Why We're Wrong About Free Speech

Support us on Patreon! ► / wisecrack
=== Watch More Episodes! ===
Online Activism: What's The Point? ► • Online Activism: What'...
How Corporate Money Ruined the Internet ► • How Corporate Money Ru...
Elon Musk and Twitter: What Does it Mean? ► • Elon Musk and Twitter:...
Written by Amanda Scherker
Hosted by Michael Burns
Directed by Michael Luxemburg
Edited by Jackson Maher
Produced by Olivia Redden
Music courtesy of Epidemic Sound
#FreeSpeech #Twitter #Wisecrack
© 2022 Wisecrack / Omnia Media, Inc. / Enthusiast Gaming

[@solrinin]

Trust busting is the orgasmic feeling trust fund babies get when they talk about how hard they had to work to get where they got and all the struggles they went through.

[@pdahandyman]

Yes. Short for Trust Fund Babies Busting a Nut. Fun. Yes... fun.

[@sunglassesemojis]

Good one. Although I bet a lot of trust fund babies actually say that from a place of anxiety- it’s not “cool” to come from privilege

[@dundun8640]

@@sunglassesemojis no way :o

[@TheDSasterX]

@@sunglassesemojis You'd have to first recognize that you're privileged to realize it's not cool though***

[@Dracon7601]

I thought it was the feeling Teddy Roosevelt had when he broke a monopoly

[@theletterw3875]

Trustbusting: When you just met but you are relatively sure you can be financially intertwined for the next 18 years

[@deadcard13]

....that's better than what I was thinking.... I was going to work trust falls into it.

[@thunderb00m]

So having a baby?

[@MrGamerz20]

This channel and just maturing has shown me how toxicity is where social media companies profit. They need unhappy people letting their thoughts be heard. Just like real life, not everything needs to be tweeted/posted/shared. Moderation is huge, I don’t have that many social media apps on my phone if they work on a computer. KZbin feels like a video sharing platform with social media elements more than an actual social media platform fwiw.

[@juvedoo99]

Negativity is profitable and always has been unfortunately. Hell, we can argue that America’s funniest home videos profited from other peoples misfortunes. Sure, it was funny (and still is) but on a meta level, it was profiting from their pain and suffering in that particular moment. Similar to how social media profits from its users pain and suffering.

[@christianokoye9491]

KZbin isn't really different. Negativity sells even on youtube, and the comments often lean this way. Engagement is still the goal, and toxicity is one of the ways to do so.

[@juvedoo99]

@@christianokoye9491engagement that’s the key. And inflammatory content always gets the most engagement . It’s an interesting passive nihilist negative feedback loop we as humans tend to be attracted to .

[@marksutherlandjr.2121]

This comment is so close to the truth its scary. Profound..

[@llydrsn]

That explains the proliferation of hot takes in the articles posted online. Even hot takes and other seemingly absurd topics make its way past editors (if there are any) just because it will generate clicks. People who disagree on articles on Facebook, for example, comment more. And these comments generate replies from people who wants to respond to these comments. Engagement - regardless if it is positive or negative - is currency nowadays and that contributes to the toxicity online.

[@blankenstein1649]

fun fact: we usually get buried in caskets, not coffins. caskets are rectangular and are what you're going to see in just about every funeral home. coffins are the tapered diamond shape receptacles that you usually see in old western movies, etc.

[@itsROMPERS...]

I thought it was the exact opposite. But you are correct!

[@blankenstein1649]

@@itsROMPERS... my wife's a mortician. i got the inside scoop!

[@tamsenmillerbaum]

tifo

[@itsROMPERS...]

@@blankenstein1649 ah the perks!

[@itsROMPERS...]

@@tamsenmillerbaum I guess if you wanted people to understand it, you would've explained it.

[@Nestor_Makhno]

That intro... I'm enjoying watching Michael's arc over the last couple of year

[@EliteslayerX]

"Trust busting:" When you see someone about to do a trust fall, then you dropkick the person about to catch them right as they start falling.

[@sethsmith8638]

The difference between utility companies and tech companies is that the utility companies provide goods which keep people alive. I haven't been on FB for over a year, and I feel fantastic.

[@sethsmith8638]

@@beepboop204 agreed

[@ethanstump]

i just use it for the market place for niche good's i can't find anywhere else.

[@Watch-0w1]

I remember when there was saying that you need a Facebook account to get job.

[@mmarksz86]

Internet is the utility. Social media is not.

[@sethsmith8638]

@Mike M there's a stronger argument for that, however, I'm of the class who believes it is not. I understand the idea, and why, and not saying you're incorrect. I just think that it could be classified in either category, and since you can't eat the internet, nor will it keep you warm, I believe it is not.

[@germen2631]

"A few people are in charge of what can or can't be said on the most important communication platform in society". That is true, and a huge problem, but that was also true even before internet became a thing. Media and information services have always being directly controlled by companies, which most of the time, shared the information that suited their (usually echonomic) goals, and hid or denied the one that opposed them. And have always had a massive impact on people's opinions and thus, their decisions. In other words, it is terrible, but not new, and societies has been dealing with it, or breaking apart because of it for a long long time.

[@VinceOmega]

As a pre-broadband warrior, I too know the sting of waiting 10 minutes for a single nude picture. Those were dark times. Let's not even talk about downloading a 20-megabyte MPEG video file!

[@WisecrackEDU]

you're about to give me MPEG induced PTSD

[@HylianFox3]

In the early 2000s I recall my mom's computer pretty much crashing when I attempted to watch an hour-long video of some pre-release gaming footage. Good times... Nowadays hour+ videos are perfectly normal.

[@NWPaul72]

I wish, when connecting is slow, they'd give us that ol' dialup tone mashup. Let me hear you try, stupid phone!

