Platform Free Speech Debate
Comments debate whether private platforms like Hacker News, Twitter, and Facebook must allow unrestricted free speech or can moderate and ban content such as hate speech, often citing XKCD 1357 on freedom from consequences.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
It's a private platform. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. [XKCD showing affected pundits the door] https://xkcd.com/1357/
It's not a restriction of freedom of speech. This is just exercising freedom of association."If you're an asshole, I won't broadcast your stuff."People are still free to be assholes, but the platform is free to not associate themselves with the assholes.Very simple.
Private entities are under no obligation to be a platform for all speech. Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/If someone comes on to Hacker News and posts racial slurs, shouldn't HN have the right to ban that user? Wouldn't that be censorship?
There is a relatively far line from 'free speech' to 'free speech that actively encourages discrimination, harm of others, or infringing on others rights'As a private platform, Facebook is free to curb the topic you have suggested, in the same way you are free to avoid said private platform.
You're posting this on HN, a platform that has moderators and doesn't allow certain things to be said. So you implicitly agree that there is a trade-off between free speech and ability to live in a community.
Looks like your opinion is not extreme enough /s On a serious note, as found in the second paragraph about Freedom of Speech on Wikipedia> The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national securi
Not every restriction on speech on a platform is a path straight to 1984
You are free to post the exact same content on any other platform. It's not the speech that's banned, it's the platform.
Hate speech is free speech. "Not being able to use other people's computers" is nice, but when private discussion forums make functionality changes that help to alter the outcome of elections, things start getting deadly serious, and we need to stop dressing up what we're doing in nice language like "not being able to use other people's computers/bandwidth". Just say it: we need to reserve the right to censor some individuals at will.
Oh no, there's a popular platform that's not censoring people whose opinions I disagree with!