
Free Speech Puts U.S. on ‘A Collision Course’ with Global Limits on Big Tech - ml-engineer
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/21/technology/facebook-zuckerberg-harmful-speech.html
======
anfilt
Honestly, why do platforms need to delete anything. Why not just have options
like most search engines... Let the users decide if they want to see
objectional or even violent content. They are adults they can make up their
own mind.

Consider duckduckgo's search results you can choose:

    
    
      Strict
       *No Adult content*
      Moderate
       *No Explicit images or video*
      Off
       *Don't filter content*

~~~
NeedMoreTea
It doesn't work. Even the US' much vaunted free speech is a myth. Not the
_very_ slow to react removal of hate, racist and extreme right supremacist
groups and similar rubbish, but in the day to day. Some of that content will
be illegal some places. Europe, Middle and Far East have different cultures,
expectations and laws - some far more restricted than others.

The USA seems to be particularly offended by, and most likely to remove,
harmless breast feeding or topless images. Facebook and eBay are absurdly
prudish. Much of Europe finds this odd, to say the least. At the same time
will let by highly violent images, and straight up hate speech as perfectly
fine. So it's not even slightly consistent. It's as daft as the US TV habit of
dubbing over slightly naughty words, whilst showing people getting shot
through with a full magazine in the same programme.

My kids are grown now, but I would far rather have limited them from the
violent and racist too soon than prudishly from an accidental nipple or baby
feeding pic!

Simply put they should abide by the differing standards of the places they
operate. Just like all those companies selling foods, electricals, consumer
goods and toys do.

~~~
anfilt
What you mean what I said does not work? Let adults choose what they want to
see or read.

While different countries may have different laws. Do you really think the
censorship that happens in China is good?

If you operate in such countries you may not have a choice, but to comply or
pull such local operations. The end result is content is available in one
place and not another which is unfortunate.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Of course you mention the extreme example, China. However China does in one
sense make it far simpler - do it their way or you're simply not permitted to
operate. Which makes easy headlines.

Do you really think the restriction on racist and hate speech that happens in
Europe and elsewhere, and is often in legislation, is bad?

Most folks in those countries don't. We're unlikely to harmonise with the US
on that any time soon. Does not mean we have a Chinese internet or we lost
free speech. I can speak freely against the government until the cows come
home. I can chain myself to a bridge against inaction on climate, and expect a
entirely non-violent police response. I just can't reduce every conversation
to lowest common denominator ignorant slurs - I can criticise my neighbour or
government for what they do and choices they make, but not for their colour,
religion (or lack) or gender etc.

Criticise the act, not the person. Personally, I think that's far more
healthy.

Facebook et al do next to nothing to comply, whilst continuing to operate
services. It's no surprise that governments around the world are finally
starting to react to that.

~~~
anfilt
I don't like racist speech, and I would say that's true for most people. Now
considering laws regarding hate speech or racist speech. My first biggest
reservations about such laws is it gives a government a precedent to regulate
speech. Moreover, precedents may expand in the future, so one must tread very
carefully to avoid unintended consequences.

Secondly, human language can be quite nuanced. Speech may contain satire,
irony, jokes, indirection, differences of connotation, and idioms. It may be
hard determine if such line has been crossed. Applying such a law across a
population is bound create some injustices by such ambiguities of human
language alone. Let alone something someone typed on the internet and may have
not proof read.

However, countries are free to do what they want. However, I don't like seeing
countries request websites be blocked ect... Again it sets a precedent that
government has power to do something, and generally governments expand powers
they have. So limits on what governments can do are important.

About US and European views on speech. This is an interesting table. I would
say the US is not far off. The averages for Europe are not what I would call a
small percentage.

[https://www.pewglobal.org/wp-
content/uploads/sites/2/2015/11...](https://www.pewglobal.org/wp-
content/uploads/sites/2/2015/11/Democracy-Report-80.png)

A company who has a presence in country should operate by the countries laws.
However, for a global platform like Facebook it either means they must segment
their site based off country or apply the most aggressive policy across their
entire platform. Both of these have their problems.

------
tynpeddler
>Tech companies, as private businesses, have the right to choose what speech
exists on their sites, much as a newspaper can pick which letters to the
editor to publish.

This sentiment is a little odd. Tech companies like Facebook and Google are
not at all like a newspaper. Someone can copy a copyrighted poem to their
front page, and Facebook may spread the link around before being notified and
removing the content. If the New York Times were to publish copyrighted
material without the appropriate license, it would be obvious just how much
they aren't like Facebook. And let's not even talk about the legal weirdness
of being able to google The Pirate Bay.

The compromise of the DMCA seems like it hinged on the fact that tech
companies are not publishers or editors, and as such do not have the same
moral and legal liabilities for things that appear on their platforms. In a
sense, OSP's and ISP's are just "tubes".

The demands being placed on tech companies seem to be increasingly reactive
and contradictory. As bad as article 11 and 13 are, they seem to at least be
consistent in that tech companies are now responsible for everything that
appears on their infrastructure, much like the New York Times is responsible
for everything they print.