[@MisterCynic18]

How we survived at all still baffles me to this day...

[@marksutherlandjr.2121]

hahah This comment wins the internet today..

[@milascave2]

Social media platforms have done so much shady stuff that involved straight-up lying to their users in order to create more conflict online (which leads to more conflict offline.) Examples:When FB introduced more emojis, it seemed like a good idea, rather than limiting us to just "Like" or nothing. We may have known that FB rewards posts with more likes by putting them higher up in the algorithm. But we thought that any emoji would be rated the same as a like. Wrong. While likes and most other responses earned a post one quote, ANGRY emojis earned them five. This intentionally pushed to the top anything that made people mad. They had no idea that clicking the angry emoji on a post moved it way higher on the algorithm than any other response. It also went through a phase where they would put posts from. People on one side of a heated issue on the same forums that had been created for people of exactly the opposite point of view. So, when you are checking your Benycrat site, you will get posts from ultra-extreme. Trumpists. But, to be fair, those Trumpists often did not intend to post there. FB did it, just to generate more arguments. IT'S NOT JUST FB. YT USED TO post comments in chronological order, which enabled real conversations to happen. But then they changed to that (supposedly) an upvote led to it being higher on the algorithms, while a down vote did the opposite. So people who down voted stuff they believed to be bad thought that they were helping to keep that video or comment from getting as much attention. But no. It turned out that both up votes and down votes,on both videos and comments, were rated exactly the same. They only cared that it got people endgaged enough to bother clicking either way. This, again, tended to post the stuff that p-ssed people off higher up the algorithms. This kind of shady sh-t is what is tearing the nation apart as much, if not more, as the actually q things that people right. A quote from a Nazi will rise to the top not because the majority of people love it, but just because they have strong feelings about it, which will push it towards the top. Reflecting on that, I am thinking that we should be focusing less on banning bad content, and more on banning bad algorithms that tend to promote it. And not just the way we are doing it now, which is waiting until enough people learn the true intentions of the system and getting publicly mad about it to pressure them into taking them down. I mean pre-emptively prohibiting entire types of algorithms, especially those specifically intended to deceive the users.

[@ayanabeads1614]

The cream rises to the top. But scum rises too.

[@Allenmarshall]

Pretty standard behavior for media entertainment in general, which has been going on long before social media arrived and turned regular people into dorky nerds who otherwise wouldn't cling to these mobile devices the same way only the geeky kids did with their ti-83 calculators and internetless desktop computers before the technology arrived and normal people were starting to catch on to a new method of being vain.

[@widjojohuang7854]

Still, they were toxic at those social media like me

[@LanceRedCock]

And yet here we are, supporting a social media platform. It's a visious cycle.

[@zachforbes3901]

​@@Allenmarshallyeah but the phone company isn't allowed to restrict certain kinds of speech by law, and therefore the same thing could apply to social media companies

[@IN-tm8mw]

The myth of online free speech started with the anonymous status on online message forms/boards/chats. So when social media took off, old school internet users were already use to starting flame wars for fun and going to work the next day. With the verified account status now, online sites that support that were treated like public domains in MMO lobbies and regulations that feel like a social credit system.

[@quintessenceSL]

Yea, the real discussion is corporatized speech vs atomized speech. The notion of free speech got destroyed once money got involved ('cuz money dollars is speech, yo). Now it is just moneyed interests wearing a skinsuit of freedumb, getting free labor from the hall-monitor class. As my friend said, free speech means you will eventually run across 8 year olds tarted up. Anything else is just branding.

[@juvedoo99]

@@beepboop204 A good question as well could be: Is being anonymous synonymous with free speech? If you can say whatever you want but have to be anonymous, it defeats the purpose of a supposed free speech. Since, as we know free speech comes with consequences and being anonymous loops around those potential consequences.

[@minagica]

And they should be able to go to work the next day, otherwise everyone would be out of a job for a single "mistake" because everyone will get made "an example of".

[@AJX-2]

So the internet really did have free speech once upon a time, then corporations came in and shut it down.

[@juvedoo99]

@@AJX-2 Basically. And it didn’t really take long either. By the mid 90s corporations already had their claws all over it .

[@rustygray5058]

11:20 someone might want to tell him that TV stations used to make money the same way when he was a teenager - by running ads on their free programming Pro tip: If a service is free, you are the product that's being sold.

[@Eveliane]

After watching that intro, I’m looking forward to Amazon announcing same day cremation for Amazon prime members

[@KainGerc]

The biggest problems with trying to fix "social media" are that: 1. most users are obviously going to flock to the platform that MOST users are using, just because of why most people use social media in the first place (why most newer competitors fail) 2. most users, being used to not paying for social media, will inherently reject any competitor which will use a subscription model instead of a free ad-based model. (if Facebook started charging to use it's platform, practically everyone will finally leave it)

[@ctomsky]

Trustbusting is like a trust fall, but naked, and its scored like a game of horseshoes. I expect to see it in the Olympics in a couple years.

[@MatthewVillalobos]

You know what doesn't exist anymore? A literal town square. Or a digital town square. If I could reimagine the structure of society, I'd have both.

[@HylianFox3]

It makes me laugh when Musk calls Twitter a "town square". Yeah, a *privately-owned* town square... that's kind of an important distinction.

[@NWPaul72]

We've still got a town square, but nothing happens there. Recent renovations unearthed the old gallows, so maybe they're planning something... Edit: in my town, not on Twitter. I think if you could hang folks on Twitter it'd be an orgy of lynching.

[@potapotapotapotapotapota]

town squares only exist in Chinese social media

[@petraw9792]

We have a town square. Or technically two, I guess, one at the city hall and one at the cathedral, but connected by an alley. A lot is going on there. Farmer's market, christmas market, concerts, festivals ... When something is going on in the city, you can't miss it, when you go by the town square(s).

