of getting your information online by some other means, then Twitter is making its own free speech decision to curate its own website like you would your own site or your own store. Free and accessible doesn't and shouldn't mean that you get to hold the platform for ransom with your content. That is, Twitter shouldn't be chained to indefinitely dedicating hosting specifically for any one kind of unpopular content.

Your definition for the "open web" sounds to me like, honestly, very severe state control of private enterprise. You, a member of the open web, not being permitted to choose what content belongs on your own website just defeats the purpose of any kind of experiment of free expression online. A government telling you that you must always carry this or that particular view is totally antithetical to the First Amendment that establishes the Freedom of Speech.

Getting kicked out of the bowling club for sharing highly offensive statements has not prevented you from sharing those statements. Losing your job over them has not prevented you from sharing those statements. Being banned from twitter has not prevented you from sharing those statements. I really do mean to be absolute about this -- your freedom of speech would not have been impeded _at all_, no matter how many hosts or bans or jobs you go through.

If you're reduced to screaming your opinions from a street corner in order to have anyone hear them, and you're still being ignored by people, well you've still got 100% of your freedom of speech -- it's just that the speech isn't resonating and the government isn't some despotic, Orwellian regime that would force audiences to listen to those views.

[heartbeats]

Losing my job over them definitely dissuades me from sharing them in the future. This impedes my freedom of speech.

If you're saying that you're not physically prevented from saying whatever you'd like, but with that being the limit, it seems like just about any infringement becomes acceptable.

> Being put to death by the government has not prevented you from sharing those statements.

[ilikehurdles]

No. I'm specifically calling out that the government is not impeding. Other private actors are sharing bad things you did and exercising their Freedom of Association to disassociate from you. They shouldn't be forced to carry you around. That's it. It's the free market deciding.

All speech has consequences. You, the free speech enthusiast, not being prepared to pay those consequences is not cause for a government bailout or arrests of website hosts.

[Volundr]

> Losing my job over them definitely dissuades me from sharing them in the future. This impedes my freedom of speech.

Losing my friends over calling them assholes definitely dissuades me from doing so in the future. This impedes my freedom of speech.

See how nonsensical that is? Just because something makes you less likely to speak your mind doesn't mean it's impeding your freedoms. You have the freedoms to call your friends assholes. They have the freedom not to associate with you anymore (this is called freedom of association, and is part of freedom of speech). That freedom of association is the same freedom your employer is exercising when you make a racist joke and then fire you. You had the freedom to make the joke, they had the freedom not to associate with you after you did. No ones freedoms were limited.

[tristor]

> Maybe the answer is obvious to you, but it is not to me: why should these things be equivalent? Why should you be entitled to twitter's channel for your views that twitter does not want to host?

I don't think there is an obvious answer here. We're in the realm of philosophy. My response to the grandparent was less about my own advocacy for freedom of speech (although that is clearly my position/bias) and more about their statements being disingenuous.

What my own personal opinion is as to the answer to your questions is pretty simple though. Twitter, like other social media "publishers", enjoys special legal status under the law via [0]Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. As such, they themselves do not have freedom of speech, they must not interfere with the content of the creators who use their platform. Interfering with that content (in theory) loses them that special legal status and opens them up to liability for the content they do choose to retain/host. So our legislation is pretty clear on the matter, Twitter does not have the right to censor you simply because they're a private business while also maintaining liability immunity as a common carrier.

> If Twitter is making the decision on its own -- that is, it's not coerced by the state, and if you are still capable of getting your information online by some other means, then Twitter is making its own free speech decision to curate its own website like you would your own site or your own store.

See above. "Publishing platforms" don't have free speech rights as long as they choose to operate as common carriers to maintain liability immunity, which Twitter does. That's setting aside the separate argumentation point which is that corporations are not people and corporate personhood is a sham, and therefore corporations themselves do not fundamentally have freedom of speech.

> Your definition for the "open web" sounds to me like, honestly, very severe state control of private enterprise.

Please elaborate. I can't imagine how you would come to that conclusion from what I wrote.

> A government telling you

"You." Civil Rights are individual rights, not collective rights. Compelled speech is obviously not philosophically aligned with freedom of speech. But it seems you are using a collective "you", strongly implying the impositions that come from corporate personhood as a legal concept to be more tangible than they are even in current law.

