Clarence Thomas Thinks Free Speech Should Be Regulated

[Edge-]

De facto monopolies like Facebook, Google, Youtube, etc. probably should be more tightly regulated, including assuring the right of access for people.

De-facto monopolies being curtailed, yes.

A "right" to access private online platforms, even after you've violated the platforms rules and been removed? Fuck no. There's no right to post dank memes on Twitter and shitpost at Ben Shapiro.

[Endus]

And you clearly don't know what "de facto" means in this context.

It means you know they aren't monopolies, but want to treat them as such anyway because it's politically convenient to you and the facts don't support your position.

Google may have some issues that stem from their wide involvement in a whole host of companies, but not search/chrome/gmail/drive/etc.

Facebook and Youtube, though? Not even a trace of monopoly action. They both have a majority share of the market, but that is pretty much entirely due to customer preference. The large market access is, in both cases, literally the value that customers are seeking out.

- - - Updated - - -

They may not be monopolies in the strictest sense but i don't think the argument that their market share causes them to have undue influence and power is unreasonable. What's funny is that what Thomas is asking isn't really to regulate their speech but rather to regulate their property. Which I dont think he would actually support.

See, it's words like "undue" that are the issue.

They have influence because of their market share.
That market share is theirs entirely through customer preference.
"Power"? What "power" do you think they have, other than their audience?

I take issue with some of their corporate decisions, because they're made from a capitalist point of view and sometimes aren't to the benefit of their users, but their shareholders. But I'd have the same issue with the same decisions made by a much smaller company, for the same reasons. The issue doesn't suddenly change because of the company's size, and it isn't a problem of monopolization. Just capitalism.

[Glorious Leader]

It means you know they aren't monopolies, but want to treat them as such anyway because it's politically convenient to you and the facts don't support your position.

Google may have some issues that stem from their wide involvement in a whole host of companies, but not search/chrome/gmail/drive/etc.

Facebook and Youtube, though? Not even a trace of monopoly action. They both have a majority share of the market, but that is pretty much entirely due to customer preference. The large market access is, in both cases, literally the value that customers are seeking out.

- - - Updated - - -



See, it's words like "undue" that are the issue.

They have influence because of their market share.
That market share is theirs entirely through customer preference.
"Power"? What "power" do you think they have, other than their audience?

I take issue with some of their corporate decisions, because they're made from a capitalist point of view and sometimes aren't to the benefit of their users, but their shareholders. But I'd have the same issue with the same decisions made by a much smaller company, for the same reasons. The issue doesn't suddenly change because of the company's size, and it isn't a problem of monopolization. Just capitalism.

Its debatable wether or not their marketshare is a result of simple user preference and nothing else. Like Anti trust exists to ferret out practices that would result in monopolistic practices. Even if we consent that its entirely due to user preference thats still kinda circular. Users typically prefer those platforms because those are the platforms with the most users.

Corporate decisions made by lets say mmo champion board impact like maybe a handful of people relatively speaking. Corporate decisions made on the part of Apple, Google and Facebook affect billions. It seems to me to be somewhat disingenuous to simple ignore the difference in relative size and the influence it begets these entities. More is different.

[Endus]

Its debatable wether or not their marketshare is a result of simple user preference and nothing else. Like Anti trust exists to ferret out practices that would result in monopolistic practices. Even if we consent that its entirely due to user preference thats still kinda circular. Users typically prefer those platforms because those are the platforms with the most users.

Not really.

There are alternatives, that nobody prefers. It's like if you had two restaurants in town; McDonalds and Itchy Willy's Suspicious Sausage Shack (now with 50% fewer buttholes!). Nobody going to Willy's does not mean McDonalds has a "monopoly", it means Willy's a gross option nobody wants.

And yes; users prefer things like youtube when it has more users, because that means more content, and a better experience. It's still user choice, even if it's a self-reinforcing choice.

Monopolies are "bad" when they control supply to jack up prices or otherwise implement injurious practices, due to their control of that supply. Natural "monopolies" (I don't think the word even applies here, but for the sake of argument) aren't "bad" for being monopolies, and these companies have absolutely no control over their supply or ability to force users to accept their injurious practices.

For all the shit Facebook does that's shady, their customers shrug their shoulders and don't care. That's not Facebook's control, that's user choice.

Corporate decisions made by lets say mmo champion board impact like maybe a handful of people relatively speaking. Corporate decisions made on the part of Apple, Google and Facebook affect billions. It seems to me to be somewhat disingenuous to simple ignore the difference in relative size and the influence it begets these entities. More is different.

It's different in scale. You haven't made any real case that it's different in character.