[@drgutman]

you can only have a "town square" when the town is small enough to be able to measure trust relations intuitively. if you want to do the same thing on a global scale you need a method to measure trust in a dynamic way. none of the current social networks has a rating system that can measure trust. all the rating systems are optimized to create engagement in order to run ads.

[@Spiral.Dynamics]

Them: We want the government to limit your rights based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or gender expression. Us: #Canceled Them: My riiiiights! 😭

[@XanarchistBlogspot]

You are the ones making a big deal out of race, etc, most people on the right want race, etc, blind meritocracy.

[@soundwave5191]

Provide an example of the first part

[@MarkoKostelac]

​@@soundwave5191Atomwaffen KKK, White Patriot party and NSM(national socialist novement), need any more?

[@sxeptomaniac]

Whew. Wikipedia... I edited there for a few years. There are still a lot of problems with extremism and incivility there, because it is a magnet for cranks, tin-foil-hatters, and just people with an ax to grind. The rules were... OK at addressing them, but it was a constant thing. Plus, the rules-lawyering gets a bit much at times. My "favorite" was when a mod decided to lie about me in a content dispute, only to claim I was being uncivil for calling the statement a lie.

[@ramisgoogleacc702]

@Nicholas Time Theyre all like mega libertarian types but I think its unfair to insinuate that theyre all anti-communist cranks. but it is fair to say that there does exist a slight anti-socialist bias. They draw from established sources, and since much of what we see in it are from English speakers and therefore people in the west, the established sources have a liberal republican bias and is usually not charitable to Marxist-Leninists. Its just a bias of neutrality towards a set of sources that is most easily available to the part of the world that lives under liberal-republican regimes. This is very useful in combatting fringe ideas in general, but it also means that radicals, especially ones that are misrepresented in American Academia will get misrepresented. Overall, I sincerely doubt a model like this for social media could take off without also creating dark echo chambers but I still agree with a lot of the ideas in this video and still genuinely like wikipedia, but one needs to remember that sometimes established sources are not necessarily unbiased and should be subject to fair scrutiny. What Wikipedia is really cool for is providing a quick primer for almost any subject and giving us an idea of what most of western academia thinks about most things.

[@sxeptomaniac]

@Nicholas Time Honestly, it often wasn't what viewpoint some people held as much as their attitude. They were on a crusade. The worst people I dealt with were anti-creationism. They weren't factually wrong, but they were miserable to deal with, because any discussion of good writing, context, or not putting undue weight on minor points was met with absolute hostility.

[@Lilliathi]

@Nicholas Time What? He better be.

[@howtoappearincompletely9739]

I find that Wiktionary, the lexicographic equivalent of Wikipedia, is a lot less hassle to edit.

[@elevenm.a.1125]

@Nicholas Time And this is a bad thing why - *looks at the avatar* - oh.

[@SxC97]

I'm old enough to remember the old internet. We DID used to have free speech, but there were 3 things that separated the old internet from the new internet. 1. Anonimity You could post whatever you want and you didn't have to accosicate your real life self with your opinions. This was important when your opinions disagreed from the mainstream. For example supporting gay rights in the 90s or being against the war in Iraq in the early 2000s without being called a terrorist sympathizer. You can't have annonimity anymore because your identity is used for advertising. 2. Diversity If you were banned from one forum, just go to another! There was no "One Single Town Square". There were a bunch of town squares. Each with unique moderation policies. We can't have this anymore because of monopolies (and modern internet people aren't nerds that care about this stuff anymore) 3. Cohesion If you were in a forum or IRC chat, they had specific communities. Everyone in a Star Trek forum was a Star Trek fan, they had that in common. It was something everyone could bond over. We can't have this anymore because having people fighting each other is better for virality and engagement.

[@AnonimusQualquer]

I would add in the third point: People will intentionally go to forums and topics they dislike to disagree and start a fight. I’m not sure if people got used to it or if had always been in the human nature to ravel in those negative and charged discussions/fights.

[@jeroen1989]

I don't know if it is something you fancy but there is a really great story unfolding within the dungeons&dragons community that fully embodies a lot of conflicting philosophies, like capitalism vs socialism, 'power to the people' aka revolutions, trust vs distrust within commerce, who owns creative property and probably many more. Maybe worth a video. (Summary: DnD is made/sold by wizard of the coast, recently bought by Hasbro. From the beginning of time, they had an OGL (Open Gaming License) stating that the use and distribution of 3d party products based on, or using their, gaming system was unrestricted and free. This spawned a rich community using the DnD system to create products of their own. Nowadays we have advanced to the 5th edition of their gaming system as they are about to release their 6th: OneDnD. Recently there has been a leaked updated version of the OGL stating that everyone making 3d party content needs to agree to the new OGL, own them 25% of revenue gained (not profit; revenue!), they can take creative ownership of all 3d party content using the licence and they can terminate the licensing whenever they feel like it. This sparked major outrage and basically a fight between creators/consumers and the owners of WOTC/Hasbro.)

[@ethanstump]

whoof, it seem's like prime area and time for a major forking. then again, even if they do, hasbro is just going to use all it's cash suing spinoff's into oblivion( not the elder scrolls game), and this is going to sour the rep of DND in general. while i'm not going to say that it's going to implode right away, or there are die hard fan's that will never move, there's a shit ton more nerd's who know they have option's, versus geeks who don't.

[@StopCopCity1312]

D&D isn't even that good of an RPG. It was created in the 70s and most of its systems and mechanics are centered around combat. Not much has really changed. DM is still expected to do most of the work and it's more about winning or getting the right roll. Indie games like Fiasco, Fate Core, the Drama System, Hot Circle and Burning Wheel are much better at empathy play. The burden is shared more equally, mechanics are more focused on character traits and reactions and it's a lot less work and much easier to run. Nobody should own it. There have been experiments when you take away all toys from kids and leave them alone in a room with each other, they'll start roleplaying. It's really weird to own something like that.

