Comment by shripadk | Hacker News Reader

Comment by shripadk | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't care about American Free Speech. I'm not an American. I'm an Indian.

Yes it is worse for America's image that a competitor censors another competitor. It puts a bad light on the US Government itself that it cannot regulate private companies and are at the mercy of private companies that even Government communications can be censored. This is far beyond what free speech is all about.

And don't tell me US Government hasn't banned private companies. Huawei ban immediately comes to mind. So many companies have been banned for nefarious activities including but not limited to fraud and scams. It is 100 percent in the purview of US Congress to ban for any violations of law. Free speech has nothing to do with powers the US Government enjoys vis-a-vis legal entities like a company or trust. A company is not an individual. A company is not a Citizen of the United States. A company doesn't enjoy free speech rights. It is a legal entity that was allowed to function because of the US Government. Not because Apple, Facebook, Twitter or Google decided to. Only the US Government can cancel trade licenses, company registration and debar individuals from ever holding directorship. That power is not vested in the hands of few silicon valley companies.

I disagree, in fact it enhances my impression of the US government in the way that it exercises restraint on its immense natural power. It's quite easy for governments to flex their power and regulate anything and everything. This is common in third world countries and developing societies: edicts are the answer to everything. It is the language of dictators.

The US government can absolutely force Twitter and Facebook to do whatever it wants but it doesn't, instead it guarantees freedoms to enterprises and entrusts slow but deliberative bodies with the task of deciding when exceptions should be made. It creates courts and laws for companies to resolve disputes amongst themselves. These principles are upheld even at the government's own inconvenience.

I find that far more admirable than the hasty and impulsive exercises of power that characterize uncivilized authorities that aspire to rule instead of govern.

Freedom is not something natural.

In 100% freedom your stronger neighbour would have freedom to restrict your freedom and you would have freedom to resist, fail, and be sad about it.

So your freedom is dependant of how much the strongest entity around is willing to limit freedom of your neighbors of restricting your freedom.

US government showing restraint when major players on the market use their position to restrict freedom of smaller entity is reducing freedom not increasing it.

That's why the US government also sets limits on what private companies and their customers can do to restrict each other's freedoms. Under these democratically deliberated laws, Parler has as much freedom to use Twitter & Facebook as you have freedom to do use my lawn. The principle still holds even if every neighbor in your neighborhood hates you and denies you access to their lawn; The scope & scale of their lawn restriction is irrelevant because American society finds their freedom over their property to be more important than your freedom to use it.

There are things that the US government deems too important to restrict, but Facebook & Twitter is well outside that category. That's where American society has drawn the line, and it's a line that I agree with as well.

The thing I wrote about freedom has nothing to do with US or Parler or Facebook.

It's a general observation that restraint of locally strongest entity doesn't necessarily give you more freedom. It can (and often does) give you less.

And when it comes to Parler my concern was Amazon, not Twitter and Facebook. Why should hosting provider be able to choose whom he provides basic infrastructure? Was Parler illegal content they had to remove by law? Should they cut their electricity and water supply to the creator of Parler too because they don't like their content?

The US government does draw the line at what it classifies to be utilities like electricity and water. AWS isn't considered a utility but I think it's far closer to one than the other companies. I'm personally skeptical that it should be because AWS encompasses a whole range of products, many of which have decent competition and aren't really "basic".

The ability to host stuff yourself on the internet is, however, a freedom I consider to be basic and necessary, so I do support net neutrality and related legislation that classify ISPs as utilities.

> exercises restraint on its immense natural power

I would have agreed with you provided it was the Government that had to do the banning first and took it's time and exercised restraint.

This is different. Big Tech cut off US Government communication lines from the rest of the World. Now we will never know what Trump is thinking except if he does a press conference. We will never know what the White House is doing. This causes major network effects across the World as people across the World want to know what is going on in the White House and what is on Trump's mind. Before internet and social media all communications were between the World leaders/bureaucrats and the rest of the World was pretty much oblivious to what was happening unless it became breaking news. Everything was opaque. That is not what I want to go back to. Trust me you don't want to wake up one day to learn your country is at War with another nation because everything was kept under wraps till the last minute. If you had known earlier you would have rallied the masses and built public pressure.

It is a public expectation to know what their leaders are upto. I want our leaders to be in the spotlight at all times. Trump is not just the President of USA, he is also a representative of USA to the rest of the World. Cutting off Trump's direct lines of communication cuts off feeds to the rest of the World about what is going on in his mind and the White House. This does not bode well for America as a responsible Democratic power. You do not cut off the lines to the Head of the Country with the World. No matter how much you disagree with him. This is irresponsible with Big Tech allowing it and US Congress keeping mum about it.

It doesn't make sense to suggest that Big Tech is even capable of cutting off US government communication lines. Twitter & Facebook is not the US government's communication lines. The government can and regularly does publish communications on its own internet infrastructure it controls and regulates. The government also maintains continuous contact with a global free press that breathlessly and rapidly reports on anything the government and Trump himself wants to say.

Let's not misrepresent what this actually is: a private enterprise locking a political leader out of one of many communication platforms that the leader prefers. Twitter & Facebook are not and have never been critical requirements for the US government (or Trump) to communicate effectively.

There were US presidents before Twitter, you know that right?

Trump was the one who chose to keep using Twitter as his main medium of communication. He has a LOT of dedicated presidential communication infrastructure available to him. He is choosing not to use it.

The only thing that reflects badly on the US is trump.

> A company doesn't enjoy free speech rights.

Actually, it does according to Citizens United v. FEC.

Trade sanctions are a different thing to sanctions imposed for speech.

I'm not american either but if I'm going to comment on the USA, I'm going to respect their own definitions and culture. Meanwhile you're trying to make a point you don't fully grasp yourself. Sorry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com