I think it's logical and reasonable from a liability standpoint as it relates to the social media entities. I'm not sure it will do much to curb the urge to silence and marginalize the people we disagree with. I would think people will still follow the people they despise, report on the offensive things being said, and then proceed with the usual means of attack(employment, platform, and infrastructure).
The problem isn't necessarily "Free Speech"; it's more "Free Reach"...
For example: Trump, Dan Bongino, Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, they all can still speak publicly. But right now their audience is very niche. Particularly after they've been booted from major social networking services. Their reach cratered after the services finally publicly recognized how toxic these people are (and caved to extensive public pressure).
Also to note the last three names, I had to google them just now to remember their names for the purposes of this comment. I barely remember them today...
Great write up Mike and I mostly agree. I see issues such as how would we deal with many of the conspiracy theories that people got banned for that turned out to be true? Made in a lab, catch COVID even with the shot, cloth masks do not do much, planes are not vectors of transmission, young kids shouldn't get the shot, natural immunity stronger then the shot, etc. Would Facebook etc be held liable for spreading false information and suppressing correct information in those cases? It is a complicated issues with no obvious solution.
I think we probably differ on many things politically but you always approach topics with logic, intelligence and a freedom focus so I always find myself nodding along.
You seem to have what makes many great people great and that is a thirst for knowledge, an open mind and a willingness to see all sides. Keep up the great work, Joe Rogan better watch out :<)
I hope that Mike does not interpret my previous post as being critical of him personally.
His article was pretty good and dealt with a matter that needs wide airing and attention from everyone.
It is the virtually monopoly corporations that have been making multi-millions from their social media enterprises that have been arrogantly deciding they are entitled and qualified to be censors of speech and debate.
They have created Frankenstein's monsters with their creations, but now they may have to pay the piper.
By the way, I think I am correct that Mike Elgan does not use Twitter because of the monster it is. Neither do I. I don't even use any social media, or Google, all of which mine their servers for data about all users' personal data to use same to their corporate economic advantage. Most people, especially the young, are too inexperienced and stupid to want to understand that.
This half-baked "analysis" by Mike Elgan illustrates why Free Speech must be protected at all costs.
In the following examples, I will use the term "Twit", a deliberatedly insulting term to describe a stupid or foolish person.
First of all he is wrong about SM sites like Facebook and Twitter, in that much of what is said on these sites, especially Twitter, is not like a private conversation between 2 consenting persons, such as during a phone call.
The crap being posted is intended by the Twit and Twitter to be read or heard by everyone that can access it. That can easily be a huge number of persons and that is part of the SM sites intended function.
Consequently, the site is a publishing medium, and the site's owners should be liable for any genuine hate speech and any speech that is slanderous according to the general laws pertaining thereto.
No big loss to our society would occur or ever has occurred as a result of the lawful throttling of such speech.
But there is a problem with that too,in that the proper definition of "hate speech" must be speech that is intended to and does cause actual harm, and insulting or unkind words, such as calling someone a cunt, a prick, foolish, dumb or stupid, and the like, because of his or her ideas, opinions or beliefs, should not qualify as constituting "actual harm". One of the strongest arguments why that must be the case, is that many ignorant people believe their actions, beliefs, opinions, etc., should be protected from challenge in any way, shape or form.
Of course, characterizing a person's opinions, beliefs and ideas as being stupid, ignorant, dumb, and the like, is part of ordinary strongly-stated opinion on the part of the characterizer, and should never be considered "hate speech" or slander or harmful in a legal sense.
A good example of a statement that is both possibly slanderous and obviously uncomplimentary in the sense of calling a person ignorant or dumb or stupid and the like is located in the first sentence following the Pomp Chart in the article. The former is actionable, and the latter is not. However, the latter may hurt Joe Rogan's tender feelings. But that is not a harm in a legal sense. For obvious reasons, I did not wish to repeat that part of the accusation that could easily be slanderous.