[@NWPaul72]

The fee is only on content creators bringing in over $750k/yr. It seems to me if you've built a company that size around someone else's product, you owe them something.

[@raistlarn]

@@NWPaul72 True, but there is another part in OGL 1.1 that states they can change the contract at any time without your consent with the requirement that they give you 30 days notice. So that $750k/yr (before expenditures as stated in the contract) can be lowered anytime they want provided they send you a message saying to prepare to assume the position in 30 days.

[@NWPaul72]

@@raistlarn it's still f@#kery, to be sure, and I get that $750k can be a whole lot less after expenses. I guess I'm just pleased that they're not gonna be kicking in the doors of folks who charge to DM or sell homebrew modules around campus. When the news broke I was thinking it was going to be more like KZbin or taxes, where they just pinch the little guy and you're free to do whatever if you can make enforcement difficult.

[@MrZacchery]

-"Privately owned public square" quote of the century🤣😅😭

[@SerifSansSerif]

I prefer the utility argument.. The monopoly aspect is unavoidable. Also it can change the way they are funded (as a charge on your phone bill), and it could remove ads as revenues. Change their primary revenue streams and then they will change their behaviour and what their focus is on. The reason engagement is so important and the be all end all is because advertising is the money maker and that's all about engagement and viewership. Similarly, news programming needs to be seriously reworked to disincentivize ad revenues. Perhaps that's what we should be most concerned with regulating.

[@zachforbes3901]

The people in this comments section are raving lunatics. It's literally a perfect analogy to compare social media companies to the phone company, yet social media companies aren't held to the same standard of free speech and they should be

[@dontcallmeapeck]

This is one of the most underrated channels on KZbin.

[@Kazuma11290]

You have successfully reaffirmed the superiority of wikipedia over social media. Thank you.

[@MysteryPonyFiction]

In Australia you will get arrested for being an anti-vaxxer protestor. However, criticizing the actions of elected officials on social media (journalism) could also get you jailed. We have a weird ,kinda democracy where we vote a popular person into power, but then, we are not allowed to criticize that person after their election, or be tied up in court that an average Australian can't pay for. Good thing we have FriendlyJordies, who won't let our oligarchy bully him.

[@con-f-use]

Regarding the FANG as utility companies debate: It's interesting how "limiting innovation" is always presented as a bad thing, when it is absolutely vital and necessary. Things changing too fast and with too little thought is almost always fatal, painful and leaves people behind. I love technology and am by no means a social conservative, but please lets stop and think about the consequences of our actions and debate what to do together as a society from a strong basis of facts and mutual compassion. Let's also test things and slowly ramp up their usage instead of making huge changes unilaterally and all at once with unforeseen consequences (*cough* climate change *cough*).

[@Sophia-ix2ri]

Capitalism will always tend towards monopolies. Just ask any executive how they feel about “cornering the market”. With just about everything in our lives privatized and unlimited money in government now legal, we are all screwed. It’s time to evolve to a new system.

[@matthewtaylor8876]

Free speech is often mistaken for truth when in actuality Free speech is built on perspective. Perspective is harvest from local social systems that a person uses to try to predict what is successful. This dives heavily into subjectivity & how the subjectivity of communities are being used against each other to figure out who is more valuable in buying products & services online. Which sucks because the business of online profits are eliminating centuries of individual community developments in culture by implying that a few cultural identities habits & product are an ideal successful life, all in a name of profits from engagment.

[@DamienPalmer]

Trust busting is a euphemism for Alan Greenspan visiting his favorite Dominatrix.

[@HomeBurger]

placing my bets now - thesis will be "the first amendment only protects you from the government, because it's only bad when the one censoring you is the government. any other lack of freedom of speech is fine and dandy", and there will be an appearance of the classic argument "if you manage to utter something, there is no consequence I can threaten or inflict on you that will count as me stopping you (or anyone) from saying it"

[@xandercruz900]

I wish these people will stop BS'ing themselves and just fully admit they use corporations to enact the censorship they wish the state could.

[@HomeBurger]

oh, bringing up the idea that the biggest parts of the internet being private property and thus free to censor is a bad thing? entertaining the idea of using anti-trust laws for their purpose? imagining a decentralized social network (though not naming a certain f-word ;) ? i love it when I'm wrong :)

[@Elwing1]

Good, thoughtful stuff. Haven't tuned in to Wisecrack lately, but glad I took a look today. As to the topic, the way I see it is that social media is no different from any other place of business. You agree to play by their rules when you sign on, and one of those rules is that the rules are arbitrary and may change at any time. If you don't like the rules, you don't have to be here. I think this is the biggest difference between social media and utilities like water and power. You pretty much have to have those things these days to survive. Sure, you can live off grid, but unless you're extremely wealthy, you will need to accept the spartan existence of a 19th century farmer. But unlike electricity and running water, you don't need social media, no matter how powerful and important some folks may think it has become. That power and "importance," by the way, is the problem. What the hell does it say about us as a society that we have allowed a virtual platform to inform our politics, our social circles, and even our daily lives? How malleable are our social mores, our ethics, and our political viewpoints if they're so easily shaped by the instant gratification of a Like button, or the ravings of some rabble-rousers and pranksters? Not that any of this is new. It's been a steady progression from the town gossip to Twitter and Discord. It's only a difference of reach and marketing sophistication.

[@claytongray7768]

Ironically, I was permanently suspended from Twitter today because I shared a petition calling for George Santos to be removed.

