Entrusting our speech to multiple different corporate actors is always risky. Yet given how most of the internet is currently structured, our online expression largely depends on a set of private companies ranging from our direct Internet service providers and platforms, to upstream ISPs (sometimes...
Free speech is guaranteed in public space, not private space.
Just because you get to a public park in a privately operated taxi doesn’t mean the park is suddenly private. It would also be absurd for the taxi to have a say in how you spend your time in the park.
I also refuse to trust that any private corporation would have my best interests at heart, or that they would not use the excuse of policing hate speech to also interfere with discussion against their corporate interests.
The taxi has a say in how you spend your time in the taxi, however
If you enter the taxi and the driver sees that you’ve got a shirt with a swastika the driver can tell you they’re not taking you for this reason.
I didn’t ask that, I asked why wouldn’t you want that?
When did I say I didn’t want it? Just stating a fact.
I’ve asked twice now, idk why you’re intentionally avoiding the question now
Because you’re asking a question that’s irrelevant.
it’s literally the whole topic of the thread you’re replying to, you just misread it
No, I stated a fact and you’re asking me why I agree with it when I never said I do.
Bro you are dense. I can say water is wet when I’m asked a completely different question, doesn’t change the fact that doesn’t have anything to do with the question asked. I didn’t bring up if free speech is applied to private spaces, that’s an entirely different comment that nobody said, we already know the answer, hence why it wasn’t asked. I asked why you specifically, don’t think that should apply, which is why I asked that. You didn’t read correctly, and was asked three times now and are still avoiding the question for some reason, you either do or don’t support it and you are avoiding stating either which is the whole fucking point of this thread, and now it’s a waste of time because you don’t want to share your opinion for the sake of downvotes?
My comment was top level and a reaction to the article, your ISP doesn’t have to guarantee that it will allow you to pass any data you want through its system because it’s a private company and as such it doesn’t have to give you free speech in the infrastructure it owns. That’s just a fact and an answer to the article posted.
You then asked me why I wouldn’t want free speech to be guaranteed by private companies, implying that I shared the opinion that I don’t want it to be the case, which I didn’t.
I won’t answer that question either because my opinion doesn’t matter since I’m just stating a fact, the US Constitution applies to public space and it would be a violation of the Constitution to make it an obligation for private parties to let anyone say and do whatever they please in their place of business. If you want to have an ISP in the USA that allows people to share whatever they want on their infrastructure then you need it to be ran by the government. It’s that simple.
The only opinion I shared was my dislike of the American definition of free speech which is just an invitation for people to share their vile opinions.
Also you’ll notice in this discussion there are people who want ISPs to not control traffic in order to allow them to freely share CSAM… So… yeah 👍