Yes, it is interesting that the author sees no place in the modern world for the kind of free speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. They are happy with a giant global monopolist controlling all speech, as long as they use that power to enforce their political agenda.
That is an incredibly dangerous mindset and one that seems to be becoming more pervasive in respectable circles.
> Yes, it is interesting that the author sees no place in the modern world for the kind of free speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
Well, there is such a place. The U.S.
However, in Germany, German rules of speech apply. As a German, I consider this a good thing. And remember, the German constitution was written at the pleasure of the allies -- the US were apparently quite happy with the way our constitution balances freedom and responsibility.
And, corner cases aside, so am I. I prefer "responsible speech" to the US "wild west speech". This is largely cultural I'm sure.
Of course once we accept that Germany can insist on their own model of speech, so can China. Or Syria. Or Thailand. Which I find hardly ideal, given that I'd like to propagate liberal (and, dare I say it, "western") values. But I don't have a decent solution to this conundrum.
That is sort of the point. Once all speech transits corporate networks and those corporations are empowered to censor that speech then the public square protected by the U.S. Constitution no longer exists.
But Facebook already "censors" algorithmically. You are not shown a democratic slice from a marketplace of opinions. You are given a curated echo chamber of voices algorithmically optimized to keep you engaged/enraged. The voices that rise to the top are either the ones with the deepest pockets or the ones that most activate the lizard part of our brains.
> But I don't have a decent solution to this conundrum.
I have. The German model is wrong for the reasons you allured to. If states can't be trusted to be arbiter of acceptable speech then they shouldn't have that job.
> And remember, the German constitution was written at the pleasure of the allies
That would be an appeal to authority and we all know US made few mistakes in the past so I'm not sure why you'd want to use that fallacy.
> This is largely cultural I'm sure.
Must be. Thinking that the state is always right and bossing people that disagree is historically very German.
The Constitutional guarantee of free speech mandates the behavior of the government to not interfere with the rights of private actors. When a private actor (such as Facebook) chooses to publish or suppress content from a third party, that is a voluntary exercise of Constitutionally protected speech.
Social media services have neither a moral nor legal obligation to publish hate speech.
Correct. But private corporations can choose whether or not to follow in the path of liberal democracy or authoritarianism in how they relate to their customers.
Facebook has more customers than any country has citizens so this question is of great importance to how their service continues to grow and impact the world.
> can choose whether or not to follow in the path of liberal democracy or authoritarianism
Liberal Democracy can also be authoritarian. The words you're thinking of are libertarian and authoritarian. Liberty as in free, authority as in ruled.
Do you not recognize that both words have the same Latin roots? It is only in the US where this illogical distinction is made because the word liberal has been bastardized.
"William Safire points out that liberalism is attacked by both the Right and the Left: by the Right for defending such practices as abortion, homosexuality, and atheism, by the Left for defending free enterprise and the rights of the individual over the collective."
>> the kind of free speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution
> The Constitutional guarantee of free speech mandates the behavior of the government to not interfere with the rights of private actors
Free speech is an ethical concept that is (imo) fundamental to open societies. The US Constitution enshrines this ethical ideal by creating a prohibition against government interference in free speech. GP is lamenting that major corporations do not seem interested in the ethical ideal, not claiming that the codification of the ethical ideal found in the US Constitution requires major corporations to permit certain types of speech on their platform.
I think it is an oversimplification to say that free speech is a general ethical ideal. As with many things, the Constitution is attempting to strike a balance. The check on restriction of speech is the prohibition of the government to restrict speech, but there is an opposite check as well: private entities are permitted to restrict speech. In the most extreme case, this means people can determine for themselves what is discussed in their own homes. There is a lot of tricky gray area between private homes and the public square.
When people's lives depend on your actions and policies, you have some moral obligations no matter who you are - a government, a corporation or just an abusive lone parent.
exactly. When Facebook reaches the size of a nation state in terms of its influence (and it arguably has exceeded this given how far the platform reaches) it ought to be held responsible.
Does anybody seriously think that any responsibility we demand from a actor like a government would go away if we'd write "limited liability company" on the door of the white house or congress?
This is so true and something that is confused all the time by “free speech advocates”. It’s quite frustrating actually.
I’m not happy about the amplification of speech that social networks offer, but l’m even more unhappy about the attitude of “smart” techies who shrug their shoulders and say “free speech - cant do anything about that”.
We can do something about that, but that would mean solving hard problems and not creating another way to type a few hundred words into a text box.
Free speech is a dangerous idea by itself, and without democracy and solid institutions, it can easily be the tool of populists and demagogues. It's not an absolute value all on its own.
Please elaborate on how populism and democracy are two separate entities, when, by definition, both are characterized by majority rule. Are you sure you aren't confusing democracy with republicanism?
One measure of a functioning democracy is how it approaches compromise between differing opinions and respecting the rights of those who don't agree with you. Actively pitting one group against another works against this. It can easily lead to what's known as the tyranny of the majority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
On the other hand some people are worried about the rise of a ruling elite centralized in government, media, and universities, with a partial influence and cooperation of the military industry. The deep state.
This group of decision-makers would like the public to think they operate on behalf of the interest of the state and act on the basis of "scientific principles".
Arguing that this is essentialy social control and that this constitutes the basis of the "tyranny of the elite" may not be flawed.
There's always the need of a balance between extreme tendencies. The liberal premise that the political elite has the right and obligation to make fundamental decisions on behalf of the mass of citizens has its limits.
That is an incredibly dangerous mindset and one that seems to be becoming more pervasive in respectable circles.