[@wyvernfallgaming]

Finally someone who understands the REAL problems with social media and free speech these websites need to be either a public utility or broken up via trust busting since calling billionaires running a site like tyrants the same as true free speech (as opposed to technically there free speech) is like calling freedom and oppression the same thing . Modern people live on the internet and use it as the "town square" where they voice discourse not making it a utility subject to the same free speech protections as the real world or at very least decentralizing it will result in society returning to medieval times societally with all the surveillance and propaganda tech of modern day

[@adam346]

"we paid our dues... what have you done?" - a Wisecrack man once said.

[@shaunwu3910]

I agree with the general principle that free speech isn't granted on social media platforms, but the problem that hasn't been addressed is that its been revealed recently that the government had a direct line to social media companies like Twitter. Once the government starts giving value judgement to opinions and pressuring social media companies to ban or suppress, this absolutely becomes a free speech issue.

[@juanperret7044]

"Senator we run ads" is hilarious. The world is moving too fast for old politicians

[@someguy1ification]

It isn't even a new concept, though. Broadcast televison was/is the same way.

[@MisaMouri]

I about spit out my drink seeing that old politician look so confused at that concept

[@natMMI]

I'm surprised you didn't mention Mastodon when discussing decentralized social media. It follows all the tenants that you were talking about regarding open source social media.

[@natMMI]

@elfrjz Well it's only used by right wingers if you're on Gab or some stupid shit.. pretty much every one of the instances I've found explicitly block traffic from those sites, and there are many nazi-unfriendly instances to pick from. I'd argue it isn't even the majority that is far right, but like always a small contingent.

[@chadbrochill1764]

Like any complex issue, it’s not black and white, It’s both things, businesses have rules and they can regulate how they please, however sometimes things grow so massively they become a utility, and need to be re-imagined as such.

[@HenshinHead]

I'll still never understand people who would rush to make social media sites public utilities when the very medium they operate on still isn't considered a public utility. As long as the internet itself is still treated as a luxury instead of the public necessity it's already become, social media and any other major services provided over the internet will continue to be an endless clusterfudge of problems, legal and philosophical.

[@kellanaldous7092]

When things were bad early in the pandemic, public assistance paid our internet because it is exactly that. Anyone can get a free government phone or go to the library and access the internet. You pay if you want fast, high speed internet. Basic internet access is a public utility and has been for several years.

[@kellanaldous7092]

Btw, I wouldn't make them public, anyhow. I'd make them illegal.

[@TheCynicalPhilosopher]

One of the problems with trust-busting social media companies is that people tend to aggregate on those platforms that have the most people, which means that monopolies are likely to occur. Some problems with making social media into public utilities is: how big must a platform be to be considered a public utility? Is it the case that when something simply reaches a sufficient level of popularity that it becomes a candidate for being a human right? Would this then enshrine a right to be heard on top of the right to free speech? And what about the fact that social media are transnational, i.e., could the U.S. force Facebook to adopt policies in other countries?

[@NWPaul72]

Only responding to the last sentence, but I think that's backwards. Other nations have forced changes on Facebook policies in exchange for being allowed to operate in those countries. But yeah, I don't see how they would break Facebook into useful pieces. I think the country or the world needs a meta (sorry) social network operated by some government or nonprofit that provides an actual digital town square, maybe a giant message board aggregator type thing. Like another commenter mentioned, not too long ago you needed Facebook to even get a job. I think this is one of several services the government should get into and set a standard for private companies to be measured against. Yes, gov't cheese wasn't the very best cheese, but it was better than Velveeta and several other brands. Apply that elsewhere, a social media Soylent. The Obama phone of social media.

[@PoggieMiranda1]

Trust busting is when you change the safe word without telling the partner.

[@OsvaldoGago]

Decentralized social networks are already a reality. The ActivityPub protocol allows for social networks that work like email. With a dozen or two dollars a month anyone can set up a mail or ActivityPub sever. For one or multiple users. And just like email you aren't restricted to message people from your own domain name.

[@Ace-pc2cm]

Decentralized social networks have their own set of problems. I opted against that route when I made mine for privacy reasons mostly.

[@AJX-2]

For some reason, paying for stuff online is way harder than paying for stuff in person. The mere fact that ActivityPub requires 12 dollars is very strong evidence to me that it will never take off.

[@Ace-pc2cm]

@Zaydan Alfariz That's the downside of privacy/anonymity. And what makes all of this so tricky. There's no perfect solution without any flaws. Any kind of potential solution will be easy to exploit by whoever is running it, and that also applies to decentralized solutions. The only real solution is to destroy capitalism to the point where the profit motive is no longer the ultimate goal that corrupts anyone in any position of power.

[@OsvaldoGago]

@@AJX-2 The 12 dollars are for one small server, not one person. A server can support dozens, if not more than a hundred persons.

[@OsvaldoGago]

@elfrjz ActivityPub is not based on crypto or the blockchain. It's more like email.

[@fatdadocr936]

I agree w/ your assessment for the most part, but the issue around Free Speech isn't just a tech company's decision as to what they allow on their platform. You are right in that they absolutely have a First Amendment right to that. But the issue is the government asking them to remove certain items that don't fit their agenda. As soon as they allow the Feds into the process the tech companies lose their right as they are now proxy gents for the government.

[@kellanaldous7092]

This seems to have been left out. I'm guessing he got the Twitter files "nothing burger" headline and didn't dig further.

[@kellanaldous7092]

The entire point of social media being private companies thereby not infringing on people's 1st amendment is moot now that we know the government was coercing them the entire time. Which makes it 100% a free speech issue.

[@MrZer093]

That cold open is indicative of why people of a certain age stopped getting conservative as they get older and actually get more liberal. The government isn’t curtailing any of this like they used to so naturally we keep disliking corporations more and more. Everything else is just a domino effect off of that

[@eaglesclaws8]

corporations are people, legally. its like we are all talking about free speech inside elons house. first off you dont have the right to be in elons house. the servers you use to access twiter are in elons house, they are his property.

