Tag Archives: Free Speech

Why no-platforming is sometimes a justifiable position

By Neil Levy – The discussion over no-platforming is often presented as a debate between proponents of free speech, who think that the only appropriate response to bad speech is more speech, and those who think that speech can be harmful. I think this way of framing the debate is only half-right. Advocates of open speech emphasize evidence, but they overlook the ways in which the provision of a platform itself provides evidence.

No-platforming is when a person is prevented from contributing to a public debate, either through policy or protest, on the grounds that their beliefs are dangerous or unacceptable.

Open-speech advocates highlight what we might call first-order evidence: evidence for and against the arguments that the speakers make. But they overlook higher-order evidence.

Higher-order evidence is evidence about how beliefs were formed. We often moderate our confidence in our beliefs in the light of higher-order evidence. For instance, you might find the arguments in favor Continue reading

Free Speech Isn’t Facebook’s Job

By Noah Feldman – Here’s why: These social media giants are private actors, not the state.

They can’t be trusted to protect free speech, nor is it their obligation, whether in Europe or the U.S. Those of us who care about preserving free speech need to keep that in mind, while maintaining other venues for free speech that aren’t controlled by private companies.

The mistake is to think that media platforms are a true public square, where (in the U.S.) the government can’t regulate based on conduct unless it has a very, very strong reason to do so. They aren’t, no matter how cleverly they may initially have presented themselves as neutral platforms for everybody’s speech.

Make no mistake, these publicly traded companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders — not to their users.

The upshot is that we need to keep an eye on free speech by assuring that there are vehicles for self-expression that aren’t completely controlled by private actors.

This is a long-term project, one that won’t go away in our lifetimes. more> http://goo.gl/oEwTlF

Maybe AT&T should fully divest from the communication industry

AT&T, by vigorously pursuing innovation, developed a patent to help manage the people who are not using the networks properly. The invention is currently a patent application to better manage “bandwidth abuse” [2, 3].

This is interesting at many levels. First, you would expect inventions are to help improve the use of networks, and not limit its use. Or, maybe, AT&T has very good ideas as to what are the “good uses” of networks, and what are the “bad uses.” And their self-appointed role is to make sure everyone’s “good behavior” regarding networks.

However, for the Internet as the emerging media for communications, the real controlling issue is First Amendment Rights [2, 3, 4, 5]. If the United States is to adhere its founding principles, then it is clearly outside the purview of commercial interests of AT&T.

This also creates interesting dilemma. For example, if Verizon or Comcast were also interested in correcting their misbehaving users, will they be infringing on AT&T’s patent? (assuming the patent gets granted) And they would be required to pay royalty to AT&T?

AT&T in its current incarnation is clearly motivated by financial profits, as explained by CEO, Randall Stephenson. It is worth pointing out that AT&T became the legend and most admired company in its glory days not by pursuing profits, but high ideals. Theodore Vail, who architected its growth, developed a “strategy to achieve a single communication system offering the best possible service,” subordinating the maximization of profit. And there was a vigorous campaign about “One policy, one system, and universal service,” to help implement a unified, coherent national network policy. The result was, at its peak, AT&T employed more than 1 million people, admired by all, and affectionately called Ma Bell.

Now, AT&T’s network assets are not helpful for maximizing financial profits to match the “financial games” by the innovators in the financial industry. For example, to create and dominate a whole new market like the CDS (credit-default swap). Or, the clever trades by Blackstone.

There is a clear solution for the conundrum AT&T finds itself in. AT&T should fully divest from the communication industry, and concentrate wholeheartedly in financial operations. Then, they would be able to beat JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs et al. at their own game.

Aside

[the Net economy] – Today’s [tNe] posts were truncated due to network disruptions by Net provider. Censorship Attack (definition) Action or actions to prevent or inhibit free exercise of First Amendment rights. Related articles Updates from Republican Leader, Senator Mitch … Continue reading

Censorship update (7)

[the Net economy] – Today’s [tNe] posts were truncated due to network disruptions by Net carrier.

Censorship Attack (definition)

Action or actions to prevent or inhibit free exercise of First Amendment rights.

Censorship update (6)

[the Net economy] – Today’s [tNe] posts were truncated due to network disruptions by Net carrier.

Censorship Attack (definition)

Action or actions to prevent or inhibit free exercise of First Amendment rights.

Censorship update (5)

[the Net economy] – Today’s [tNe] posts were truncated due to network disruptions by AT&T and/or Net carrier.

Censorship Attack (definition)

Action or actions to prevent or inhibit free exercise of First Amendment rights.

Censorship update (4)

[the Net economy] – Today’s [tNe] posts were truncated due to network disruptions by Net carrier and blocking by AT&T.

Censorship Attack (definition)

Action or actions to prevent or inhibit free exercise of First Amendment rights.

Censorship update (3)

[the Net economy] – Today’s [tNe] posts were truncated due to network disruptions by Net carrier.

Censorship Attack (definition)

Action or actions to prevent or inhibit free exercise of First Amendment rights.

Censorship update (2)


Censorship Attack (definition)

Action or actions to prevent or inhibit free exercise of First Amendment rights.

related>