The Future of Free Speech on Social Media Looks Grim

[Wingnut]

Social-media platforms have not so much "disrupted" the old media gatekeepers as they have introduced a watered-down version of the same concept.

Reddit has suffered a rocky year, having weathered months of censorship concerns and subreddit shutdowns. Recent revelations that co-founder and current CEO Steve Huffman was surreptitiously editing Reddit posts critical of him have thrown the community into still more chaos. But Reddit is far from the only social network struggling with the tension between speech and sensitivity. Similar snafus at other services have been dominating recent headlines: there's "fake news" on Facebook, "hate speech" on Twitter, and the continued scourge of rude comment sections.

Social-media platforms are finding it harder to mouth free speech platitudes (and enjoy the corresponding cultural benefits) while at the same time actively curating a sanitized media feed. Yet to not curate or censor is to be accused of aiding and abetting a parade of horribles ranging from online jihadis to the "alt-right."

The so-called "Reddit Revolt" has pitted a coterie of left-leaning "social justice warriors" against a ragtag, right-leaning, and rambunctious crew who call themselves free-speech activists. Tensions between Reddit administrators and certain subreddits—most notably, the pro-Trump subreddit called r/The_Donald and a now-banned conspiracy theory subreddit called r/pizzagate that believes high-level world leaders operate and patronize international child-trafficking rings—have been high over the past year, as these communities' impolitic and often impolite content raised the hackles of the website's generally more liberal operators. Where Huffman, or u/spez as he is known on Reddit, really crossed a line with certain Redditors is when he admitted to amending user comments that were critical of him to appear like they were criticizing moderators of r/The_Donald instead. While some have been able to forgive Huffman's faux pas as an immature but benign troll against a community that constantly causes problems, others have decided to leave the platform all together in search of more censorship-averse websites.

Of course, internet companies like Reddit and Twitter are private corporations that can run their businesses however they see fit. If that includes censorship, so be it. Users are free to seek or build a better alternative—as users of the still relatively-obscure Voat or Gab platforms have—or just stop using the service altogether.

Yet a social network is only as valuable as, well, its network. If everyone you know insists on using a certain service, you're probably going to use that one, too. Even if you don't personally use a particular network, if enough people in a country or planet do use it, then its policies and priorities could have a major impact on your life

http://reason.com/archives/2016/12/06/the-reddit-revolt-and-the-future-of-soci

[FurriesRock]

Yet a social network is only as valuable as, well, its network. If everyone you know insists on using a certain service, you're probably going to use that one, too. Even if you don't personally use a particular network, if enough people in a country or planet do use it, then its policies and priorities could have a major impact on your life

http://reason.com/archives/2016/12/06/the-reddit-revolt-and-the-future-of-soci

This is a compelling reason to pass legislation to require businesses to follow the bill of rights as well.  Also, allowing businesses to create their own little tyrannical fiefdoms runs counter to the American ideal of freedom.  Freedom isn't freedom if your workplace can restrict it without proper justification, and that it might hurt the bottom line isn't a strong enough justification.

[Cripplecreek]

This is a compelling reason to pass legislation to require businesses to follow the bill of rights as well.  Also, allowing businesses to create their own little tyrannical fiefdoms runs counter to the American ideal of freedom.  Freedom isn't freedom if your workplace can restrict it without proper justification, and that it might hurt the bottom line isn't a strong enough justification.

Why does a new poster with a screen name denoting a sexual deviance pimping progressivism?

[Oceander]

This is a compelling reason to pass legislation to require businesses to follow the bill of rights as well.  Also, allowing businesses to create their own little tyrannical fiefdoms runs counter to the American ideal of freedom.  Freedom isn't freedom if your workplace can restrict it without proper justification, and that it might hurt the bottom line isn't a strong enough justification.

Baloney. That way lies socialism of the worst sort.  A crony capitalism that even the European socialists can only dream of.  Why not be honest and simply say you're in favor of nationalizing all private business?

[r9etb]

This is a compelling reason to pass legislation to require businesses to follow the bill of rights as well.  Also, allowing businesses to create their own little tyrannical fiefdoms runs counter to the American ideal of freedom.  Freedom isn't freedom if your workplace can restrict it without proper justification, and that it might hurt the bottom line isn't a strong enough justification.

I'm dizzy after reading that.  And it's not a good dizzy, either.

[FurriesRock]

Baloney. That way lies socialism of the worst sort.  A crony capitalism that even the European socialists can only dream of.  Why not be honest and simply say you're in favor of nationalizing all private business?

Is the government socialist because we have the bill of rights?  Yes or No?

If no, then why would applying the bill of rights to businesses magically create socialism?

[GrouchoTex]

This is a compelling reason to pass legislation to require businesses to follow the bill of rights as well.  Also, allowing businesses to create their own little tyrannical fiefdoms runs counter to the American ideal of freedom.  Freedom isn't freedom if your workplace can restrict it without proper justification, and that it might hurt the bottom line isn't a strong enough justification.

Not so sure about this.
A business is private property, or owned by shareholders.
Private property rights should be adhered to.
Passing legislation where none is needed is not the best way to go forward.