[@MyPisceanNature]

I don't accept that corporations have First Amendment rights, and they should be restricted just like the government. Especially since in the United States, they are the government.

[@LanceRedCock]

Free speech isn't hard to grasp. The government can't imprison you for expressing your ideas and beliefs, but you aren't free from the consequences that come from peers, society, employers, etc.

[@MasonJamesShow]

The terms "Free Speech" and "1st Amendment" should not be used so interchangeably. The principle of Free Speech predates the 1st Amendment. In fact, the 1st Amendment was written to force the US Government to abide by the principle of Free Speech. Private citizens (like, whoever owns Twitter at the moment) do not legally have to abide by the principle of Free Speech, but it certainly is nice when they do. People violate the Free Speech of each other all the time, and there is no legal consequence, as the 1st Amendment only applies to the US government. Here's a really good example of an attempt to violate someone's principle of Free Speech, but not the 1st Amendment, since it wasn't the government doing it: /watch?v=GIGd1sAfuR8 Even though this isn't a 1st Amendment issue, it IS a Free Speech issue. Don't get confused. The principle of Free Speech is worth defending, even outside the scope of the 1st Amendment.

[@markmayberry5459]

"Trust Busting" is when your partner agrees to CNC, but then you ignore their safe-word.

[@randomcdude4430]

Trust busting: climaxing when your team catches you during a team building exercise.

[@jamessizemore7103]

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in all my 25 years of time on this earth. Is the fact corporations will never think about long term consequences in advance, they will never take precautionary actions in the present to benefit the long term and they will only try to remedy consequences when their backs are against a wall and they simply can’t ignore the problem any longer, at which point it’s too late.

[@reaper-of-aces]

KZbin company said that cyberbullying is free speech

[@cscience92]

Social media companies are becoming one giant ad for the Fediverse at this point.

[@marionugnes2089]

What there is of arbitrary in: "share live position of someone is against the rules, this link share my live position, share it and you will be banned, no matter if you are a journalist or a normal human being"

[@user-gc2lx1pf6x]

Twitter is a Company. Why on Earth would anyone give a company, human rights?

[@israelmedina439]

To treat todays social media as a public utility would only serve to institutionalize a broken system that makes life worse into a bigger broken system

[@greenleafnumber70]

Great video you all never cease to impress me with your content

[@puellanivis]

I know, you managed to squeeze a whole great segue out of it, but the  “Clear and Present Danger” standard is not in effect anymore. The C&PD standard in Schenck was superseded by the “call to imminent lawless action” standard in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

[@ubermalice9589]

Trust busting is raw dogging but with good intentions. Probably.

[@ProfPsycDad]

you mean like rawdogging and promising to pull out? seems legit

[@ubermalice9589]

@@ProfPsycDad Absolutely. It's a spoken contract in the heat of the moment with zero consequences. Probably.

[@rodylermglez]

On the other hand, freedom of expression on the internet ends when it starts affecting the interests of payment processors >:c

[@the_exegete]

Freedom of expression still exists. What doesn't exist is a right to get paid for that expression, nor a right to any particular platform.

[@itsabeejay]

Trustbusting is the trend to disseminate, either deliberately or incidentally, content that is difficult to confirm or is resilient against fact checking, thus spoiling confidence in public discourse overall.

[@thunderb00m]

Without the for-profit ad supported user-targetting internet that we have right now, this channel may not even exist.

[@NWPaul72]

I'm here because KZbin thought I ought to be. It's ooky, but it's also nice that the Algorithm is starting to get me.

[@thunderb00m]

@NWPaul72 that's the thing about capitalism, you can criticize it as much as you want to as long as someone is profiting off it, but it also means the worst things imaginable can also be profitable.

[@NWPaul72]

@@thunderb00m I agree. Capitalism is just a slow, open-to-everyone-in-theory fight for the next king. Of course, not all families got invited at the beginning and some folks had a centuries-long head start...

[@edbangor9163]

"sometimes more importantly, a corporate right" that's how you hand wave a whole bunch of human rights violations because it's in the favor of corporate interests. I cannot stress enough how terrible it is to treat businesses. Businesses do not get to the rights. Businesses do not get to the rights. Businesses do not get to the rights. Citizens united was the worst thing the supreme Court ever did, envy above quote only goes to reinforce that log bit of jurisprudence. If anything, we need to further restrict the rights of corporations, not expand them.

[@williamfaughnan6298]

The crux of the matter is that when people are having more interactions online than in public there's a problem. Especially when they don't realize how toxic all of the algorithms are that determine what they view, and it's always about making money through ads in the end. It always has been, on every platform. You wouldn't have television at all if there weren't ads keeping the product profitable. How else would they make money by us simply watching something? Even if a given platform didn't start that way, it was always bound to end up there. Add to that the issue that people are more inclined to remain engaged if they're mad about something. This applies in customer service too. People don't say squat about how much they appreciate the 500 times things went well interacting with a given good or service, but they're damn sure going to have something to say about the once or twice that they had a bad experience. People are drawn to speak up about their negative feelings and therefore stay engaged by things that affirm those negative feelings because it feeds into our need to be an accepted part of a group. But most people don't recognize, or address, this matter; online or otherwise.

[@larryinc64]

16:04 It's called a forum, we used to have those.