The issues I have with their scale and influence have everything to do with the capitalist model and the power of lobbying in the USA. Nothing to do with their size (other than that it empowers their lobbying) or supposed "monopoly". If Youtube decided to be a pro-creator non-profit tomorrow, I'd have basically zero issues with them.

Edit: I still use Youtube, but I've also picked up a Nebula account, because I prefer supporting creators directly, and I like Nebula's practices more. But that's a perfect example of how Youtube does not have a monopoly; if they did, Nebula wouldn't exist.

[Glorious Leader]

Not really.

There are alternatives, that nobody prefers. It's like if you had two restaurants in town; McDonalds and Itchy Willy's Suspicious Sausage Shack (now with 50% fewer buttholes!). Nobody going to Willy's does not mean McDonalds has a "monopoly", it means Willy's a gross option nobody wants.

And yes; users prefer things like youtube when it has more users, because that means more content, and a better experience. It's still user choice, even if it's a self-reinforcing choice.

Monopolies are "bad" when they control supply to jack up prices or otherwise implement injurious practices, due to their control of that supply. Natural "monopolies" (I don't think the word even applies here, but for the sake of argument) aren't "bad" for being monopolies, and these companies have absolutely no control over their supply or ability to force users to accept their injurious practices.

For all the shit Facebook does that's shady, their customers shrug their shoulders and don't care. That's not Facebook's control, that's user choice.



It's different in scale. You haven't made any real case that it's different in character.

The issues I have with their scale and influence have everything to do with the capitalist model and the power of lobbying in the USA. Nothing to do with their size (other than that it empowers their lobbying) or supposed "monopoly". If Youtube decided to be a pro-creator non-profit tomorrow, I'd have basically zero issues with them.

Edit: I still use Youtube, but I've also picked up a Nebula account, because I prefer supporting creators directly, and I like Nebula's practices more. But that's a perfect example of how Youtube does not have a monopoly; if they did, Nebula wouldn't exist.

Its not just more content its also literally more speech. Those platforms have more reach than mmo champion due to their size and as such they draw more people. Its almost perpetual. So they become relatively more influential and powerful.

Yea I got a problem with small business tyrants but small business cuck is marginal at best. The size of an entity like Google means that it ill inevitably have way more influence. Small business cuck is for the most part impotent and as a minor capitalist entity his interests may be different and those decisions may be dissimilar even opposed to giant big box Google. In fact you may exactly find them at opposing stances on this issue. I'm sure parlor is all about regulating the shit out of Twitter.

Is their a difference between a knife and a nuclear weapon, well on the surface their both designed to kill people so I guess its the same? I recognize that example is extreme but your presenting an argument that we can ignore quantitative difference because they weren't also qualitative. It's almost as bad as fair tax proposal. That value of a dollar is qualitatively different for a billionaire then some dude on min wage.

[Felya]

Its not just more content its also literally more speech.

NO!!! It has more listeners... that’s the point... there is no difference between here and Twitter, as it relates to your speech.

[cubby]

NO!!! It has more listeners... that’s the point... there is no difference between here and Twitter, as it relates to your speech.

This is entirely correct - the volume of speech is irrelevant. A small town newspaper doesn't get less first amendment rights than the New York Times because it has less readers.

- - - Updated - - -

Its not just more content its also literally more speech. Those platforms have more reach than mmo champion due to their size and as such they draw more people. Its almost perpetual. So they become relatively more influential and powerful.

Influence and power aren't considered for speech rights. The size of whatever is irrelevant, for good reasons, when looking at the rights of the first amendment.

Is their a difference between a knife and a nuclear weapon, well on the surface their both designed to kill people so I guess its the same? I recognize that example is extreme but your presenting an argument that we can ignore quantitative difference because they weren't also qualitative. It's almost as bad as fair tax proposal. That value of a dollar is qualitatively different for a billionaire then some dude on min wage.

Killing people isn't a constitutionally protected right. Your analogy goes right out the window, immediately, and the "extreme" nature of it is irrelevant.

A small town newspaper doesn't get less first amendment rights than the New York Times because it has less readers.

[Endus]

Its not just more content its also literally more speech. Those platforms have more reach than mmo champion due to their size and as such they draw more people. Its almost perpetual. So they become relatively more influential and powerful.

The idea of "more speech" is pretty silly, TBH.

Freedom of speech is not about equal access to broadcast. That's just not what the term refers to, in any way whatsoever. You are not guaranteed "as much speech" as anyone else; freedom of speech is solely about your ability to (within limits) express yourself freely without government action against you for said speech.

Companies like Youtube choosing not to help you broadcast that speech because they disagree with it? That's their rights. You never had any entitlement to that broadcast or their audience. None.

Rights and freedoms are absolute. They don't "scale up" like you're describing, and they protect everyone equally by design.