> Getting kicked out of the bowling club for sharing highly offensive statements has not prevented you from sharing those statements. Losing your job over them has not prevented you from sharing those statements. Being banned from twitter has not prevented you from sharing those statements. I really do mean to be absolute about this -- your freedom of speech not impeded _at all_. If you're reduced to screaming your opinions from a street corner in order to have anyone hear them, and you're still being ignored by people, well you've still got 100% of your freedom of speech -- it's just that the speech isn't resonating and the government isn't some despotic regime out of 1984 that would force audiences to listen to those views.

I'm less absolutist here. Your argument has merit, and yet it misses the point. The bowling club kicking you out is not the same thing as being banned from Twitter. The bowling club is not a publishing platform which exclusively exists for broadcasting speech to people who choose to follow you. Twitter is. People who are highly offended by your statements on Twitter have many modes of recourse in order to not be accosted by your statements such as not following you, blocking you, or otherwise using available technical means to ignore you. The bowling club, however has no such filtering mechanism, nor is it's sole purpose for existence to provide a platform for individuals to broadly publish their speech, it exists for people to bowl and your highly offensive speech reasonably detracts from its purpose for existence.

Platforms are different from other forms of private entities, and they are treated differently under the law as such. Trying to conflate the two is not reasonable, nor is it reasonable to take an absolutist position based in a conflation. Also, it's just plain wrong to say that "your freedom of speech not impededed _at all_." if you've been banned from a broadcasting platform. That's an obvious impediment, which shouldn't need further explanation.

[0]: https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

[ilikehurdles]

> So our legislation is pretty clear on the matter, Twitter does not have the right to censor you simply because they're a private business while also maintaining liability immunity as a common carrier.

There's a line between removing content and creating/editing content, especially when it's attributed to someone else. When you, publisher, start modifying others' content, it's reasonable that you become liable for the result. If you choose not to publish certain authors, for any reason goes against your acceptable use policies, I don't see an issue. It's off-topic comments on a forum. Political comments on a cooking blog. Etc. You have pretty wide latitude to define what is acceptable on your publishing platform, and that definition shouldn't have to be fixed throughout time.

> "Publishing platforms" don't have free speech rights as long as they choose to operate as common carriers

Twitter is not a common carrier. Social media is not a public utility. They are publishers.

[core-questions]

Well, here's the thing: their actual opposition is not truly to _free speech_ per se, it's to particular ideas that they want to quash. Whether or not there's a legitimate reason to dissuade people from thinking about those ideas is a different question.

[cortesoft]

It's not always about dissuading people from thinking about those ideas, it is about me not wanting to hear them.

[yeetfaraway]

Then run some blocking software locally on your own devices. If that's not enough, then it's obvious your concern is more about preventing everyone else from hearing opinions you don't approve of.

[Dylan16807]

Payment processor bans are a legitimate free speech problem, in my opinion. Well, in the US.

[heartbeats]

You do need to use CloudFlare, or your site will get DDoSed into oblivion.

[wlll]

So set up your own "racism allowed" alternative to Cloudflare. At some point, yes, you're going to be basically reduced to shouting at people in the street because mst people think what you're saying is repugnant, but that's (mostly) up to them. It's not their duty to host your stuff.

[heartbeats]

What if my "racism allowed" alternative to CloudFlare gets depeered by, say, AT&T?

[ilikehurdles]

There is nothing unreasonable about choosing alternatives for any of those.

[heartbeats]

CloudFlare doesn't have many alternatives. There's VanwaNet, ddos-guard.net, and I think that's it.

Should you start your own DDoS protection service too?

[core-questions]

Sorry, are you telling people to simply "start their own payment processor"? Do you realize what kind of an ask that is?

[ilikehurdles]

You're not entitled to Square or Visa or Paypal or Mastercard payments. If you're reduced to cryptocurrency and cash, it is what is is. Profiting from your speech in one specific way over another is not enshrined in some code of human rights.

[Dylan16807]

I think "ability to make a payment online" should be in the same category as utilities. Someone having to go cash-only is just as bad as if the power and telephone companies refuse to sell you service. It kind of is a "basic needs" problem.