[@GeeksThroughoutTime]

An idea... Have a centralized platform that houses all of the social media posts, but no one directly inputs those posts. Instead, each site uses algorithms to grab that data based on their preferences and the desire to build the front-end to the data that they think serves their purpose. These sites would pay a license fee to the central storehouse, and that central storehouse does absolutely nothing to control or alter the data. They are also forbidden from monetizing that data directly in any way other than licensing to the sites. At that point, the consumers can evaluate the front-end sites based on the algorithm that presents the data and the end result. Any free speech issues are wholly the responsibility of the site and their algorithm and interface. Sadly, we're likely far too deep in the life of the internet to make this reversion.

[@Fuck_whoever_took_my_name]

Vote with your dollar. My wife and I haven't shopped at Amazon, Wal-Mart, or Target in over 4 years. You can do it! My number one suggestion to help in the transition: STOP BUYING SHIT YOU DON'T NEED! Literally don't go "shopping" you only go to get a thing when you need said thing. No more window shopping or just seeing what they have on Amazon you'll always be able to waste money there and these corporations are the real consumers, taking every "disposable" dollar you have and giving nothing to the country that facilitates their success.

[@Darkloid21]

It's too convenient to shop and Target or Wal Mart to stop. They carry games and cards that other stores don't have and much cheaper.

[@lodgin]

While I don't want to reduce the impact of consumer pressure, we shouldn't, as a democratic society, rely on voting with your wallet since, by its nature, grants people with more money more votes.

[@douglaspierce8480]

I'm glad to hear that. However, you obviously have the ability to get around with no problem, but I don't have that ability. At 82 with some physical problems that limit my ability to drive, I depend on companies that deliver to my home, like Amazon and Walmart. I don't buy shit that I don't need, everything I buy I use.

[@Fuck_whoever_took_my_name]

@@Darkloid21 In order to achieve something greater sacrifice is a necessity. If you're not willing to try and make a difference because the system as it is benefits you, you are part of the problem.

[@Fuck_whoever_took_my_name]

@@lodgin An excellent point, however in the face of government inactivity like not enforcing any consumer protections or ensuring taxation on these companies the burden falls to the regular people. Besides it's not the 1% that's keeping Amazon afloat, and those people don't go to Wal-Mart

[@David-js2vp]

Speaking as a foreign observer I feel that a huge point that the 'protecting my free speach' crowd miss, asidefrom what has already been pointed out about an inaccurate understanding of the US constitution, is that social media platforms operate in multiple geographical locations with verious laws around hate speeh, which follow the premis in law that your rights do not come at the expence of someone elses.

[@newfontherock]

I recall an article which asked the question of Musk before he owned Twitter: based on his giving was he a republican or a democrat. The answer was clear. Whatever worked for his business. Musk has said “that’s the price of doing business in the United States“. These big corporations that control the world also control our governments when they fund their campaigns. Elon musk has been doing that for years. He can do whatever he wants.

[@avocares]

Why did this video just ignore the government asking social media platforms for specific users or subjects to be suppressed? Seems pretty relevant to the subject matter.

[@AJX-2]

because they agree with the government in this instance.

[@avocares]

@@AJX-2 That's what I was afraid of, the classic "it's not a problem when my side does it, so no need to even mention it".

[@professorblu3]

Trust busting is simply trusting who you bust with.

[@Vincent-mindeye]

"America boast of the freedom of religious thought; yet only the narrowest sectarian propaganda is allowed to approach the microphone." - Aleister Crowley

[@Gettinsketchyonbourbon]

If journalists had integrity, did the work and didn’t pander to someone, we could form our own well-rounded opinions instead of blasting nonsense on social media.

[@lordnul1708]

10:20 that's basically the plot of Long Long Man (a series of Japanese gummy commercials that were written like a soap opera, with continuity and everything), but the couple were the younger ones and the "more attractive guy" had longer gummies.

[@RobGradyVO]

Just replace your beginning about Amazon and replace it with Google and you on the Right Track

[@michaelflack5266]

This is a good companion piece to this week’s Some More News

[@seansettgast5699]

So, bottom line here, if a tech company promises free speech, unless it's an open-source platform akin to Wikipedia, the promise of free speech is more or less a puff of smoke. That said, thoughts on Mastodon?

[@jasonbelstone3427]

Your free speech on Mastodon is now affected mostly by people who scrammed from Twitter, the moment they got the slightest sense Twitter won't act on their whining to censor others... Its pretty free. Just don't wind up wherever Twitter refugees happen to be mods.

[@joshscott5213]

It's not a new year. It's 2020, part 3: The Rise of Musk

[@abigails4088]

"worried about kids on the internet looking at naughty things" >.> yeah, don't tell mom but eh... my two "best friends" were my SEGA DREAMCAST...and my pillow...

[@ethanarnold4441]

I'm so happy I'm not on any social media platforms and not involving myself in any of this bullshit.

[@fallenweeble7453]

Hard to take what's said seriously when you guys do the "GMO = bad" thing.

[@JuanGarcia-hi6de]

Trust busting is a euphemism for a Dirty Sanchez, which is a euphemism for "Love 'em and leave 'em."

[@Alverant]

I don't buy the "stifling innovation" claim. When a company becomes dominant the only thing the "innovate" is more ways to screw over their customers and take more from them. Consider Comcast and their customer service (or lack thereof).

[@troywalkertheprogressivean8433]

The airwaves/bandwidth belong to the "public" which is sold to private corporations, we don't HAVE TO sell them/give the rich monopolists the airwaves/bandwidth.

[@Segkee]

Being banned is not an infringement of the law, but it is an infringement of the principle. Folks lean very heavily on the legal concept of free speech, which is very narrow. Appreciate this video. It is much over due.

[@AJX-2]

The principle of free speech is something like: "everybody should be free to speak their mind without fear, so that all ideas can be debated fairly and openly, so that the best and most true ideas can rise to the top." The law of free speech is something like: "the government cannot pass laws which restrict the principle of free speech". If you believe in the principle of free speech, then banning people for their views is an outrage. If you don't believe in that principle, then you are okay with it.