Is their a difference between a knife and a nuclear weapon, well on the surface their both designed to kill people so I guess its the same?

Better argument; is there a difference between a gas generator in your basement and the nuclear power plant providing 80% of your grid's power supply?

Is it somehow "unfair" that you can't have a nuclear plant in your basement?

That gets us around the inherent "killing people is generally wrong, regardless" angle, and that the major reasons nuclear weapons are opposed have nothing to do with the capacity to kill, but the collateral damage they cause, and the lasting and global nature of the radioactive fallout they produce. Those aren't factors to consider with regards to speech, so let's consider a non-destructive analogy, shall we?

I recognize that example is extreme but your presenting an argument that we can ignore quantitative difference because they weren't also qualitative. It's almost as bad as fair tax proposal. That value of a dollar is qualitatively different for a billionaire then some dude on min wage.

I am disputing that a quantitative difference is a problem to begin with, yes. You've given me no reason to see it as a problem, no rights that are being infringed thereby. I can take issue with the particular uses it may get put to, but I don't see any reason to take issue with the scope. You seem to think that should be a given, and it just isn't. And you haven't explained it.

[Belize]

Its not just more content its also literally more speech. Those platforms have more reach than mmo champion due to their size and as such they draw more people.

That's irrelevant, because free speech does not entitle you to have a wide broadcasting platform.

Just like you don't have free reign to scream your opinions at passerbys in a mall or grocery store, online platforms don't have to put up with inane idiocy, it's still a private business.

[Glorious Leader]

Rights and freedoms are absolute. They don't "scale up" like you're describing, and they protect everyone equally by design.

In principle yes but in practice when the MEANS of speech or at least the means of propagation of speech are denied then in reality you are freezing speech. Look I have zero love for any of these reactionaries who get banned from these platforms but I'm also not blind that if it served their interests to ban me tomorrow they would do it. If you going to insist on this silly argument that people denied access to these platforms do not have their speech infringed because these platforms are private entities then I would submit they should be nationalized and made a public good. Hiding behind the idea that private entities of huge scale cannot actually do serious harm to speech because the paper document only applies to governments is bullshit. It ignores where the real power lays.


- - - Updated - - -

That's irrelevant, because free speech does not entitle you to have a wide broadcasting platform.

Just like you don't have free reign to scream your opinions at passerbys in a mall or grocery store, online platforms don't have to put up with inane idiocy, it's still a private business.

see above

/10

- - - Updated - - -

NO!!! It has more listeners... that’s the point... there is no difference between here and Twitter, as it relates to your speech.

Oh well boub or whoever will be surprised I'm sure to hear they have the same reach as Twitter. Maybe they'll start lobbying as well?

[Machismo]

In principle yes but in practice when the MEANS of speech or at least the means of propagation of speech are denied then in reality you are freezing speech. Look I have zero love for any of these reactionaries who get banned from these platforms but I'm also not blind that if it served their interests to ban me tomorrow they would do it. If you going to insist on this silly argument that people denied access to these platforms do not have their speech infringed because these platforms are private entities then I would submit they should be nationalized and made a public good. Hiding behind the idea that private entities of huge scale cannot actually do serious harm to speech because the paper document only applies to governments is bullshit. It ignores where the real power lays.


- - - Updated - - -



see above

/10

- - - Updated - - -



Oh well boub or whoever will be surprised I'm sure to hear they have the same reach as Twitter. Maybe they'll start lobbying as well?

No, if you want to do that, then have the government start their own.

[Endus]

In principle yes but in practice when the MEANS of speech or at least the means of propagation of speech are denied then in reality you are freezing speech.

Are you literally, physically being gagged? Are your hands literally being bound so you cannot type? No? Then your "means of speech" aren't being denied to you.

You're confusing "widespread public broadcast" with "speech". You have a right to the freedom of the latter. You do not have any right to the former. No right to any audience. No right to any access to private platforms. Those are not rights.

If you going to insist on this silly argument that people denied access to these platforms do not have their speech infringed because these platforms are private entities then I would submit they should be nationalized and made a public good.

On what grounds?

We're not talking about freedom of speech here, in any respect whatsoever. These are private platforms that no one has ever had any "right" to access. The only service they provide is a wider broadcast of your speech, a service to which you are not in any way entitled or granted to you by right.

It's literally not a free speech issue in any way whatsoever. Freedom of speech crops up if the government is going to arrest you or censor you for what you've said. And that's pretty much where that freedom ends. It does not mean any private entity is obliged to do business with you. It does not mean you're entitled an audience.

Hiding behind the idea that private entities of huge scale cannot actually do serious harm to speech because the paper document only applies to governments is bullshit. It ignores where the real power lays.

