On some level, it feels like (some) politicians haven't realised this, or have forgotten it.
We can either have a functioning democracy and justice system, where responsibility is delegated to people whose job it is to uphold society's values, or we can have individual people that do job themselves. If a judge or police officer isn't going to carry out justice, then eventually people are going to do it themselves. That tends to get messy, so we stopped doing that with good reason, and built institutions to better service justice, but if the institutions aren't doing their jobs, they should be reformed or thrown out.
When money is speech the loudest speakers have the deepest pockets.
When money is speech taxes become censorship.
When money/taxes are depressed to certain groups, or are given to other
certain groups, that money/speech is being recycled into legal bribes/
campaign donations. The 'speech' become circular.
Politicians are donation/bribe demanding machines. Legislation is bribe facilitating speech. Pay go play, follow the money.
I had this thought just the other day. It is not possible for any governing body to completely ignore the governed unless the governed have no issues that that lead to speach/action. There will always be a petition/revolt/exodus which results in the governing body hearing the governed.
> the governed unless the governed have no issues that that lead to speach/action
What about if the speech is censored, shadow-banned, limited etc in some other ways? Where the governed does not know their speech was limited in reach, censored etc? (which btw is a real approach social media companies are taking today).
You’re getting at the distinction between the right to speak and the right to be heard.
There are tons of time-and-place limitations that make perfect sense. I can’t interrupt a city council meeting to give a speech about, well, anything not on the agenda.
And of course social media companies have no legal obligation to allow free speech at all, which is their own right to speech.
Core freedom of speech means the government cannot arrest you for what you say. Going beyond that to private companies being obligated to ensure your reach can be a moral argument but not a legal one.
... or infighting, or self-destruction, or doomscrolling... the pressure will go somewhere but not necessarily into channels that relieve it. That takes more effort and persistence, and also a society (our consumer societies hardly rate as such in my books).
Yes as you said. Will the relief be productive? Especially when the other mechanisms/outlets for expression that are not digital (i.e. social media, the viable option in todays age - I'd love to know if anyone has succeeded wit any other outlet or medium today if they get shadow-banned on social media - share your real experience or study on this).
This is touching at the debate of "should social media be regulated or treated like the commons when it gets so large?"
You have a single company with the power and size of a country. Humans were never intended to be using something privately controlled with such an expansive reach & power differential, and then be told "they're private, if you're banned go elsewhere" except well this could be more like a public resource when it becomes that large. We haven't found a good answer to this in a capitalist system because the solution is non-capitalist.
What's actually more dangerous isn't shadow banning it's angel banning. With the ability to manufacture agents that simulate positive user feedback while making your posts hidden - Twitter was experimenting with this years ago.
Ah I can agree with that. It sounds like of like astroturfing as well, but we have AI now so it's probably AI generated. I've been noticing content that felt like this a while ago on different social medias, including hacker news, I think today they are hardly discernible from humans.
edit: like as an example, ironically, your posts or mine could be an example of that.
edit2: I'm the human mannan my account is linked to, no agent talks on my behalf on my social media yet.
the right to free speech has nothing to do with what social media companies do. Social media companies are not compelled by anything, in law or otherwise, to amplify your particular post.
IANAL, but just a web searcher. It appears that legally, in the US, public-facing private spaces are in a weird place. A lot depends on the specifics of the space. The closes analogy I can think of is shopping malls, which are privately owned but used as if they were public spaces.
In general,
"Private spaces used by the public, like shopping malls or private campuses, are typically non-public forums. The government cannot compel access to private spaces, but private operators may allow or restrict expression under private law and policy, balancing property rights with constitutional protections in some cases."
However, there have been cases where constitutional free-speech protections were extended into malls. This can happen if the property takes part in federal programs or gets federal subsidies or tax breaks.
You are distinguishing between Freedom and Civilization, the latter is, of course, rule by the strongest gang.
Freedom doesn't exist, except perhaps in your personal allodium, and war is necessary to obtain one. However, the average gang doesn't have the muscle.
One can argue that they are the most natural way of communicating. Words and paper are less destructive abstractions we've created on top, which has so far worked out for a majority of people.