~~~
hammock
Replace "New York Times" with "nytimes.com" and it's really not that different
from FB or Google.

~~~
Spivak
I would think there's a difference between user vs publisher generated
content.

~~~
hammock
Aren't we talking about neither? We're talking about a third-party copyrighted
work

------
qwsxyh
I find it ironic to be holding an absolutist free speech view on a website
that automatically deletes opinions the community doesn't like.

------
duxup
What is the collision exactly?

The first amendment isn't going anywhere.

Any US speech legislation would likely be dead on arrival after it is shot
down in court.

At the same time there is nobody successfully (legally at least) arguing
Facebook can't remove content as it wishes...

If you're a big platform and you dominate the market, yeah you've got a lot of
work to do but that's the price of success.

~~~
jakeogh
It's the NY Times. They loathe sovereignty and free speech.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10799556](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10799556)

[https://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg)

~~~
duxup
I don't think that is the case.

------
manfredo
It's a big rock and a hard place. I know plenty of people in tech that are
adverse to the idea of government regulating tech, but at the same time do not
believe it is right for the small segment of the population working in tech to
decide what conversations we are and are not allowed to discuss. Cloudflare
expressed a good perspective on this sort of self-reflective doubt when they
terminated the Daily Stormer: [https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-
daily-stormer/](https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/)

At lot of people I talk to want to have some sort of national consensus on
regulating platforms instead of tech companies deciding for themselves.
Government would be the natural mechanism by which to manage this, but we are
extremely wary of putting speech in control of the government for good
historical reasons.

~~~
kantos2
>I know plenty of people in tech that are adverse to the idea of government
regulating tech, but at the same time do not believe it is right for the small
segment of the population working in tech to decide what conversations we are
and are not allowed to discuss

Government also are small segment of the population, moreover politicians
don't understand the topic.

Cloudflare and other tech pundits just want to be free from consequences of
their decisions. If gov tell them to censor they would just say, its not us,
its you country law.

This is purely PR endeavor.

------
lone_haxx0r
Banning "violent speech" is the same as banning political opinions altogether.
Politics is essentially deciding in which ways the state should apply violence
against its citizens. Saying "the state should be violent against people who
do X" is violent speech.

Also, asking the govt. to ban "violent speech" is violent speech itself.

Are people too dumb to understand this or would they actually love to live in
a totalitarian dictatorship?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
That is the _American_ view.

Many countries, and citizens of those countries, _expect_ their government to
take reasonable steps to protect groups from racist or other hate speech. We
don't feel that makes it a totalitarian dictatorship. Germany has some very
particular regulations around speech and certain political symbols and groups
- because they very clearly _don 't_ want to become a totalitarian
dictatorship again. The US allows those - because free speech.

You'd expect me to follow US standards if I had a company selling food or
electrics there, wouldn't you? Why does it become "people are dumb" to expect
a US company to follow European or Far Eastern law? Don't like it? Don't
operate there.

It's that simple for all other products and services, why not tech?

~~~
lone_haxx0r
> Many countries, and citizens of those countries, expect their government to
> take reasonable steps to protect groups from racist or other hate speech.

The point is that under that same logic, you should ban practically all
opinions that involve politics.

