Some people just want to be able to say what is legally allowed. That ability is attacked again and again. You don't have to want that freedom yourself, but imposing that restriction on others can be criticized.
So if I do not add support for unlimited anonymous comments at my own expense to my website, I am engaging in Orwellian oppression?
Then allow me to comment on this repo and display those comments prominently. Because if I’m not allowed to add whatever opinion I want to the readme, I am being horribly oppressed.
I think your comment is misguided. I have neither used the term Orwellian or opressions, nor do I have any affiliation with this extension.
I'm literally just saying that some people like to be able to say what they are allowed to, that this could be a tool to do so, and that that is OK. That was a direct response to the phrase "people still think unrestricted user content could somehow be a good idea", which implies that free speech is NEVER a good idea. I disagree with that.
I read it to mean “allowing unrestricted comments on a web page is a bad idea”
Perhaps you read it as “allowing unrestricted comments on a web page _or anywhere else_ is a bad idea”
But that second one has never been the case. People have alway been able to post responses on their own sites with links to the original. Many places like reddit are primarily that.
I think others maybe confusing the right to free speech with a right to vandalize.
>Some people just want to be able to say what is legally allowed.
Not all speech is legally allowed, is this extensions going to deal with copyright violations, threats, libel, etc. Or even someone posting the name of a person arrested on a news story when the laws disallow that information being public.
Well they have to, as it is law. I specifically wrote about legal speech. Extensions like this (or much more popular: dissenter) allows people to exercise that right on sites that limit their free speech.
This comic routinely used as a "Gotcha". However it so over simplifies the position that we are in.
Youtube now totally owns online video, there isn't any competitors that are even close. Facebook has almost half the world signed up to its platform. This isn't someone's online forum or a news site. These companies completely own their respective parts of the industry.
The major social media sites like Youtube, Twitter, Facebook are so large they are considered to be a "public private space" (I forget the exact legal term).
These platforms agree to DMCA safe harbour where they are considered to be a "platform" and not a "publisher". That means they shouldn't be censoring anyone on their political opinions and must be politically neutral (otherwise they are taking on the role of a publisher as they are acting as an editor), now IANAL but there is certainly an argument that can be made. Whether a judge would rule it so, who knows.
That's orthogonal to what I said. I do have the right to say controversial things (at least I would have if I would be American, but let's assume that). Sites can limit that and delete comments they don't like - that's ok! But I am still allowed to use external software to still exercise that right.
And there is also historical context in an 1980 decision in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins where, based on Californian law, private property of the shoping mall was deemed open to political speech (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...)
When its a private, non-political forum, the corps can do as they choose. But once politics and political speech move in along with public elected officials, all bets are off.
The distinction, in this case, is that's it's NOT about using an existing forum for something. Web pages do not come with comment sections by default. So the discussion (ie: not having comments being a restriction of free speech) is about requiring you to build a forum specifically for speech to take place. It's like requiring a shopping mall to build a stage for people to have political speeches on. I feel few people would say free speech is infringed upon if every mall doesn't build such a stage.
> The distinction, in this case, is that's it's NOT about using an existing forum for something. Web pages do not come with comment sections by default.
But social media does. And so does a lot of websites that use either wordpress plugins, Discus, or other sites.
And nothing I cited requires a comments section to be made... But when it is, there's precedent for forcing whomever's running it to make way for political speech when politicians are stumping and talking there.
> It's like requiring a shopping mall to build a stage for people to have political speeches on. I feel few people would say free speech is infringed upon if every mall doesn't build such a stage.
The very act of having a floor in the private mall was enough. You don't need a stage. And even gathering signatures for a political reason is reason enough. Seriously, go look up the Pruneyard rule. You can try to derail it with 'whatifs', but that is precedent.
Freedom of speech is not the same as the 1st Amendment.
You're talking about the latter, which is a constitutional right protected by the government. What people are talking about here is the concept of unrestricted speech, which is a much broader ideal, necessary for a healthy society, and is definitely under ever-increasing pressure as the world moves towards entirely different communication mediums. When most conversation moves online, the lack of public open spaces in that digital environment is a valid cause for concern and definitely deserves discussion.
No it's not. I am in no way required to provide you a platform to talk through or to allow you to continue using a platform you've been using. All it means is that the government, key word, is not allowed to stop you from using a platform you are allowed by it's owners to use.
> [...] All it means is that the government, key word, is not allowed to stop you from using a platform [...]
The confusion (ours, not yours specifically) might arise because some talk about free speech the principle and others talk about free speech the legal norm. (The latter is prominently codified in the US constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
It's not the same and the principle isn't exclusively about government.
Free speech is also a very old ideal and exists in places where the US constitution doesn't apply and places where human rights aren't implemented through local policies. It can be violated in places where there is no government at all.
Yup. That's why I don't post my SSN everywhere. A single data server with all the comments without any moderation won't survive. But a group of data servers with different rules and many entry points via extensions or websites, can survive.