[Oceander]

Is the government socialist because we have the bill of rights?  Yes or No?

If no, then why would applying the bill of rights to businesses magically create socialism?

/snicker

Because the government is qualitatively different from private business - from private life in general.  If you cannot grasp that basic fact, then you don't belong here - or in intelligent conversation generally.

[Cripplecreek]

Not so sure about this.
A business is private property, or owned by shareholders.
Private property rights should be adhered to.
Passing legislation where none is needed is not the best way to go forward.

But it is progressive 

[GrouchoTex]

But it is progressive 

 

Well, yes, there's that!

[FurriesRock]

/snicker

Because the government is qualitatively different from private business - from private life in general.  If you cannot grasp that basic fact, then you don't belong here - or in intelligent conversation generally.

How is government "qualitatively" different from a business?  You should be more specific.  Also, your ad hominem attacks are no different from the type seen by all liberal SJWs.  Are you secretly a liberal SJW?  Do you need a safe space free of triggering micro-aggressions, bro?

[GrouchoTex]

Is the government socialist because we have the bill of rights?  Yes or No?

If no, then why would applying the bill of rights to businesses magically create socialism?

Private property is just that, private.
My home is not a representative republic.
It is very much a Monarchy, where I am the King, and my wife is the Queen.
Outside my property, when i get to the publicly owned street, that is where the representative republic starts.

Of course, I have to follow the laws of the community in which I live, just as business does.
Yet inside these places that are privately owned, we can dictate the "freedoms" or "laws" that those we hire (or sire) need to follow to be a participant in either the family or the workplace.

[Cripplecreek]

Private property is just that, private.
My home is not a representative republic.
It is very much a Monarchy, where I am the King, and my wife is the Queen.
Outside my property, when i get to the publicly owned street, that is where the representative republic starts.

Of course, I have to follow the laws of the community in which I live, just as business does.
Yet inside these places that are privately owned, we can dictate the "freedoms" or "laws" that those we hire (or sire) need to follow to be a participant in either the family or the workplace.

Government imposing the bill of rights on private business is why we have businesses being closed and owners facing jail time for not making cakes for gay couples.

However the fact that the poster chooses to advertise his own deviance (Seriously, look up "Furries" with no kids in the room) tells me that he's all for using government to impose his sickness on the rest of us.

Me, I'm sticking with Calvin Coolidge on this one.

Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/calvincool383576.html - Calvin Coolidge

[FurriesRock]

Private property is just that, private.
My home is not a representative republic.
It is very much a Monarchy, where I am the King, and my wife is the Queen.
Outside my property, when i get to the publicly owned street, that is where the representative republic starts.

Of course, I have to follow the laws of the community in which I live, just as business does.
Yet inside these places that are privately owned, we can dictate the "freedoms" or "laws" that those we hire (or sire) need to follow to be a participant in either the family or the workplace.

Your home is private, and should stay that way; however, when it comes to a business which is defined by law as private while being in reality a public entity the same rules should not apply.

People spend most of their lives in the workplace under the rules of a de facto government made up of managers, supervisors, and executives.  To restrict freedom in the workplace is to create a path to get around the constitution. 

I'll give you an example of what I mean.  We have freedom of speech, but people have been fired from jobs for making FB or twitter posts that have nothing to do with the business they work for or the job they perform, which effectively removes their right to free speech.  In a country that "supposedly" values freedom this is quite an anomaly.

[FurriesRock]

Government imposing the bill of rights on private business is why we have businesses being closed and owners facing jail time for not making cakes for gay couples.

However the fact that the poster chooses to advertise his own deviance (Seriously, look up "Furries" with no kids in the room) tells me that he's all for using government to impose his sickness on the rest of us.

Me, I'm sticking with Calvin Coolidge on this one.

Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/calvincool383576.html - Calvin Coolidge

You are incorrect.  The whole gay wedding cake debacle was a misuse of anti-discrimination laws, not the application of the bill of rights to businesses. 

If you're going to try and argue a point it helps if you actually know what you're talking about, but since you're "triggered" it's pointless to continue trying to debate you as you are driven by emotion instead of reason.

[Wingnut]

You are incorrect.  The whole gay wedding cake debacle was a misuse of anti-discrimination laws, not the application of the bill of rights to businesses. 

If you're going to try and argue a point it helps if you actually know what you're talking about, but since you're "triggered" it's pointless to continue trying to debate you as you are driven by emotion instead of reason.

I think you need a "safe space".

[GrouchoTex]

Your home is private, and should stay that way; however, when it comes to a business which is defined by law as private while being in reality a public entity the same rules should not apply.

People spend most of their lives in the workplace under the rules of a de facto government made up of managers, supervisors, and executives.  To restrict freedom in the workplace is to create a path to get around the constitution. 

I'll give you an example of what I mean.  We have freedom of speech, but people have been fired from jobs for making FB or twitter posts that have nothing to do with the business they work for or the job they perform, which effectively removes their right to free speech.  In a country that "supposedly" values freedom this is quite an anomaly.

