[mannanj]

> the governed unless the governed have no issues that that lead to speach/action

What about if the speech is censored, shadow-banned, limited etc in some other ways? Where the governed does not know their speech was limited in reach, censored etc? (which btw is a real approach social media companies are taking today).

[brookst]

You’re getting at the distinction between the right to speak and the right to be heard.

There are tons of time-and-place limitations that make perfect sense. I can’t interrupt a city council meeting to give a speech about, well, anything not on the agenda.

And of course social media companies have no legal obligation to allow free speech at all, which is their own right to speech.

Core freedom of speech means the government cannot arrest you for what you say. Going beyond that to private companies being obligated to ensure your reach can be a moral argument but not a legal one.

[fool0]

---I can’t interrupt a city council meeting to give a speech about, well, anything not on the agenda.

and if you can't get your issue onthe agenda....?

Or, you arent aware of jury nullificaton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Or your pockets aren't deep enough to influence the police, city manager, council members, etc...?

[brookst]

…then yes, you will have a harder time being heard. That was kind of my point.

You can say whatever you want. Ensuring that people hear it is something else entirely and does often require money, influence, contacts.

I’m not saying it’s morally ideal, I’m saying that freedom of speech does not extend to freedom to be heard.

[samrus]

Theyll see no effect of their speech, and try something else. Like voting, protests, and violence. In thay order

[customguy]

... or infighting, or self-destruction, or doomscrolling... the pressure will go somewhere but not necessarily into channels that relieve it. That takes more effort and persistence, and also a society (our consumer societies hardly rate as such in my books).

[mannanj]

Yes as you said. Will the relief be productive? Especially when the other mechanisms/outlets for expression that are not digital (i.e. social media, the viable option in todays age - I'd love to know if anyone has succeeded wit any other outlet or medium today if they get shadow-banned on social media - share your real experience or study on this).

This is touching at the debate of "should social media be regulated or treated like the commons when it gets so large?"

You have a single company with the power and size of a country. Humans were never intended to be using something privately controlled with such an expansive reach & power differential, and then be told "they're private, if you're banned go elsewhere" except well this could be more like a public resource when it becomes that large. We haven't found a good answer to this in a capitalist system because the solution is non-capitalist.

[inigyou]

Soapbox, ballot box, jury box, ammo box - the four boxes of liberty

[zeryx]

What's actually more dangerous isn't shadow banning it's angel banning. With the ability to manufacture agents that simulate positive user feedback while making your posts hidden - Twitter was experimenting with this years ago.

[mannanj]

Ah I can agree with that. It sounds like of like astroturfing as well, but we have AI now so it's probably AI generated. I've been noticing content that felt like this a while ago on different social medias, including hacker news, I think today they are hardly discernible from humans.

edit: like as an example, ironically, your posts or mine could be an example of that.

edit2: I'm the human mannan my account is linked to, no agent talks on my behalf on my social media yet.

[felixgallo]

the right to free speech has nothing to do with what social media companies do. Social media companies are not compelled by anything, in law or otherwise, to amplify your particular post.

[Avicebron]

Is there any historical precedent for a defacto public square?

We can't relegate (unwillingly even) every bit of our lives to the private sector and suddenly say rights shouldn't exist.

[JohnFen]

IANAL, but just a web searcher. It appears that legally, in the US, public-facing private spaces are in a weird place. A lot depends on the specifics of the space. The closes analogy I can think of is shopping malls, which are privately owned but used as if they were public spaces.

In general,

"Private spaces used by the public, like shopping malls or private campuses, are typically non-public forums. The government cannot compel access to private spaces, but private operators may allow or restrict expression under private law and policy, balancing property rights with constitutional protections in some cases."

However, there have been cases where constitutional free-speech protections were extended into malls. This can happen if the property takes part in federal programs or gets federal subsidies or tax breaks.

https://bridgelegal.org/what-legally-defines-public-space/

[c22]

If we want a digital public square we should fund one with public tax dollars.

[fool0]

We had one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule isn't the same thing.

[inigyou]

You're thinking of the first amendment. Twitter banning me infringes my free speech but not my first amendment rights.