[@Segkee]

@@AJX-2 I actually don't disagree with your underlying sentiment - bans are outrageous BECAUSE these platforms exist and thrive off the illusion of free speech. I do disagree with some of your definitions. You need to do some more research and really dig into the philosophy and history of speech (it goes back a long ways). Really dig into the ACLU's work in the 1960s. Abby Hoffman. He's a very articulate and interesting advocate of free speech as I prefer it. Your "principles" push the "market place of ideas" which, whether you're right wing or not, is a right wing talking point. "Market place of ideas" subverts free speech. It hijacks it and places a captilatistic framework over its foundation. It perverts it. Why? Because a market place implies power and victory versus freedom. Freedom has nothing to do with power or victory. My principles: it's not about ideas and debate, winners or losers. It's simply about freedom. Being free to express yourself. To be who you want to be. To associate with people you want to associate with. etc,. etc etc. Meaning, outside of narrow restrictions regarding violence, everything else should be free. There should be no consequences, no leverage, against someone using words or expressing ideas in a public forum (which I consider social media to be). If we don't like their words, let's use ours to combat them. Instead, we use financial consequences in an attempt to coerce people. To force them to toe the line. Elon Musk has not restored "free speech". He's just shown us plainly that the pretence of free speech with corporate overlords is absurd. Whether it was the board that preceded him, or one man. If you're outraged by the bans, do you support the nationalization of these platforms?

[@emmanuelchavez7748]

Just make another account lmao

[@AJX-2]

@@Segkee I'm not outraged by the bans. I don't see the Principle of Free Speech as some kind of inviolable right that every platform is obliged to follow all the time. In some cases, there are more important things than Free Speech. For example, on Twitter, providing a pleasant user experience is a higher priority than protecting free speech. In Germany, preventing the Nazis from coming back is more important than protecting free speech. In Muslim countries, maintaining the supremacy of the Quran is more important than protecting free speech. In China, preserving the power of the CCP is more important than protecting free speech. These are violations of the Principle of Free Speech, and there are good reasons for them, but they are violations nonetheless. Those spaces do not prioritize free speech or free expression, deeming other things more important. Which again, is fine, I just wish those places wouldn't pretend to care about free speech in the first place.

[@Segkee]

@@AJX-2 Yes, but this type of censorship, although seemingly moral and righteous, tends toward authoritarianism. Read the history of the ACLU. For all intents and purposes, they were allied with the civil rights movement. And yet they defended actually KKK members from claims of hate speech. Why? Because the censorship laws that impacted the KKK could have been used to police other types of civil rights activism. Free speech is a tool of rebellion. We are all very dumb to think a Government, a social media platform, or a single individual should dictate what is and is not worthy of censorship. It is a dangerous way of thinking. You only focus on the narrow "good" but not at the cost we pay for it. There's still Nazis in Germany. And all around the world. And the speech laws they use to supposedly limit this hate is used against people fighting Nazis. Again, broaden your education. Look at history. And if you don't want to do that: use some critical thinking. Does censorship actually make the world a better place? Or does it just make you feel better about yourself?

[@gregologynet]

Join Mastodon! It's everything he's describing and it's flourishing

[@midnight_observe4054]

Trustbusting: when you and your partner decide to finish on the chest or stomach, but at the last second you aim for the face….

[@RamadaArtist]

11:20 "Senator, we run ads." For a lizardbot, his incredulity there showed remarkable emotion.

[@martinfalkenberg64]

There is the occasional scandal of politicians trading favors for positive coverage with newspapers. It is only a matter of time until we will see such a case with online platforms come to light.

[@ZOMBIEHEADSHOTKILLER]

freedom of speech has no limitations, especially not man made limitations. If there are limitations, then its not free speech, its limited speech. Freedom of speech applies to all people, in all places, at all times, no exceptions, and includes the right to say anything, anywhere, anytime, to any person or group, for any reason, no exception ..... not even if a government, or "THE governenment" says other wise. The right to freedom of speech is inalienable.

[@jarethtrottot1830]

Amen to that, freedom of speech shouldn't be able to get me fired or have a bunch of crazed psychos wanting to kill me for having an opinion on our government, like saying the president sucks and the last one wasn't that bad shouldn't get me or my family killed or fired for it!

[@vindex7309]

Anything that is privatized and capitalized will inevitably turn into something not for the people, but for the ones who profit from it. Even things made for the people are done so not with quality or externalities in mind, but the bottom line.

[@jhehn3]

The social media platform made by Jimmy Wales (the Wikipedia guy) is still going strong and the new beta version is accessible now too, for anyone interested

[@professorbaxtercarelessdre1075]

its easier to argue than to agree, discourse that's toxic is easier to fan the flames of than healthy conversation

[@bagfootbandit8745]

Trustbusting is a euphemism for the lies my uncle told me.

[@bagfootbandit8745]

A prize? :o

[@brendanlamb423]

York’s quote applies to every work place in a America as well

[@pausantandreu]

Crazy idea! "The philosophy of Aaron Swartz"

[@BalaenicepsRex3]

Sadly, there *is* an incentive for narrative manipulation on sites like Wikipedia, usually for activists. Many articles are written or edited with very clear bias and then guarded to prevent other people from correcting them.

[@popculturehero]

Its as simple as a media right. The government does not force companies to publish opinions they don't agree with. Like an old newspaper or magazine publication. The same applies to social media. The guidelines are set by the companies, and are subject to change. And spreading misinformation and hate speech ideally unacceptable.

[@outlawscar3328]

The problem with all online user moderation is that the only people who voluntarily moderate without pay tend to be out-of-touch people with too much time on their hands that need to feel superior to others. No matter what side of things you're on, you're shouted at and suspended at some point on reddit.