"Selling cocaine should be prohibited" implies that you want the state to
exert violence against people who sell drugs, either to incarcerate them,
force them to pay a fee (which if not paid will likely result in
incarceration, i.e. violence). Wanting cocaine to be prohibited is violent
speech.

"Bald people should be incarcerated" is also violent speech.

Allowing one while prohibiting other is an arbitrary decision, since both are
violent ideas. The fact that most people agree with the former and disagree
with the latter is not a good way to decide, since you might as well just ban
every idea that people disagree with (or that the state disagrees with) which
is exactly what totalitarian dictatorships do.

> We don't feel that makes it a totalitarian dictatorship

Given a big enough cage, animals don't notice that they are in a cage.

I wouldn't call Germany a totalitarian dictatorship, but it doesn't have
freedoms that I consider important, such as freedom of speech. If that freedom
is taken away by a dictator or by a crowd voting against it, it doesn't make
much difference to the individual that wants freedom.

Keep in mind that not everyone in Germany, or other countries is against
freedom of speech, they lost it because most people don't want it.

It's not an _American_ view, it's a view of people who care about freedom. I'm
not American, and I'm sure there are many non-Americans that want freedom.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
> under that same logic, you should ban practically all opinions that involve
> politics

That does not follow _at all._

> Allowing one while prohibiting other is an arbitrary decision

You neglect, to include freedom from. In both the US model and your
interpretation of freedom to do and say whatever you like, freedom from is
little considered. Just freedom to.

Yet you can't _ever_ consider one without the other.

Your freedoms will impact those around you. Your neighbour will be impacted by
your building a wall as it may cut their light or view. They'll be impacted by
your words as much as installing a 2,000w sound system in your garden.

The "freedom" of the majority to stand out side the polling station calling
out the "fucking niggers" \- or jews or whatever - for daring to want to cast
a vote, express their will. Literally putting the minority in fear of their
life. That freedom has taken a freedom _from_ another.

Such fundamentalist freedom is _often_ espoused by those seeking a racist or
oppressive regime. The freedom to call out the niggers, to have the neo-Nazi
rally, to require the jews to wear a yellow star in public. That "freedom" is
one of the tools to put and keep the minority in their low place and get
second class service or bus seating.

> it's a view of people who care about freedom

NO. Emphatically no. Just for people who care for a fundamentalist selfishness
of the majority. To be a racist jerk, or bring the tyranny of an oppressive
majority outside the polling station. To be white in Alabama or apartheid
South Africa. To not be white in other places.

Those who really care for freedom attempt to balance freedom to against
freedom from. It's always a balancing act, it's just that 98% of it is really
easy to allow.

Germany absolutely does have freedom of speech, they just attempt to set some
common-sense limits on when that freedoms takes from others more than it gives
you. You can complain against the government as much and as often as you like.
You can't pretend the holocaust didn't happen or promote a new gassing of
minorities. You don't have the freedom to incite violence with your words.

The only country that really goes with "freedom to" as the main consideration
with little to no consideration of "freedom from" is the US. Mainly due to
what often looks like deliberate misinterpretations of their constitution over
the years.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
How does that look like deliberate misinterpretations of our constitution?

(I'll agree that there have been things that look like deliberate
misinterpretations - particularly of the Commerce Clause and the Tenth
Amendment. Freedom of speech doesn't look like one of those to me.)

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Well IANAL, so I tend to look to intent.

Seems like the constitution, and early amendments, were a decent attempt for
their age to do something a little better. Laws and texts of that age did not
take the endless paragraphs of today's legal language.

As written it can be interpreted in a 20th century way and encompass
_everything,_ including commercial, pornography, campaigning and every damn
fringe thing. Given the context of everything else from the 18th century, the
known history of how they arrived where they did, and the rest of the
constitution it seems _far_ more probable that they simply meant freedom to
choose religion, criticise the regime, free press and right of assembly. The
"classical" definition of freedom of speech, if you like, without bending
society out of shape by chasing the letter rather than spirit. 18th century
laws rarely delved into precise and perfect definitions of all the edge cases.

As it is open to interpretation, we'll never know what precisely they had in
mind. :)