They are not doing harm to speech, to begin with. And no; they really don't have any capacity to do so. As long as you can build your own website on your own servers, your rights and freedoms are protected.

This isn't any different than the average joe in the street in 1900 and the big newspaper magnates of the time. It's the same issue. The facts haven't changed in any material sense.

If you want the government to provide a free and open alternative, by all means, feel free. I feel I have to point out any such plan is doomed to failure, though, since these companies and their breadth stretches internationally, and any government-run system will necessarily be nationally-restricted. You'd need international appeal if you actually wanted to compete, and even if you, for instance, banned Youtube and made "USAtube" to replace it, what you'd end up with is "USAtube" with just American content, and then Youtube still doing about as strong as always internationally and Americans using VPNs and such to get around the nation-lock and access Youtube instead of USAtube.

You're essentially trying to reproduce the Internet as envisioned by the CCP in China. Have a think about that.

[eschatological]

Reach means nothing if the audience doesn't respond to it.

There's not more listeners here on MMOC as compared to Twitter because of anything in particular - it's just more people CHOOSE to ENGAGE with Twitter.

The very existence of Parler and Gab, Instagram, Facebook, Chinese Weibo or whatever it's called, and various other social media platforms just shows it isn't a monopoly. Just because people chose Facebook over MySpace doesn't mean Facebook is a monopoly.

[Belize]

In principle yes but in practice when the MEANS of speech or at least the means of propagation of speech are denied then in reality you are freezing speech. Look I have zero love for any of these reactionaries who get banned from these platforms but I'm also not blind that if it served their interests to ban me tomorrow they would do it. If you going to insist on this silly argument that people denied access to these platforms do not have their speech infringed because these platforms are private entities then I would submit they should be nationalized and made a public good. Hiding behind the idea that private entities of huge scale cannot actually do serious harm to speech because the paper document only applies to governments is bullshit. It ignores where the real power lays.

Again, you're completely missing the point if no-one owing you a soapbox.

Before social media, did you whinge about newspaper and magazines not printing everything you sent to them? Mass media platforms are the new paper platforms of old, period. Nothing has changed.

[PACOX]

How come when a conservative goes on about free speech it's not actually the freedom to express one's genuine views and to moderate ones own environment, but to force their lies and hate rhetoric onto others?

And it's usually from some venture capitalist who needs to get their lies off to profit off the masses, like selling MAGA merch.

[Edge-]

How come when a conservative goes on about free speech it's not actually the freedom to express one's genuine views and to moderate ones own environment, but to force their lies and hate rhetoric onto others?

And it's usually from some venture capitalist who needs to get their lies off to profit off the masses, like selling MAGA merch.

I imagine because they find that their "speech" often ends up on the wrong side of site rules and is "censored" as a result. I mean, if I can't promote my local cross burning then do we even have a society!?

[Felya]

Oh well boub or whoever will be surprised I'm sure to hear they have the same reach as Twitter. Maybe they'll start lobbying as well?

Is this about reach or about freedom of speech? The constitution does not grant you the right to force people to see your content.

- - - Updated - - -

Reach means nothing if the audience doesn't respond to it.

This is all about reach... the point is to hit people who have no interest in politics. That’s how QAnon and Trump cult grew... by having your grandma get on Facebook to see pictures of her grandkids... but, get a slice of altright along for the ride.

This is nothing more then government forcing them self onto your dinner table.

What is Baroness Warsi's 'dinner table test'?
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-12240315

Social media is how you pass the test... this is the point...

[Krakan]

Reach means nothing if the audience doesn't respond to it.

There's not more listeners here on MMOC as compared to Twitter because of anything in particular - it's just more people CHOOSE to ENGAGE with Twitter.

The very existence of Parler and Gab, Instagram, Facebook, Chinese Weibo or whatever it's called, and various other social media platforms just shows it isn't a monopoly. Just because people chose Facebook over MySpace doesn't mean Facebook is a monopoly.

This rings a bit hollow when a lot of those alternative sites have their payment processing methods pulled...

There is clearly manipulation going on when it comes to control over this. You just have the crowd that thinks a boot on your throat isn't a bad thing so long as it's not the governments.

[Machismo]

This rings a bit hollow when a lot of those alternative sites have their payment processing methods pulled...

There is clearly manipulation going on when it comes to control over this. You just have the crowd that thinks a boot on your throat isn't a bad thing so long as it's not the governments.

Maybe they can start their own.

Here's a thought, if you want to do business with Nazis, then you should be free to do business with nazis.

Nobody else should be obligated to do so.

[Krakan]

Maybe they can start their own.

Here's a thought, if you want to do business with Nazis, then you should be free to do business with nazis.

Nobody else should be obligated to do so.

I'm not sure. Go build your own financial institutions is a useful rebuttal.