I think it's logical and reasonable from a liability standpoint as it relates to the social media entities. I'm not sure it will do much to curb the urge to silence and marginalize the people we disagree with. I would think people will still follow the people they despise, report on the offensive things being said, and then proceed with the usual means of attack(employment, platform, and infrastructure).
The problem isn't necessarily "Free Speech"; it's more "Free Reach"...
For example: Trump, Dan Bongino, Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, they all can still speak publicly. But right now their audience is very niche. Particularly after they've been booted from major social networking services. Their reach cratered after the services finally publicly recognized how toxic these people are (and caved to extensive public pressure).
Also to note the last three names, I had to google them just now to remember their names for the purposes of this comment. I barely remember them today...
Great write up Mike and I mostly agree. I see issues such as how would we deal with many of the conspiracy theories that people got banned for that turned out to be true? Made in a lab, catch COVID even with the shot, cloth masks do not do much, planes are not vectors of transmission, young kids shouldn't get the shot, natural immunity stronger then the shot, etc. Would Facebook etc be held liable for spreading false information and suppressing correct information in those cases? It is a complicated issues with no obvious solution.
I think we probably differ on many things politically but you always approach topics with logic, intelligence and a freedom focus so I always find myself nodding along.
You seem to have what makes many great people great and that is a thirst for knowledge, an open mind and a willingness to see all sides. Keep up the great work, Joe Rogan better watch out :<)
Well stated, Mike.
I hope that Mike does not interpret my previous post as being critical of him personally.
His article was pretty good and dealt with a matter that needs wide airing and attention from everyone.
It is the virtually monopoly corporations that have been making multi-millions from their social media enterprises that have been arrogantly deciding they are entitled and qualified to be censors of speech and debate.
They have created Frankenstein's monsters with their creations, but now they may have to pay the piper.
By the way, I think I am correct that Mike Elgan does not use Twitter because of the monster it is. Neither do I. I don't even use any social media, or Google, all of which mine their servers for data about all users' personal data to use same to their corporate economic advantage. Most people, especially the young, are too inexperienced and stupid to want to understand that.
This half-baked "analysis" by Mike Elgan illustrates why Free Speech must be protected at all costs.
In the following examples, I will use the term "Twit", a deliberatedly insulting term to describe a stupid or foolish person.
First of all he is wrong about SM sites like Facebook and Twitter, in that much of what is said on these sites, especially Twitter, is not like a private conversation between 2 consenting persons, such as during a phone call.
The crap being posted is intended by the Twit and Twitter to be read or heard by everyone that can access it. That can easily be a huge number of persons and that is part of the SM sites intended function.
Consequently, the site is a publishing medium, and the site's owners should be liable for any genuine hate speech and any speech that is slanderous according to the general laws pertaining thereto.
No big loss to our society would occur or ever has occurred as a result of the lawful throttling of such speech.
But there is a problem with that too,in that the proper definition of "hate speech" must be speech that is intended to and does cause actual harm, and insulting or unkind words, such as calling someone a cunt, a prick, foolish, dumb or stupid, and the like, because of his or her ideas, opinions or beliefs, should not qualify as constituting "actual harm". One of the strongest arguments why that must be the case, is that many ignorant people believe their actions, beliefs, opinions, etc., should be protected from challenge in any way, shape or form.
Of course, characterizing a person's opinions, beliefs and ideas as being stupid, ignorant, dumb, and the like, is part of ordinary strongly-stated opinion on the part of the characterizer, and should never be considered "hate speech" or slander or harmful in a legal sense.
A good example of a statement that is both possibly slanderous and obviously uncomplimentary in the sense of calling a person ignorant or dumb or stupid and the like is located in the first sentence following the Pomp Chart in the article. The former is actionable, and the latter is not. However, the latter may hurt Joe Rogan's tender feelings. But that is not a harm in a legal sense. For obvious reasons, I did not wish to repeat that part of the accusation that could easily be slanderous.