[heartbeats]

What if you get a letter from the bank telling you to withdraw all your money and cough up the value of the mortgage in a week or be evicted?

[ilikehurdles]

Anyone who would sign a contract that would give a bank that level of free reign over the terms of your mortgage is a pretty big fool.

[chii]

> A bookstore refusing to carry books by certain authors is in no way censorship

so i have to make my own bookstore just to sell that book? I'd say that's pretty close to censorship. Even tho the constitution doesn't stop private censorship (only gov't censorship), it isn't a good outcome imo.

[ilikehurdles]

If you own a bookstore, you should be able to curate its content at your leisure, which includes but is not limited to removing content that you find objectionable. I don't see how this is a bad outcome, because the alternative -- being forced to carry books on your shelves that you have no power to remove sounds like a much worse outcome.

I, a terrible author, am not entitled to your bookstore's audience.

[Psychlist]

Yes, if that's what it takes.

Flip it around: Imagine you have a tattoo. You're publishing the one tattoo therefore "free speech" means you have to publish all the tattoos? Should you be obliged to allow a big "Kick whites out of America" tattoo next to whatever tattoo you have chosen to wear?

[RonanTheGrey]

Promoting a specific kind of speech is not equivalent to not acting on speech.

Leaving a piece of speech alone and simply doing nothing to it doesn't count as promoting it. That's exactly what section 230 in the USC means.

[kelnos]

If you can't find even one existing bookstore to carry your book, perhaps your views or ideas are so toxic that you should rethink them.

Either way: still not censorship.

[BurningFrog]

Or perhaps the society I live in is so toxic that my sane ideas can't reach out.

To spell it out, your reasoning assumes that the prevailing consensus in any society is good.

[kortilla]

Do you know what censorship means? It’s quite literally the textbook definition (explicitly blocking books because of the ideas in them) so I’m curious what you think censorship is.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship

[criddell]

Would you also say if I were to ask you to leave my house because I got tired of listening to you, I'd be infringing on your free speech rights? Is that different than me removing your book from my store?

[strken]

There's a difference between the legal American right to free speech, and the global ethical principle of free speech. One can only have their right breached by the government, but one can be censored by anyone who has the power to read their incoming/outgoing communications and modify or remove parts.

There's a difference between your home, which is a privately owned private space, and a mall, which is a privately owned public space. Youtube is more like a mall or a newspaper conglomerate than your house. For it to have a bias when censoring content can be objectionable in the same way that a big media conglomerate with a bias can be objectionable.

[criddell]

> There's a difference between the legal American right to free speech, and the global ethical principle of free speech.

So if I ask you to leave my house because I don't want to listen to you any more, am I violating the global ethical principle of free speech?

[kortilla]

Censorship is censorship. I’m not sure why you’re prattling on about free speech rights.

[chii]

The difference is that you would be forced to hear the speech in the house, but you are not forced to read/buy the book from the bookstore.

Removing it from the bookstore prevents those who wants the book from getting it. Having it in the bookstore doesn't force those who don't want it from reading it!

[andrewzah]

It does, however, force bookstore owners to carry any and every book. Which is a ridiculous proposition.

Instead, you can choose to not support that bookstore owner by shopping somewhere else and rewarding the bookstore owner that -does- carry it. Bookstore owners are not the government, they're free to do all sorts of things and you're free to be a patron or not.

[FridgeSeal]

Is this not "the market" simply deciding not to support something? Is that not one of tenets of free-market capitalism?

In the market of video providers, none of them are interested in hosting a particular viewpoint, then the creators of the video either have to put up with that or go make their own.

[kortilla]

> bookstore refusing to carry books by certain authors is in no way censorship

It’s fucking textbook definition of censorship.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship

Are you conflating “government censorship” with censorship?

[p1necone]

What do you think the alternative is? You want the government to mandate that every book store carries all books? Book stores have a right to curate their selection as they see fit in exactly the same way that authors have a right to write what they see fit.

[kortilla]

It’s censorship, I didn’t make any judgments about when censorship should be allowed/encouraged. It’s just the literal definition of censorship and you’re being defensive because you think it’s a bad thing.