I disagree.
A business has the right to dictate what they deem as proper behavior for their employees.
You do have the "freedom" not to work there.

[FurriesRock]

I disagree.
A business has the right to dictate what they deem as proper behavior for their employees.
You do have the "freedom" not to work there.

That is a good point, but do you believe that the proper behavior should apply outside of the workplace as well?  Should a business be able to dictate your personal life, or how you conduct yourself outside of the workplace in either public or private?

[Sanguine]

This is a compelling reason to pass legislation to require businesses to follow the bill of rights as well.  Also, allowing businesses to create their own little tyrannical fiefdoms runs counter to the American ideal of freedom.  Freedom isn't freedom if your workplace can restrict it without proper justification, and that it might hurt the bottom line isn't a strong enough justification.

"allowing businesses to create their own little tyrannical fiefdoms runs counter to the American ideal of freedom"?  What kind of poorly thought out crap is that?  Have you actually read and understood the Constitution? 

[txradioguy]

How is government "qualitatively" different from a business?  You should be more specific.  Also, your ad hominem attacks are no different from the type seen by all liberal SJWs.  Are you secretly a liberal SJW?  Do you need a safe space free of triggering micro-aggressions, bro?

Your disjointed arguments and love of the freakish furry culture leads me to believe we've crossed paths before.

Do you post in guitar forums as well?

[GrouchoTex]

That is a good point, but do you believe that the proper behavior should apply outside of the workplace as well?  Should a business be able to dictate your personal life, or how you conduct yourself outside of the workplace in either public or private?

If my company tells me up front when hired that they have a morality clause, or some such standard, that I can be disciplined for untoward behavior off of the job-site, then it is up to me to make the call as to whether I would agree to that and work there under those conditions.

If they implement a policy like that once I am employed, again, I can accept it or seek other employment.

[FurriesRock]

If my company tells me up front when hired that they have a morality clause, or some such standard, that I can be disciplined for untoward behavior off of the job-site, then it is up to me to make the call as to whether I would agree to that and work there under those conditions.

If they implement a policy like that once I am employed, again, I can accept it or seek other employment.

You made a good point, but I will agree to disagree.   

[txradioguy]

That is a good point, but do you believe that the proper behavior should apply outside of the workplace as well?  Should a business be able to dictate your personal life, or how you conduct yourself outside of the workplace in either public or private?

If it's in your contract that you sign...the agreement that is negotiated between you and your employer then yes.

You are an employee...what you do or don't do off the clock still could be looked upon as representative of your employer.

We live in a society where perception is reality. 

[FurriesRock]

If it's in your contract that you sign...the agreement that is negotiated between you and your employer then yes.

You are an employee...what you do or don't do off the clock still could be looked upon as representative of your employer.

We live in a society where perception is reality.

That problem is that those "agreements" are almost never negotiated on a level playing field. 

"In law, economics and the social sciences, inequality of bargaining power is where one party to a "bargain", contract or agreement, has more and better alternatives than the other party. This results in one party having greater "power" than the other to choose not to take the deal and makes it more likely that this party will gain more favourable terms. Inequality of bargaining power is where freedom of contract ceases to be real freedom, or where some have more freedom than others, and markets fail.

Where bargaining power is persistently unequal, the concept of inequality of bargaining power serves as a justification for the implication of mandatory terms into contracts by law, or the non-enforcement of a contract by the courts."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power

In almost all cases the employer holds all the power in employment negotiations, as the employer has the option to choose to hire another employee, while the prospective employee may require a job soon just to meet basic needs and doesn't have the "luxury" of finding the perfect employer.

[txradioguy]

That problem is that those "agreements" are almost never negotiated on a level playing field. 

"In law, economics and the social sciences, inequality of bargaining power is where one party to a "bargain", contract or agreement, has more and better alternatives than the other party. This results in one party having greater "power" than the other to choose not to take the deal and makes it more likely that this party will gain more favourable terms. Inequality of bargaining power is where freedom of contract ceases to be real freedom, or where some have more freedom than others, and markets fail.

Where bargaining power is persistently unequal, the concept of inequality of bargaining power serves as a justification for the implication of mandatory terms into contracts by law, or the non-enforcement of a contract by the courts."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power

In almost all cases the employer holds all the power in employment negotiations, as the employer has the option to choose to hire another employee, while the prospective employee may require a job soon just to meet basic needs and doesn't have the "luxury" of finding the perfect employer.

First off...if no one has told you this yet in your young life...nothing is fair in life or in work.  Your mistaken belief is that everything should be handed to you and that everything should be "fair".

Secondly...there is no such thing as the perfect employer.  And nothing says you are guarenteed a job.

Any contract you sign has already been looked at from every conceivable angle by the legal department to make sure it would stand up in court...so your legal argument is moot.

The employer should hold the power.  He's the one that has expended the money built the capital investment and created the business.  His company his terms.  You don't like it?  Not his problem.  He'll find someone with the skill set that does find the terms of employment agreeable and pay him accordingly.

If you don't like the way that works...start your own company and set your own rules.